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.

 

Canadian Parliament Grants Asylum To U.S. War Resisters

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BradKell
 


I would agree with you, if the current war didn't violate UN and International laws.


I'm quite sure there was no part of your contract stating "I hereby acknowledge that I may be used as an instrument in illegal actions against foreign bodies."

However, international law clearly states that regardless of your orders, violating international law WILL result in prosecution. Violating UN rulings also carries the same punishments.
Basically, according to international law, if you don't disobey orders, (or run altogether), you are to be held trial along with the commanders who issued the illegal orders.

Given that the entire war in Iraq was not UN sanctioned, and being a member of the UN requires you to have all pre-emptive attacks ratified by the UN, any and all actions within Iraq are now technically illegal acts of war.

Whether the international courts will actually push for trials or not is beside the point. You are in violation of the law by following those orders, and it is your responsibility not to.


So, if it were a legally sanctioned attack, yeah, I might think otherwise. But this war has been illegal from the start, and for that, we welcome anyone who needs to avoid the US because they were simply trying to uphold international law.




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
The war is not considered illegal by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Courts, or the U.N.


Ummm....you might want to rethink that a little bit.

Excerpts : Annan Interview


Q: I wanted to ask you that - do you think that the resolution that was passed on Iraq before the war did actually give legal authority to do what was done?

A: Well, I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution because the Security Council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But then it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be.

Q: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?

A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, if you wish.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal.


Fact Check : Was the Iraq War Legal

Links to Opinions on Legality of War Against Iraq

Yes, its all about opinions, but it certainly seems that opinion outside the USA doesn't quite see it that way.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by BradKell
...They SHOULD be able to quit... but they SHOULD honor their committment.

Which one? The commitment to the war or the commitment to the constitution? Can't honor both... In my opinion, any soldier refusing to fight in this war is honoring their highest commitment, to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I'd give each one a medal.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
The war is not considered illegal by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Courts, or the U.N. The "resisters" are people who enlisted voluntarily, and who want to exercise a one-sided discretion over the terms of their enlistment.

The Canadian government isn't really accomplishment much other than pandering to the left-leaning in Canada.


Wrong. The war is considered illegal by the UN. Thanks to neformore for the informative post pointing this fact out. And maybe Congress and the Courts consider it a legal war, I don't know (please cite a reference), but we all know who controls those institutions.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   


It urged the government to allow conscientious objectors "who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations" to stay in Canada.


US soldiers do not take an oath to serve the UN.

The UN is shallow, corrupt, and blatantly anti-US.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by BradKell
reply to post by johnsky
 

On the one hand you have people who may oppose the war and therefore defect, on the other side you have people who signed a contract and gave their word then promptly left others who depend on them.

This blade cuts both ways. Had they been conscripted or drafted, I would defend them completely. As it is, I must remain nuetral. They SHOULD be able to quit... but they SHOULD honor their committment.


I'd like you to think about who made that contract up. Now think about how much "input" either party has in say as to what goes into that "contract".

Who suffers more when either party decides to "terminate" the contract?

And the last thing to ponder is... how often has a politician been "punished" for either misleading or breaking their verbal or written vows/oaths etc...

I'll take an honest persons word over anything written down from another.

I'm happy to hear that our government is doing something moral rather then looking to appease a friend.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Isn't it interesting that the day after parliament voted on this, the GM truck plant in Oshawa closed with the loss of over 2000 jobs. Especially considering that only 16 days before, GM, in an agreement with the CAW, said that the plant would remain open.


Really... that is interesting! From what I read the plant was to remain open until 2011 and GM said they would find another product for the plant to manufacture around 2011-2012.

I also read the Canadian Goverment also gave GM a $235 million loan? and Are waiting for GM to pay back another $174 million? The loan was to be paid back in 50 years under the condition GM has "x" amount of employees working at the Oshawa plant.

Here's the low down on that loan...


McGuinty didn't deny his government provided conflicting versions of its much-touted ``investment'' with GM _ an interest-free, 50-year loan which wasn't disclosed as such until after GM announced the planned closure of a truck plant in Oshawa, Ont., which employs 2,600 people.

``We should have made that information available earlier,'' McGuinty said......

The province invested $235 million with GM's Beacon project in 2005, $60 million of which went to universities for research and development and the balance to GM for its Oshawa operation.

