I'm 99.99 percent certain that the refugee claim will not work.

It is a bit of a stretch of the imagination to say these guys fled to Canada to avoid persecution.

As far as I can tell they broke the law, and should face the consequences of their actions.

Yeah you can bet Ottawa will nip this one in the bud pretty quickly. The U.S. already (rightly) criticizes our refugee laws as too lax. Imagine trying to refute that while granting asylum to these guys because they don't want to fulfill their end of the bargain they voluntarily entered into.

cant help hoping that despite of the obvius refusal they´ll get, that it still vill get some media coverage, its an important thing when a leader acts in such shamefull a way that makes its soldiers ignore the outh they gave and leave.

Now if every soilder had this mentality, the world would be peaceful.

This claim to refugee status should fail but the legal argument being made is novel and could succeed IMHO.

Currently the US military is a volunteer corps. These guys signed up.

During the Vietnam draft era the "dodgers" or conscientious objectors had a valid case and MANY came to Canada. If another draft were instated the same situation would arise.

These are two different situations.

If the legal argument being made is based on the illegality of the Iraq war under international law (Kofi Annan has publicly stated this) then these guys are attempting to claim refugee status on the fact that their government is making them do something illegal that puts their lives (and others) at risk.

So yeah they signed up, but killing and being killed for lies is not what they signed up for.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in court.

Hey Gools where you been? Anyway yeah they have an interesting legal argument, however the Supreme Court has shown foresight in decisions such as these.

Charles Ng had a far better legal case in that he was fighting extradition to a jurisdiction that refused to rule out the death penalty. The Court rightly saw the deeper ramifications and sent him back. I think you'll find the same with deserters/resisters.

Originally posted by deevee
Hey Gools where you been?

Been laying low, ducking the mud around here!

Good point you make. I forgot about Ng.

I'm not a refugee expert but I think there are cases where status is granted if the other country allows the death penalty?

Ng was a special case maybe? (not a political case but criminal and clearly guilty, avoiding prosecution, nature of the crime etc?)

Note sure...

But a political vs. criminal case may be different.

Canada did not extradite prisoners to countries where they faced the death penalty. Then along came Ng, the poster boy for the death penalty (with the home videos to prove it). He specifically fled to Canada knowing its prohibition on extradition in capital cases.

Rightly fearing that Canada would become a haven for American killers on the lam, the Supreme Court allowed the extradition and a scant 18 minutes later Ng was on a plane to California.

The Supreme Court is not about to even consider an American resistor, or any American for that matter a viable candidate for refugee status. Just MHO. Keep on ducking

Originally posted by Gools
He was very naive about what it meant to sign-up:

Hinzman told the Fayetteville Observer in a phone interview that he had "a romantic vision" of the army when he joined three years ago.

He said the structure of army life, complete with subsidized housing, groceries and money for education, appealed to him.

This happens to be the most ridiculous excuse to join the U.S. Armed Forces ever! Join the United States Army for a free ride and then when it comes to fulfilling your duty, RUN!

I say shoot the freeloading coward!


[edit on 19/10/04 by Intelearthling]

If they can get out of the US, a few European countries might take them. There is always South America.

All right thinking Canadians should swamp the systems with mail, emails and phone calls demanding that these scoundrels be sent back to America to face justice. But, if Canada wants them, she should just make sure she keeps them. My guess is their lives aren't worth two cents here.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

... My guess is their lives aren't worth two cents here.

Really?… wow… no wonder I avoid your posts.

I understand the concepts of duty and nationalism (as do you) but it seems that you are somewhat blinded by them.

The fact that you have objectors in a VOLUNTEER military willing to go this far to get out of killing and being killed for LIES, says an awful lot about the current situation, as does your response Grady.

Originally posted by Gools
The fact that you have objectors in a VOLUNTEER military willing to go this far to get out of killing and being killed for LIES, says an awful lot about the current situation...

The actions of these individuals speak only to their own cowardice. If anyone here is blind, it is you, but mere blindness cannot account for your body of work here.


[edit on 04/10/19 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The actions of these individuals speak only to their own cowardice. If anyone here is blind, it is you, but mere blindness cannot account for your body of work here.

And your post speaks for you.

I'm no fan of your body of work either.

So having come to this understanding of not liking each other's point of view, lets move on and let this thread get back on topic.

I don't really want to seem to be on the same side as Philpott who happily proclaims via a read between the lines that Americans will kill their own for being sympathetic objectors, a right the objectors actually have I believe. But that goes to the Philpots of the world not even caring about their own citizens. But I don't see these cases being favourable to the deserters in this case.

The Vietnam "dodgers" were different in that the majority were not yet draftees, but came to Canada, and sought landed immigrant status. The deserters were serviced via an underground system set up by a dodger who for the most part, illegally brought them into the country. Trudeau declared an amnesty for the former refusing to deport them because of their numbers for the most part, but he was tougher on the latter, actually deporting many. Why? Because Canadian law for immigration status required two very important things, 1)that the applicant did not break any laws in their country of origin that is also recognised as such in Canada, and 2), they would not be deported to a country imposing the death penalty even if they did commit a crime.

The law has since changed making it more difficult for a person facing the death penalty to be granted refugee status, in that if the claimant is deemed a threat to Canada, out they go.

These newest dodgers do not fall under the definition of refugee in any sense of the law. What needs to be assessed is if the crime with which they are charged would be upheld in Canada. Chances are it would, and I fully expect they will eventually be returned to the US.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I don't really want to seem to be on the same side as Philpott who happily proclaims via a read between the lines that Americans will kill their own for being sympathetic objectors, a right the objectors actually have I believe.

America accommodates legitimate conscientious objectors. My statement is not to be construed as call for murder, but I would hope that a person who had deserted his nation during a time of war, would have a hard time supporting himself in his nation of betrayal.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

America accommodates legitimate conscientious objectors. My statement is not to be construed as call for murder, but I would hope that a person who had deserted his nation during a time of war, would have a hard time supporting himself in his nation of betrayal.

Then please accept my humble apologies, where I am from this statement; "My guess is their lives aren't worth two cents here" means that one is dead meat, in the literal sense. So perhaps you can explain to me where their service record fits in on applying for employment. Is it a required disclosure specifically one that details whether one has served or deserted, or is a candidate's record available for public record?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
So perhaps you can explain to me where their service record fits in on applying for employment. Is it a required disclosure specifically one that details whether one has served or deserted, or is a candidate's record available for public record?

I would hope that their names would be as well known as that of William Calley, Benedict Arnold, John Kerry, or Jane Fonda. On second thought, maybe they could have careers in show business or politics.