babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » U.S. War resisters lose refugee appeal

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: U.S. War resisters lose refugee appeal
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 06 May 2007 06:34 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Two U.S Army deserters have exhausted their appeals for Canadian refugee status and now face deportation.

In a ruling released yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Federal Court of Appeal upheld decisions by the Federal Court and the Immigration and Refugee Board that Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey are not entitled to refugee status.

The ruling is a blow to at least 17 other war resisters in the Greater Toronto Area, as well as many others across the country, who insist the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq violates international law, and that those who refuse to participate should not be punished.

Hinzman and Hughey could face lengthy prison terms if convicted of desertion upon their return to the United States.


Toronto Star


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 May 2007 06:45 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh no. I'm so sorry to hear this.

Is there any other recourse, Jeff? Compassionate grounds maybe?

[ 06 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clandestiny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6865

posted 06 May 2007 06:57 AM      Profile for clandestiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
while offering no substantiation for this opinion, it SEEMS that somehow our ruling class has tied their wagon to the illegal war on terrorist Iraq and by nitpicking can find anyone guilty of anything (and the devil take the hindmost!)....anyone who thinks the battle against the evil represented by bush, blair, regan, thatcher, mulroney, harris, harper, howard, busceloni, franco, pinochette, samoza, mugabe and so on ad nazism can be won by appealing to the agents of mr pig's higher judgements is going to be shown that Chairman Mao was right....
From: the canada's | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 06 May 2007 07:51 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I doubt this government is going to be very compassionate.

Can the Federal Court decision be appealed?


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 06 May 2007 08:46 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
IANAL but I was under the impression that if there is a question of law, any decision of the Federal Court of Appeals (one of the most conservative benches in the country) can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 06 May 2007 10:51 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We are going to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and should know whether we have it by the fall.

Leave will be granted if :

quote:
the Supreme Court is of the opinion that any question involved is, by reason of its public importance or the importance of any issue of law or any issue of mixed law and fact involved in that question, one that ought to be decided by the Supreme Court or is, for any other reason, of such a nature or significance as to warrant decision by it.

While I remain convicned that the Courts will eventually decide in our favour, the War Resisters Support Campaign is gearing up to try to get a political, as opposed to a legal, settlement which would allow them to stay.

http://www.resisters.ca/

I am told that an NDP MP, Alex Siksnes (?) from BC, recently made a motion for such a settlement in Parliament, but that the Conservatives derailed it procedurally.

[ 06 May 2007: Message edited by: jeff house ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 06 May 2007 11:20 AM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
anybody know exactly why draft dodgers got to stay in Canada during 'Nam?
From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 06 May 2007 12:05 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Simply put, Pierre Trudeau decided they could stay.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 May 2007 03:03 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canada allowed the US to test Agent Orange and nerve gas in Canada. We turned a blind eye to several thousand Canadians joining US forces illegally. The toll in Viet Nam was 13 million refugees, massive destruction and loss of life caused by our largest trade partner. Canada's Liberals played both sides of the fence.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 06 May 2007 03:09 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by minkepants:
anybody know exactly why draft dodgers got to stay in Canada during 'Nam?

Because our immigration laws at the time allowed them to apply for immigration from within Canada. They weren't accepted as refugees.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 06 May 2007 03:49 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One of my best friends is a 1960's draft dodger, now an Anglican priest. I don't know what the process was, but now he's free to travel back and forth between the US and Canada without fear of harassment at the border.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 06 May 2007 04:24 PM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
One of my best friends is a 1960's draft dodger, now an Anglican priest. I don't know what the process was, but now he's free to travel back and forth between the US and Canada without fear of harassment at the border.

I believe Jimmy Carter pardoned the draft dodgers, which may have lifted travel restrictions at the border.


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boarsbreath
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9831

posted 06 May 2007 05:40 PM      Profile for Boarsbreath   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do bear in mind that they were dodging conscription. These guys quit something they joined, against the rules for quitting.

Now of course it's not so simple -- even 'quitting' ordinary jobs is not always so simple -- but that difference does make it more difficult. That is, it's harder to apply any principle other than opposition to the war in Iraq.


