Canada says go home to American Deserter-

welsh

welsh

Junkmaster
Looks like the Canadians are cooperating with the Americans on Iraq.

This fellow is claiming that he is a refugee who doesn't want to fight an illegal war. Canada is sending him back to face justice in the US for desertion.

Considering Canada's history with the Vietnam War draft dodgers, is this a good thing?

Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board rules against an asylum claim by an American a soldier who deserted just before the war in Iraq and fled to Canada. The soldier says he believed the war was illegal and had applied for conscientious objector status but was turned down.
Click to expand...

Story here-
Canada Rejects American Deserter's Asylum Claim
 
welsh said:
Considering Canada's history with the Vietnam War draft dodgers, is this a good thing?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, the difference here is obvious, welsh. In Vietnam you were talking about people forced to go to war, since almost nobody would get through pretending to be mad or filing for moral objections.

Here we're talking about people who signed up, changed their minds and left.

The difference is obvious, even to Canadian Surrender Monkeys
 
Kharn said:
welsh said:
Considering Canada's history with the Vietnam War draft dodgers, is this a good thing?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, the difference here is obvious, welsh. In Vietnam you were talking about people forced to go to war, since almost nobody would get through pretending to be mad or filing for moral objections.

Here we're talking about people who signed up, changed their minds and left.

The difference is obvious, even to Canadian Surrender Monkeys
Click to expand...

...Wow you are very misinformed. Imagine early 2000 you joined the US armed forces... Then 9/11... Now Iraq... You see what I am getting at don't you. Would you want to fight?

This deal with Canada was signed a while ago. The US is sending FAT pay checks of what ever the hell Canada wants in exchange for any fleeing for the borders. Wish I still had the e-mail with all the links to the proper gov agencies that documented this.

As for the draft... Why the fuck does the SSC have the largest cash pile since the last draft all of the sudden? If things get any more south and Bush fucks Iran or NKorea... You better believe a draft will be in effect. And I am willing to bet Canada will at first send fleeing draftees back. I think the people of Canada would apply too much pressure eventually.
 
Maphusio said:
...Wow you are very misinformed. Imagine early 2000 you joined the US armed forces... Then 9/11... Now Iraq... You see what I am getting at don't you. Would you want to fight?
Click to expand...

WHAT?! Are you feigning stupidity or what? Why exactly would someone sign up for the army? What kind of *moron* do you have to be to sign up for voluntary duty in the army and assume you'd never have to fight? It's the *army* for Christ sakes, you join it to be a soldier, you join it to fight, if not you must be of infamously stupid

Yes, I'm sure there are many sob stories of poor guys who join the army to pay their way to college. Well boohoo, I don't care, the moment you sign that contract you know you might very well go to war one day. If you're actually stupid enough to think "gee, we're not at war now, I guess we'll not be during my armytime", you deserve everything you get and need to have your head examined.

Maphusio said:
This deal with Canada was signed a while ago. The US is sending FAT pay checks of what ever the hell Canada wants in exchange for any fleeing for the borders. Wish I still had the e-mail with all the links to the proper gov agencies that documented this.
Click to expand...

So? Does that really matter? If you sign a piece of paper saying "I, of sound mind and body, promise to serve the US military..." etc. etc. you better be prepared to serve the US military. There is NO excuse for quitting a contract before your time is up, unless you've been cheated. These people drop out of obligations they willingly made to other people, they're criminals and deserve their punishment

Maphusio said:
...As for the draft... Why the fuck does the SSC have the largest cash pile since the last draft all of the sudden? If things get any more south and Bush fucks Iran or NKorea... You better believe a draft will be in effect. And I am willing to bet Canada will at first send fleeing draftees back. I think the people of Canada would apply too much pressure eventually.
Click to expand...

Empty rhetoric. We're not discussing what could be, we're discussing what is right now, don't try to pull up curtains.
 
Actually Kharn, I think you might be missing something.

OK, draft dodgers were conscripts who didn't want to fight for their country. But one could argue that fighting for one's country is part of the bargain one makes for being members of a citizenry. Afterall, it was in part the need to conscript national armies that led to the franchise of rights in many parts of the world.

And I do sympathize that once you sign up to go to war, you become akin to a policeman whose obligation is to serve the state. You have contracted an obligation, personally, to fight for your country.

I will also agree that I think this guy may be trying to duck out of an obligation in which he might be killed- so now that his ass is on the line he might be saying, "fuck this, I'm not going to take a chance."

Let's go back to that policeman analogy-

Should a policeman enforce an order or a law that he knows is illegal? Should a policeman commit a crime?

In that sense should a soldier fight a war that he thinks is illegal? If he fights an illegal war is he not a war criminal? In which case, what is worse- him not fighting and therefore not serving an illegal purpose, or him not breaking a domestic rule and commiting a greater crime?

Now we can argue back and forth the illegality of whether the war in Iraq is an illegal one.

But here' s the rub- should Canada not at least make a judgment on this? Or should Canada just bend over and take it in it's sovereign ass that the US calls the shots.

If your country is accepting refugees and it decides to send some folks back to their homes should it not at least make a determination that the source country of those refugees is doing some illegal shit?
 
International law can't apply if your nation doesn't recognize it. It wouldn't matter if the war were illegal or not in an international sense, only in a local one, as such is the case with, say, Japan and their pacifist constitution.

In our case, the war was legal. Period. He has no argument for deserting the army.