Source;
www.tmcnet.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


the US also supports torture and has stated quite clearly that US armed forces cannot commit `war crimes` and will never be tried and will be brought back to the US away from anyone who wants to try them.

sounds very like the forth reich `do as i say , not as i do`



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by BradKell




This blade cuts both ways. Had they been conscripted or drafted, I would defend them completely. As it is, I must remain nuetral. They SHOULD be able to quit... but they SHOULD honor their committment.


One of my favorite things about my country is our long history of giving freedom to the oppressed and politically trapped. From slavery to draft dodgers and defectors, I'm all for it. But the above is a great point that I hadn't really considered. Nice one BK.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

Canadian Parliament Grants Asylum To U.S. War Resisters


rawstory.comnews



It urged the government to allow conscientious objectors "who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations" to stay in Canada.
[edit on 6/4/08 by niteboy82]


Hmmm.. interesting wording here in bold type DD. Was that a cut/paste from the source link(?) because here's what I read from the source link you posted....




Parliament on Tuesday voted to allow US resisters of the Iraq war who fled to Canada to stay in this country, thus avoiding military court-martial in the United States.

The non-binding motion passed 137 to 110, with support from all three opposition parties, which hold a majority of seats in the House.


the wording could be a trap phrase of sorts because 'urge'="compelling or requiring immediate action or attention; imperative; pressing: an urgent matter"

and voting are COMPLETELY 2 different things .. I was wondering if they changed the wording to VOTING..from urgent.. yea.. might have been a typo but .. on such a touchy subject.. that is HUGE!!

S/F for ya.. great find .. I just hope that it doesn't backfire on them by November 2008



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Static Sky
 


Now you know how George Washington felt when he tried to maintain his Continental Army in one piece.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BradKell
 


well.. I served as well...however, it comes down to a moral issue of the topic of commitment to each other and moral/ethical standards each party upholds. Serving in the US military is like a marriage, the truest form of any commitment, IMO, of peoples the world over.

I 'volunteered/chose' to be married based on what I felt was the 'right thing' to do because I felt it wasn't right to sleep with someone and say " I love you" but.. "I need to go now.". However, when my spouse "volunteered/chose" to break our commitment vehemently by not adhering to the moral standards we both chose to adhere to, I was free to make a chose to leave or to stay.

Here's my issue with the US goverment.. and it really pretty clear ...

Had to add this, It doesn't matter what any U.S. president signs into law.. the INTERNATIONAL law of torture was already agreed upon decades ago....even by the USA. In order to make the war legal, the ENTIRE world will have to make torture legal.

[edit on 04/02/2008 by Komodo]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
It comes down to this.

I didn't sign any agreement with the UN. I did sign an agreement with the U.S. Army. To that I owe my loyalty.

While I feel the structure should be better, allowing us to leave as we came since we are Volunteers, I still feel that (regardless of WHO wrote the contract) we accepted the contract.

Every man that abandons his place here forces another to take that place. Personally, I will not abandon this place to have another die here.

This isn't even due to my contract, this is due to my fellow Soldier who I would sentence to death. His blood would be on my hands.

For another 4 years or so I will do this, even though I myself want out. I will not go to Canada or go AWOL at all because I will not vacate a place I already stand in (as agreed in my Contract) to have another come here in my place and die.

When my Contract is up, I will walk away from this forever. Those that die after my term, while I will be saddened and pray for them, will have no blood on my hands. I will be free of that guilt.

I stay because that is what is right, honoring your commitment. It is right because it does not send others to fulfill your obligation.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Send them to Afghanistan, maybe that will make them feel they are in a "legal" war. If they get killed, at least they feel better dying in the right war.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 



A couple of interesting points from your source, United Nations Convention Against Torture.



Section 1: torture is defined as severe pain or suffering, which means there must be levels of pain and suffering which are not severe enough to be called torture (often termed "cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment").

However the worst sanction which can be applied to a powerful country is the publishing of the information that they have broken their treaty obligations. In certain exceptional cases the authorities in those countries may consider that with plausible deniability that this is an acceptable risk to take as the definition of severe is open to flexible interpretation.



Section 16: contains the phrase territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, so if the government of a state authorises its personnel to use sensory deprivation on a detainee in territory not under its jurisdiction then it is suggested that that government has not broken its treaty obligations.


Looking at these points, it seems that the UN doesn't really consider torture as a very bad thing.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join