From: South Seas, ex Montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 May 2007 02:41 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's true. But in this case, these people signed up for military service, but then were asked to fight an illegal war, based on lies. I think resisting that is not a problem.

Although, once again, I would support conscription in the US now, as long as there were no exemptions for anything, and all conscripted soldiers had to start as grunts on the front line. Then we'd see how long the war would last.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pepper-Pot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13391

posted 07 May 2007 02:54 AM      Profile for Pepper-Pot        Edit/Delete Post
As Charles Rangel suggested ? Only if the media was putting the cameras on the soldiers dead bodies and beaming those zoomed graphic shots back to the States.

I recently saw some footage of the Vietnam war delivered by the freelancing Journalists at the time, and thought how sterile and censored the media images currently are.The 1972 cameraman was running alongside a wounded soldier as he was being carried off the battlefield by medics, blood everywhere, and the eyes of the obviously deceased young soldier indicating the price 1 side pays in war.

Ufiltered footage of what the other side (innocent civilians : men , women & children in Iraq & Afghanistan) go through as they are blown to bits also has to be beamed directly to news watchers here and in the States as well.


But the corporate conglomerate media (Fox, NBC and ABC are especially bad) is an entrenched part of the military-industrial complex, and they don't have a liking for unfiltered truth.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pepper-Pot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13391

posted 07 May 2007 03:02 AM      Profile for Pepper-Pot        Edit/Delete Post
As for deporting the resisters... I can assure you folks that guys like Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper get a sublime spiritual rush up & down their spines by sacrificing the renegades they perceive as anti-patriotic, anti-establishment enemy-siders... right into the gaping jaws of Bush, Cheney, Rove and the US military-industrial complex.

For militaristic & authoritarian faith-based Neo-Cons, it's like squashing the mosquito in the kitchen with a kleenex, and putting the evil non-conformist in the garbage can.

Job done.Stove top clean as a whistle.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 May 2007 11:55 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
bear in mind that they were dodging conscription. These guys quit something they joined, against the rules for quitting.

Actually, both draft dodgers and deserters were allowed to remain in Canada pursuant to the policy which Pierre Trudeau put into place. It didn't depend on whether or not you had volunteered.

As Michelle points out though, the core question is whether you are required to do something illegal or immoral.

If I seek to work at a bank, am accepted, and then I am told I will be torturing union organizers, the argument that "You volunteered!" won't cut any ice.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 07 May 2007 12:36 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fleeing tyranny is made all the more difficult when we're in league with it at every level.
From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 07 May 2007 01:31 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The text of the decision is Here.
From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 07 May 2007 06:16 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

Actually, both draft dodgers and deserters were allowed to remain in Canada pursuant to the policy which Pierre Trudeau put into place. It didn't depend on whether or not you had volunteered.

As Michelle points out though, the core question is whether you are required to do something illegal or immoral.

If I seek to work at a bank, am accepted, and then I am told I will be torturing union organizers, the argument that "You volunteered!" won't cut any ice.


The core question is also what the consequences of refusing are -- and whether those consequences constitute "persecution" rather than "prosecution".

Also, during Vietnam it also didn't matter if you were neither a deserter nor a draft dodger - it was a lot easier for Americans to immigrate to Canada at the time regardless of their reasons for leaving the US.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 07 May 2007 08:48 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I really don't have any sympathy for the deserters. They're the ones who voluntarily signed up for the U.S. Military. That's not something you do if you can't bear the idea of being sent overseas to kill people.

Draft dodgers are completely different because they never signed up. They never tried to access the perks of being in the military but then running when faced with deployment. They are people with some respectable principles, unlike the ones who sign up for the benefits and then try to break the contract when they have to hold up their end. (And just to be clear, I am talking about the sort of draft dodger like Boom Boom's friend, not the sort that went on to become members of the executive branch of the U.S. government.)

Imagine an insurance company collecting premiums but then canceling the policy the moment anyone tries to make a claim. That's what the deserters are trying to do.

Don't want to pay out claims? Don't collect premiums and stay out of the insurance business. Don't want to go to war? Stay the hell away from the military. It's that simple. That's exactly what the draft dodgers did, and exactly what the deserters didn't do.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 07 May 2007 08:52 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
I really don't have any sympathy for the deserters. They're the ones who voluntarily signed up for the U.S. Military. That's not something you do if you can't bear the idea of being sent overseas to kill people.

