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.

 

No Sanctuary in Canada

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Canada court: AWOL U.S. soldiers not refugees
Rejection of appeal by Supreme Court clears way for deserters' deportation


MSNBC story

The Canadian Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal by two US army deserters for refugee status.

Let's hear thoughts/opinions from some Canadian ATS members regarding this issue.




posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
In my opinion as long as the US has an all volunteer military this is a correct decision.

If a draft were instituted then that's a different story and people running away from such forced service would be "refugees" in my opinion.

Right now, they are not "refugees".
.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
In my opinion, deserters are, essentially, criminals. No one forced the two men to join the US military. What did these two think they were joining, the boy scouts?

When someone enlists into the armed forces, they certainly know that the job might entail going to war and we all know what going to war means. War is, indeed, hell. A soldier is often placed in a position where he might have to kill someone and, similarly, war means that soldiers are often in situations where they themselves could be killed or injured.

These two men have no real defense for their positions. They joined the military knowing full well that they might be in a position to go to war, to kill and, possibly, to be killed. There is no justification for their desertion to Canada.

They might try to defend their position by saying that the war in Iraq is unjust but, since the war is supported by both the Democrats and the Republicans (through numerous votes and by the continued funding of the war, their stance is a moot one. Regardless their own beliefs, when the men enlisted, they tacitly accepted to obey their Commander-in-chief and their government. Philosophically and morally, these men might be correct in their assertions but they are wrong in their assumptions that they can pick and choose their battles in this manner. When they voluntarily enlisted into the military, they surrendered their rights to think and act independently.

The two deserters do not have a defense for their actions. In essence, they are criminals and, as criminals, the Canadian Court system has no recourse but to extradite the two deserters back to the United States.

If one disagrees with their government. If one disagrees with their nations' wars.....don't enlist. It's as simple as that.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I have to agree with the posts above, you sign on the line, so do the time keep your mouth shut and get out hopefully in one piece. Heck wouldn't he have been discharged by now anyway.

Edit
just came across this article

Army desertion rate highest since 1980

Statistic: Army Desertion Rates Up 80 Percent Since Invasion of Iraq in 2003
www.rawstory.com...

[edit on 16/11/2007 by Sauron]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by benevolent tyrant
 


i have to disagree... with that type of thinking divorce wouldn't exist, for example... people should have the opportunity to change their mind... i make a business deal and sudddenly decide i don't want to complete it, i shouldn't have to go to jail because i had a momnet of "bad judgement" ... it's easy to say "you sign on the dotted line..." but i wonder how many times you've "skirted" your contractual obligations... ever late paying the bills?

further the original post, i think it's a shame that Canada would deport... just another example of the heavy hand of the facist slamming down hard on the common man... imo

[edit on 16-11-2007 by never_tell]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Desertion is a crime. Plain and simple. I can sympathize with these two men but the fact remains that they are criminals. It wasn't just the Supreme Court, the Immigration Board said no, The Federal Court of Appeals said no and I agree. These two men aren't refugees. They have no fear of death or cruel and unusual punishment upon return to their land. They should be sent back and face the consequences of their actions.

As Gools said, if these men were draft dodgers, I would say let them stay. But it isn't forced military service, they volunteered. You can't tell me that they didn't know what the job they were signing up for entailed. If they didn't take the time to read the fine print, that isn't our Supreme Courts problem, it's theirs.

This isn't a regular everyday contract either. In the example of paying your bills, you are penalized for breaking the contract by being late in payment. They charge you money on top of what you owe. Every contract I have had a hand in has some sort of penalty for breaking it. The penalty here just happens to be jail time.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
edit: double post.
Thats twice in two days.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by GAOTU789]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


"Every contract I have had a hand in has some sort of penalty for breaking it. The penalty here just happens to be jail time.
"

seems a bit heavy handed, especially when you consider someone probably had the best of intentions when they enlisted i.e help protect their country... what if you were duped into thinking you were doing the right thing by enlisting only to find out you were working for the wrong side? still think you should have to stick with it? too many examples of people not fully understanding the implications of their impulsive actions... doesn't seem right that they can't change their mind... IMO, the military has to make prison the punishment, because once enlisted no one in their "right mind" would stay! my apologies to any armed forces that may be reading this, but that's what i think.... carrying a gun is a sad way to get an education... among other enticements...



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I agree with Gools, benevolent tyrant, Sauron and GAOTU789.

If they weren't drafted, they have no basis for refugee claims. In my opinion, if these guys don't want to go to war, they can take a stand in the US, refuse to obey orders and serve their time. Running to Canada is the easy way out.