Also, you can believe that something is legal or illegal all you want, it doesn't change the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that the war was legal, and a soldier is still bound by his contract.

Was the war illegal for canada? Would involvement violated Canadian law? Involvement in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan would suggest that it did not, and the Canadian Navy did assist during the war in Iraq by providing escort service.
 
Bradylama said:
In our case, the war was legal. Period. He has no argument for deserting the army.

Also, you can believe that something is legal or illegal all you want, it doesn't change the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that the war was legal, and a soldier is still bound by his contract.
Click to expand...

Bradylama is dead on the money. No amount of excuse will make it ok for the soldier to quit. He also should know he might be sent to an illegal war when he signs up.

It doesn't stick with the policeman comparison. A policeman knows he signs a contract to uphold the law. Asking him to break the law is thus asking him to break his contract. A soldier signs a contract to fight for his country. Asking him to not fight for his country just because the UN doesn't like the war is asking him to break the law.

If he had moral problems with the war, if he believes fighting in the war makes him a criminal, I'm sure the US has some system of filing for moral objections, unless your army is totally ass-retarded. But to be honest legality and illegality have nothing to do with it. He signed a contract that makes him bound to kill and die for his country. That's all the contract encompasses.

welsh said:
OK, draft dodgers were conscripts who didn't want to fight for their country. But one could argue that fighting for one's country is part of the bargain one makes for being members of a citizenry. Afterall, it was in part the need to conscript national armies that led to the franchise of rights in many parts of the world.
Click to expand...

Apples and pears, welsh. Being born in a country is not a matter of choice. Draftees are not given a choice. Volunteers are. It is not a question of duty, it is a question of choice.
 
This nation is supposed to value freedom as it is. While fighting for one's country is seen as patriotic, its never been implied as the duty of a citizen. Fighting and dying for America has never been a civic duty, but a moral or social one.
 
Bradylama said:
This nation is supposed to value freedom as it is. While fighting for one's country is seen as patriotic, its never been implied as the duty of a citizen. Fighting and dying for America has never been a civic duty, but a moral or social one.
Click to expand...

Wait...that makes no sense, if fighting and dying for American was never a civic duty, why did you have the draft?
 
Because we're retarded, obviously.

A draft is considered an emergency power, and since lots of things go out of the window for the sake of "emergency powers," I wouldn't put too much stock in it.

A lot of people, myself included, believe conscription to be unconstitutional. Part of the reason we're allowed to bear arms is so that a conscription would never be necessary.
 
The soldier's oath in the United States is-
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Ok, so this person has an obligation to uphold first the constitution of the United States.

Yet it is also consistent with law that an executive or the administration will not commit an Ultra Vires act- essentailly an act that goes beyond his authority. Furthermore the Congress will make no law that abridges the Constitution.

Under US Constitutional Law, the agents of the United States- which this fellow falls into as a solder- is required to uphold not the particular dictates of the President or the Congress, but the Constitution.

The law in the US, under the Constitution stipulates that the highest law is the Constitution itself, then international, then federal law and then state law- barring conflicts of federalism.

The United States signed the UN Convention and numerous other laws that have basically said the the US will not launch wars in violation of the UN Convention.

On this sense I agree, that the US was careful to comply with the letter of the law in launching the war against Iraq. That said, there are folks that are willing to disagree.

But I would think that Canada has at least the right to consider the merits of that argument. This person is arguing that the war was illegal, and that by acting in that war, he is complicit in a crime. A contract will be invalideated if it requires a person to commit a crime.

Ok, if he was in the US, he could be tossed in jail or be coerced to go to war. That is his fate if he returns. But doesnt' Canada owe him some duty as a refugee?
 
welsh said:
But I would think that Canada has at least the right to consider the merits of that argument. This person is arguing that the war was illegal, and that by acting in that war, he is complicit in a crime. A contract will be invalideated if it requires a person to commit a crime.
Click to expand...

That's a really good point. I think that conscription is inherently hypocritical if it is in the name of defending freedom and so Canada has an obligation to grant asylum to draft dodgers. People who entered into service voluntarily, however, cannot claim to be morally or legally justified in deserting unless the military contract they are a part of somehow become invalid through the illegality of a war.

If a war was considered internationally illegal, then the soldier would have the right to desert because the USA signed on international law and thus would make the contract that the soldier serves under null and void via requirement to commit a crime, like Welsh said.
 
But I would think that Canada has at least the right to consider the merits of that argument. This person is arguing that the war was illegal, and that by acting in that war, he is complicit in a crime. A contract will be invalideated if it requires a person to commit a crime.
Click to expand...

But would they not have had to consider that argument when they denied his request for asylum? What exactly are you arguing for here, Welsh?
 
Actually, the Canadians have had a habit of sending every American back to the US who requests asylum.

The question I am asking is whether Canadians should dismiss this case so quickly. Maybe it's worthwhile for them to debate this.

They are a sovereign democratic state afterall with a pretty good human rights record. It's that or maybe they are just taking it in the ass from the US.
 
Maybe it's worthwhile for them to debate this.
Click to expand...

Is it? What would the Canadians have to gain from granting deserters asylum? Can you argue the legality of foreign law?

I think the reason the case was dismissed so readily was because he does not have a case. Using asylum seekers to argue the legality of a war isn't a smart decision legally or politically.

Besides which, what argument does he have for the war being illegal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top