Given that they knew what they signed up for, what's your analysis as to why they desert?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 07 May 2007 09:09 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Given that they knew what they signed up for, what's your analysis as to why they desert?

Because they wanted the benefits of being in the military without having to fight?

That's pretty much the only logical reason I can think of IF they knew what they were getting themselves into. If they didn't know, why the hell not? Were they intentionally deceived? Are they just stupid? Why would they not know?

Really, the best possible thing to do for people who don't want to fight in a war is to STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM THE MILITARY in the first place.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 07 May 2007 09:21 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Jeff House: As Michelle points out though, the core question is whether you are required to do something illegal or immoral.

If I seek to work at a bank, am accepted, and then I am told I will be torturing union organizers, the argument that "You volunteered!" won't cut any ice.


There is the little matter of the results of the Nuremburg trials. Soldiers, even those who have completely bought into the war justification, cannot escape their duty to reject participation in war crimes, including turning over prisoners to authorities that are likely to torture them, for example.

A person always has the right to obey their conscience, even soldiers; don't Conservatives believe in that anymore?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 07 May 2007 09:27 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
I really don't have any sympathy for the deserters. They're the ones who voluntarily signed up for the U.S. Military. That's not something you do if you can't bear the idea of being sent overseas to kill people.
...

Imagine an insurance company collecting premiums but then canceling the policy the moment anyone tries to make a claim. That's what the deserters are trying to do.

Don't want to pay out claims? Don't collect premiums and stay out of the insurance business. Don't want to go to war? Stay the hell away from the military. It's that simple. That's exactly what the draft dodgers did, and exactly what the deserters didn't do.


Except that many of them were lied to by recruiters, and signed up under false pretenses. They were told that they would be in the National Guard and wouldn't see duty in Iraq. Or that they would be in non-combat roles. Or that they would do one tour of duty and be done. Some of them did see combat, came home, and didn't want to go back for another tour of duty.

And even if they were not lied to and signed up under false pretenses, your analogy is seriously flawed. Do you really think that a kid who joins the military is just like an insurance company? A corporation who collects premiums from people an pays out on claims? I think that such a person is more like an employee who has been hired to do a job [and a shitty one at that]. I think that if you have a job, you should be allowed to quit. If you get hired by McDonalds (or by the US military) and end up hating it, you should be able to say "no thanks, I quit". Even more so if you are hired to flip burgers and then are told that your job is to poison people. Or if you are hired to "fight for freedom" or "defend your country", and you are put in the position of participating in atrocities.

Why, if you quit your job, should you face choices like prosecution or exile? Is this a new idea that we can look forward to from you and your Conservative friends, Gir?

Oh, yes, and:

quote:
It's that simple.
Yes, indeed. To a simple mind thinking in a simple way, uncomplicated by much knowledge, empathy or engagement with reality -- it is that simple. For the rest of us, it is not so simple.

[ 07 May 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Famouspipeliner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9177

posted 07 May 2007 09:37 PM      Profile for Famouspipeliner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
NDP MP Bill Siksay was apparently looking after the file on American conscientious objectors but has done little. The NDP's position on the matter was that those who had fled the American military should be given permanent resident status, thus allowing them to legally find work and bring their families to Canada.
Is there anything wrong with a little compassion?
I know one of those in Toronto is a former tank commander (name?) who, during the initial invasion, came across a number of American soldiers using an Iraqi's severed head as a soccer ball. When he returned from his tour he fled to Canada.
And what? We're going to send him back so he can be imprisoned?

From: Saskatchewan | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pepper-Pot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13391

posted 08 May 2007 02:16 AM      Profile for Pepper-Pot        Edit/Delete Post
Of COURSE we're gonna feed him to the militaristic machine, we've entered the Neo-Con paradigm ENTIRELY under Bush & Harper.

