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.

 

Should Canada offer refuge to American military deserters?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
My question goes out to the fellow Canadians and American ATSers. Should the Canadian government reconsider their position to allow American military deserters full and unquestionable refuge in Canada?

Knowing widely the "un-Canadian" prison abuse reported at the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons, fueled by the outraged failure to produce any weapons of mass destruction, now factor in the Downing Street memo... What gives exactly? Does that not translate and surpass Canada's refuge acceptance during Vietnam?





posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
OK. Well, since desertion is a criminal offense in the United States, let me ask you another question?

Should America offer refuge to Canadian citizens wanted for felony crimes? Maybe all Canadian tax evaders can live safely in the US, just as long as they pay their US taxes, since most Americans think the Canadian tax policy it outrageous and unnecessary?



[edit on 23-6-2005 by Pyros]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
From my perception I would give refuge to anyone trying to remove themselfs from violence. I think that those American's that have decided, for whatever reason, that they are no longer share the views of their government and that their government will put them into harms way, then I think it is our duty to them as friends and neighbours to help where ever we can.

In offical policy though I doubt that MArtin has the political will or strength to take any formal stand that might tick off the Bush admin. The whole reason that the Cannibus being made legal in small qualities got botted because the AMericans, and with the upcoming laws on Gay Marriage, I suspect Martin already feels like he is raising the ire of the American President. In the end I suspect it will be much like the Cannibus thing. Offically no we won't accept them, but they will probably leave it to the average Canadian whom, I would think, would be more than happy to help out a fellow human in need.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Well, I think that if you join the U.S. military voluntarily and then expect not to go to war or a conflict somewhere in the world at some point then you shouldn't join the military. Its no surprise that the U.S. is often engaged around the world. No, Canada should not offer refuge to those persons. The draft, however, is completely another matter and I would say yes we should accept them.

Apparently however, the amigos have drafted some sort of law where people won't be able to seek refuge in Canada if they are drafted though.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Yes, sorry forgot about the deserting thing. I agree with the theory that if you don't want to fight don't join the military, it is just some don't have a chioce. Some that is the only thing they have to do to get fed, that is hardly a free chioce, especially if you factor in some of the reasons that the Military seems like a good thing.

Ofcourse, if they simply go AWOL from the battlefield, then they should be shot on sight, but merely refusing to go- I don't know.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Another viewpoint : when you join the military you are essentially signing a contract with your government to protect your country.
If your government then falsifies the reasons to send you to war then surely they are in breach of that contract and military personnel have every right to object and refuse to participate.
After all, it's their lives on the line, not the lives of the politicians, or are they expected to fight whether the reasons are right or wrong, both morally and by international law?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Although Britguy may be technically correct, the reality is that when you sign up, you are signing up to do what you’re told, regardless of the legitimacy of the direction given.

I have a feeling that the people who are willing to turn themselves into deserting criminals never had any intent on fighting no matter how just the war was.

In the end, I have zero sympathy for deserters. Its not that I don’t understand their issue, or that I would want to fight myself, it’s just that for every deserter there is going to be some other American in the deserters place in harms way as a result. Somebody else dying for another soldier’s cowardice is as lowly as it could possible be.

Deserters deserve the harshest penalties they could get.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Although Britguy may be technically correct, the reality is that when you sign up, you are signing up to do what you’re told, regardless of the legitimacy of the direction given.


There is something called Conscientious Objector status which is in place for a reason. By your claim, the American Soldier who is ordered to kill babies during a time of war must perform what they're told regardless of the legitimacy given?

How twisted is that? America has gone down this path before, why should we force our Soldiers to through harms way only to face the same ordeal?


[edit on 23-6-2005 by syntaxer]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
North Korea can offer asylum to American soldiers.
it makes sense to go to North Korea sinces its lot better there. Canada just recently refuse to give asylum because they are not persecuted either religion or race and also that they are volunteers, not soldiers force to join the military. they chose to join.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By
From my perception I would give refuge to anyone trying to remove themselfs from violence.


does that mean to people who deserted or refuse during WW2? like the Quakers, etc? even if against the Nazis or Imperial Japan.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
skippy: and how about if the people deserting are draftees?

There currently is no draft and supposedly no plans on instating a draft, but if there was, do you still see people that desert then as criminal?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I think, depending on the circumstances, we SHOULD offer amnesty to conscientious objectors.

I mean, if someone signed up for 2 years and suddenly you are told, "Oh hey, recruiting is down, so you're on for another year", shouldn't they have a choice to object and not end up in Leavenworth breaking rocks?

On the other hand, if someone deserts for no other reason than cowardice or fear or "I changed my mind", then mayeb we should look at that case more closely and maybe decide against the deserter.


I don't know, it's not black and white.


jako



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
There is something called Conscientious Objector status...
[edit on 23-6-2005 by syntaxer]


Question about that, Syntaxer - isn't that based on religion, such as being a Jehovah's Witness or Buddist. Can you just all of a sudden be a Conscientous Objector, a) if you've joined the military and don't like the current conditions; or b) you get drafted?

Here's some information about military invasions and the U.S. Victims of United States Invasions







 
0

log in

join