It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: U.S. Army Deserter Wants To Stay In Canada

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Three points:

He should not be allowed to stay in Canada, as he is using the country to avoid prosecution as Majic stated. He enlisted, and probably did so because he saw no battlefield in his future, but he did take an oath yes, and as such, since he violated same he should be prepared to accept the punishment, death excepted.

That said, to those bereating him for backing out on an oath before God, I think rationale eludes you. Are any of you divorced, and if so what happened to that oath? I am guessing that whether one enlists or is drafted, the oath before God must be taken, and that oath places country first, which runs counter to God' demands, I don't know of commandment e demanding defense of country is before. Furthermore, it seems to me that those emulating a war stance, have decided that their country comes before their family. Imagine that! Mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, sons, and daughters take a backseat to a piece of land. What prioities!

Finally, it appears that this conscientous objector plea proviso is nothing but poppycock, where some idiomatic interpretation of his having claimed he would not always turn the other cheek, renders his mindset on the killing of others void, and no doubt this verdict was made by the military. To teach him a lesson they assign him a post which forces him to be responsible for his comrades. This is nothing shy of ignorant, for what if the man's emotional distress causes him to drastically err, will the military be taking responsibilty for the deaths of his comrades? Never!




posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron

Thanks for bring the update SourGrapes I just read it I found this part particularly interesting, I'm not saying it's true but it makes one wonder.


Excerpt:

His lawyer, Jeffrey House, planned to call former U.S. Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey as a witness to support the claim.
Massey is expected to say how he and other soldiers shot more than 30 unarmed Iraqis, including women and a six-year-old child, at a U.S. military checkpoint, House said.


Well, all I can say is - With the amount of soldiers in the military, why does the defense only have one military witness? (I wouldn't take his statement very seriously, could have been many reasons which he's leaving out. I'm sure the Prosecution will figure it out.)

If it's true, how is the witness going to escape prosecution?

[edit on 6-12-2004 by SourGrapes]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Here's an interim mixed bag:

www.jeremyhinzman.net...

www.thestar.com.../Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1101726846131&call_pageid=968256290204&col=96835011 6795

english.aljazeera.net...



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join