Keep in mind, that for Neo-Cons, an unwavering faith-based allegiance to the (erroneously perceived/contrived) "good guys", not the "bad guys", is absolutely imperative.And a soldier is merely a robotic pawn under the command of the righteous & infallible Military-Industrial-Pharmaceutical-Prison complex MONSTER (of gigantic proportions).And if certain non-conforming renegade individuals waver, protest or rebel, and if they in any way attempt to thwart, counter or impede the righteous and infallible rampaging path of the almighty Military-Industrial-Pharmaceutical-Prison complex MONSTER, that disruptive individual shall be STRUCK DOWN WITH GREAT VENGEANCE AND SACRIFICED TO TO THE RUTHLESSLY OMNIPOTENT AND UNOPPOSABLE MACHINE.

(Or so says Neo-Con dogma)

---------------------------------------------

Rumsfeldian Insight : "Renegade soldier 9305A4362 must be sacrificed for the good of the plan, to penalize his protesting individuality, and to serve as a warning to other potential disruptors of the unquestionable mighty mission and the unwavering mighty machine.Steadfast & Strong....Steadfast & Strong...".

Harperian Insight : "I fully agree."


From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 08 May 2007 06:22 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Famouspipeliner:
NDP MP Bill Siksay was apparently looking after the file on American conscientious objectors but has done little.
Are you sure about that? Maybe you should read through some of these 165 web pages. Just an off-hand glance through a small portion of them makes it clear that he has: actively worked on individual cases, like helping to free an objector who had been arrested, introduced a bill in Parliament, questioned the Minister of Immigration on the issue in committee, tabled petitions, supported activists working on the issue, has consistently spoken out on the issue in the media (example), was on a panel at a conference about resisters, gets quoted everything from a law firm newsletter to CNN.

Oh, yes, and here on this page, among the many examples of Siksay working on behalf of war resisters, is a comment from a certain "famouspipeliner", writing a comment on another site:

quote:
You might want to contact NDP MP Bill Siksay (Burnaby/Douglas). He is supposed to be looking after the 'asylum' file for the NDP. I believe their policy postion is to give conscientious objectors permanent resident status...which would allow dissenters to work legally in Canada and bring their families with them as well. Unfortunately Mr. Siksay has been rather quiet lately. Mr. Siksay could legally introduce a petition to parliament...
Ah, yes, a petition.. like this one introduced before you wrote that, or this one just after, tabled here.

Famouspipeliner: What is your agenda? Why are you trying to spread the impression that Siksay has done little on this issue, when it is clear that he has done admirable work -- in spite of being in opposition (not government), and having a wide range of critic responsibilities beyond this one issue? What else would you suggest that he do?

[ 08 May 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]

EDIT TO ADD...

From above in this thread:

quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
I am told that an NDP MP, Alex Siksnes (?) from BC, recently made a motion for such a settlement in Parliament, but that the Conservatives derailed it procedurally.
Yes, that would be Bill Siksay. It looks like you and he once appeared together. His fellow BC NDP MP Alex Atamenko has also worked on the issue, so you are probably conflating the two names.

[ 08 May 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Famouspipeliner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9177

posted 08 May 2007 10:37 PM      Profile for Famouspipeliner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is my agenda? Well, how about justice? The issue of conscientious objectors hasn't exactly had a high profile on the hill, and I don't read Hansard everyday...but I will say that the NDP's approach to the 'war on terra' has been weak. Where is the outrage?
Those who opposed the war before its' outset have found no one to support from the elected political left. Where is the leadership?
I have written to members of parliament on this issue and have received some pleasant replies from staffers who are quick to thank me for my interest. Where are the results? Where is the support for those who, from the front lines have had the courage to stand up to their own military?
If it were up to me, the war would be issue #1. I want protests, public disobediance, firebrand oratories from political leaders. I don't want business as usual. I want someone to take on the neocons and show the public their true nature.
Having said all that, you seem to have gone to some trouble to make me look bad. Good for you.

From: Saskatchewan | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 09 May 2007 03:31 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you get hired by McDonalds (or by the US military) and end up hating it, you should be able to say "no thanks, I quit".

The military isn't like MacDonald's, though. The very nature of soldiering makes it essential that people can't just quit when the going gets rough/dangerous. Nonetheless, it is essential that soldiers be allowed to refuse illegal orders and choose to refuse to serve in illegal wars, of course.