[edit on 16-11-2007 by Duzey]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
well, we'll just have to go to war then won't we!?
hope you don't see the light further down the tunnel... it maybe too late for you



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
If Canada were to give these deserters refugee status, it would be tantamount to saying that the government of Canada views the Iraq war to be unjust - that's the whole basis for the claim. Our government is not going to do that.

Nobody has to go to war - they are perfectly able to refuse their orders and take the punishment. Instead, they are attempting to use my country to further their own agenda.


edited for spelling.


[edit on 16-11-2007 by Duzey]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Duzey
 


"If Canada were to give these deserters refugee status, it would be tantamount to saying that the governemnt of Canada views the Iraq war to be unjust - that's the whole basis for the claim. Our government is not going to do that. "


i thought canada did believe it to be unjust... isn't that why they never went? wasn't cowardess was it?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   
When the whole Iraq thing came up, our Prime Minister asked to see the proof that the US and UK claimed to have regarding Iraq and WMD. He felt, and rightly so in my opinion, that to go into war without seeing the proof would be unwise. He wanted them to prove it to him, and they refused.

When asked what kind of proof he was looking for, this is what he said:


"I don't know. A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

en.wikiquote.org...

Confusing, and yet strangely profound.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Our PM at the time asked for verifiable proof that Iraq had WMD's from America and Britian. Neither country had presented a strong enough case that the invasion of Iraq was needed enough to commit our troops to further combat. We were, and still are, in Afghanistan fighting so he wanted to make sure the reasons were valid for a further commitment. I don't think it speaks as for whether he felt the war was unjust or not. He just didn't see a strong enough case to put our soldiers further into harm's way.

As I stated earlier, I have sympathy for these men. I don't blame them for not wanting to be in Iraq. But it doesn't change the fact they are deserters. They tried to go through our legal system to gain refugee status. They failed and as such are required to leave the country. I'll be honest, if they had come here and just lived and not tried to use our courts, it wouldn't bother me. But they chose the legal path and have to abide by the decision.


Also never_tell, there's no need for the cowardice remark. We as a nation of proven ourselves many times, there's no need to sink to that level. We were having a decent conversation I thought.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
response to Duzey...

unwise=unjust .. maybe just a more "diplomatic" way of saying it...

"Confusing, and yet strangely profound."... wasn't he!?

response to GAOTU789...

"I'll be honest, if they had come here and just lived and not tried to use our courts, it wouldn't bother me. But they chose the legal path and have to abide by the decision. "

i suppose they were pushed to it.. perhaps a lst resort?

"Also never_tell, there's no need for the cowardice remark."

i certainly meant no disrespect... on the contrary... *sacrasm doesn't do when in the digital arena*... i think it took great courage not to go and follow the american lead... for that, canadians were respected worldwide... hats off to them, i say, to have stood up to the world's biggest bullies... many "smaller" countries weren't as brave



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by never_tell
unwise=unjust .. maybe just a more "diplomatic" way of saying it...

No, I meant unwise as in lacking in judgement. We have a relatively small military and many prior commitments throughout the world. To commit to something like Iraq without being 100% convinced that you had to would be irresponsible.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Duzey
 


hmmm... i'dli ke to think he knew it was all smoke and mirrors and without calling Bush a liar, maybe decided to "down play" Canadian military capability?... are you suggesting that if canada wasn't already stretched in Afghanstan they would have gone to Iraq? Somehow i think Jean was smarter than that... afterall, he did his time under Trudeau, no?

[edit on 16-11-2007 by never_tell]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   
We don't need to downplay our military. Everybody knows we don't have the biggest army around.


The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that in Afghanistan, Chretien believed there was a compelling enough case for the removal of the Taliban. The case that was presented on Iraq wasn't enough to convince him. Our presence in Afghanistan may have had some small influence in the decision making process, but even without Afghanistan, I think his decision would have remained the same.

Yes, Cretien was very smart. Not always a likable man, but a very smart one with a lot of political experience.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
When the whole Iraq thing came up, our Prime Minister asked to see the proof that the US and UK claimed to have regarding Iraq and WMD. He felt, and rightly so in my opinion, that to go into war without seeing the proof would be unwise. He wanted them to prove it to him, and they refused.

When asked what kind of proof he was looking for, this is what he said:


"I don't know. A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

en.wikiquote.org...

Confusing, and yet strangely profound.


LOL! the prime minister must hang with our donald rumsfeld in the partygone. Both quotes make a lot of, I dunno.


The message is that there are known "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns - - - Source



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Not Canadian, I am a citizen of the United States, and quite frankly you can keep 'em...personally I have no use for them in the slightest.

They volunteered...the recruiters didn't lie to them. Surely they could see what was happening in the world when they signed? Honestly, their stupidity isn't really what the US military needs anyway. Nope, keep 'em. I hope they enjoy their stay in Canada, it's a wonderful place. I hope they enjoy looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join