I wonder if the LibroConservatives are happily serving up Hinzman and company so that our own Canadian soldiers don't get any ideas about refusing their own illegal orders?? Specifically with the handing over of prisoners to the torture boys, be they in Afghanistan or Guantanamo.

[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: Briguy ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
mimeguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10004

posted 09 May 2007 06:13 AM      Profile for mimeguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A soldier is not obliged to obey an individual illegal order but does he/she have the right to declare the entire conflict illegal? It is simpler for us here to recognize the illegality of the Iraq war but does the Federal Court and ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada have the authority to rule that the Iraq War is illegal?

To refuse an illegal order is not the end of the matter. The soldier if brought up on charges must prove that it was in fact an illegal order or I suppose the commanding officer must prove it was a legal order and disobeyed. I really don't know which way it works with this. He/she can't just say so and desert.

The Canadian government does not recognize the Iraq war as an illegal invasion and to my knowledge neither does the United Nations (but correct me if I'm wrong.)

So maybe Jeff can explain this to me better but I see a problem with the Canadian court being that there is no "legal" proof that the war is illegal and thus the order to serve is not illegal. That is the order the soldiers are basing their claim on.

I don't agree that we shouldn't have sympathy for the soldiers as some of them served in Afghanistan believing that to be a just war and served well. Some soldiers also specifically requested non-combat roles and were denied. Their objection is to the Iraq war in particular.

I think they should stay but for the Canadian government and the courts to state that they are in fact legitimate refugees fleeing persecution then both the Government and courts would have to publicly acknowledge that the war is illegal.

No Canadian government is going to have the moral courage do this and so I think the courts may have their hands tied. The soldiers are charged with a serious offense under US law and when the US requests extradition do we have the right under the present treaty to refuse without legal reasoning?

It's an ugly situation from all angles and aggravated by a morally bankrupt Federal Government.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 09 May 2007 06:22 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The very nature of soldiering makes it essential that people can't just quit when the going gets rough/dangerous.

What's wrong with that? I think that's a swell idea. The world would be a better place.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 09 May 2007 07:00 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Famouspipeliner:
What is my agenda? Well, how about justice? The issue of conscientious objectors hasn't exactly had a high profile on the hill, and I don't read Hansard everyday...but I will say that the NDP's approach to the 'war on terra' has been weak.
OK, well I was just wondering why you were singling out Bill Siksay and the NDP. Sure, the issue is not front-and-centre all of time. Why would it be, given that -- as important as it is -- this is one issue out of hundreds that the NDP has to address on an ongoing basis?

What I'm having a hard time understanding here is why you single out for criticism a party and an MP who are actually allied with your position, and who has done more about it than perhaps any other party or MP. It is odd to say, "why hasn't he done more", rather than saying that about others who have done less or nothing. Or attacking those who are actively opposed to your position.

quote:
Where are the results? Where is the support for those who, from the front lines have had the courage to stand up to their own military?
Well, here, for one. From the link I posted above:
quote:
... An Update from US War Resisters on what happened in Nelson, BC Feb 23rd, 2007: yesterday Kyle Snyder who lives with his Fiance Maleah and also US War Resisters Ryan and Jennifer Johnson was arrested at his home in Nelson, BC. The police showed up at the door and asked for Kyle. They said they had no warrants but that if Kyle didn't come out of the house they would go get one to search our home and arrest Kyle. Ryan proceeded to call Kyle out and the police forced their way into our home. Kyle was walking out of the kitchen in his bathrobe when the police grabbed him and handcuffed him.
...
They arrested him at around 1:30 in the afternoon on a Friday with the intent of extraditing him as soon as possible so that we would have little or no recourse. As soon as Kyle left we started calling everyone we could think of in our anti-war contacts in the US and Canada.

We got in touch with our local MP Alex Atamanenko. The woman at his office Jamie was so helpful. She contacted Bill Siksay and he contacted us directly wanting to be updated on the hour about Kyle’s situation. He also had his office call Citizenship and Immigration. After that call Kyle received a call at the jail from Citizenship and Immigration saying he was illegally detained. So now they are setting up a hearing so that he can legally remain in Canada. The immigration officer said that it appears the orders came from the US Military.
...
Thanks to all in the US and Canada who supported and helped us Yesterday. A major thanks to Alex Atamanenko's office and to Bill Siksay for all of their continuing support for US War Resisters. If it weren't for them Kyle might still be locked up waiting to be deported.
Peace always,

Ryan Johnson & Jen Johnson



quote:
(Famouspipeliner: ) If it were up to me, the war would be issue #1. I want protests, public disobediance, firebrand oratories from political leaders. I don't want business as usual. I want someone to take on the neocons and show the public their true nature.
You expect a lot. Do really believe that elected politicians who followed your advice would get better results, or would remain elected for long? It's an important issue, even the most important for you, but 99% of people won't vote based on it, even when you try to educate them about it -- because they are concerned about the environment, health care, public services, Afghanistan. And they would likely actively vote against someone who ignored those issues in favour of making war resisters their #1 issue, with firebrand speeches and civil disobedience. And then you would have no elected allies at all.

I'm sorry that you perceive that I'm attacking you. Given your focus, in this forum and another, on criticizing Siksay and how little he had done [sic], I suspected that your motives may have been primarily to attack Siksay. We do get Newbies who appear here "posing" as something they are not, with the real goal of scoring cheap political points for or against someone.

But if you really are concerned with the issue, and mistakenly misdirected your attack against one of the most helpful MPs (and parties), then I do apologize.

The other purpose of my first response to you was not to attack you, but rather to correct, for the record, the false impression that Siksay had somehow been neglecting the issue of war resisters, and did not support them.

[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 09 May 2007 09:38 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mimeguy has written an interesting post. While I think he's wrong, he has some of the issues in the right perspective.

Let me answer this one:

quote:
A soldier is not obliged to obey an individual illegal order but does he/she have the right to declare the entire conflict illegal? It is simpler for us here to recognize the illegality of the Iraq war but does the Federal Court and ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada have the authority to rule that the Iraq War is illegal?

We did not try to "declare" the war illegal. We sought to introduce evidence that the war is illegal.

We noticed that when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, our courts had no trouble concluding that that war was an illegal invasion. So, if they heard evidence about Saddam Hussein, they'd have to hear evidence about the US invasion, too.

It is important to understand that when our courts make such a declaration, it isn't a decision binding in international law.

But it is analogous to all the other decisions our courts make about the affairs of other countries, in the refugee context.

ie. Country X is a human rights abuser, country Y has an out of control secret police, country Z practices torture.

So, legally, there is nothing special about the U.S. invasion of Iraq which makes it impossible to decide upon. It's just inconvenient to speak the obvious truth out loud, that the war is illegal.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 09 May 2007 10:02 AM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anybody read the ruling?

Basically the way I read the ruling. Soldiers who are seeking to resist going to war got a lot of bad advice or made a bad decision by coming to Canada. They say there is significant legal recourse within the US and they didn’t explore this recourse. The ruling also states that 94% of those who refuse to serve in Iraq suffer little more than a less than honourable discharge.

The job of the Refugee board isn’t to make political decisions. It’s to apply the law and in this case it’s obvious the law can be clearly applied.

IMHO the War Resister Movement needs to change it’s tactics, make soldiers avail themselves to the tools are their disposal. It should also discourage people from coming to Canada, as it will just raise the odds of stiffer prosecution.

Basically the refugee board said “Soldiers who don’t want to serve in Iraq, have significant legal recourse and protection within the American military legal framework. It’s not Canada’s refugee board’s job to pass judgement on American foreign policy.”

If we want to accept deserters, we have to change public opinion to get the political impetus for such a decision.

The refusal of an illegal orderwasn't the issue in fron the board.

[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: Guêpe ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 09 May 2007 10:21 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have read the ruling. I also argued the case in court. The question of "illegal war" was definitely before the Court.

The Court REFUSED TO ANSWER that question, even though the lower court had "certified" it as being "not free from doubt".

Instead of answering, they simply said that the objectors should go back and seek protection from the American system, even though it is very clear that, in the American system, ONLY THE PRESIDENT, and not the Courts, may make a decision about whether a war is illegal or not.

So, the remedy offered is for the soldiers to go back to the U.S. and see what George Bush says about the war being illegal.

That;s why the case is being appealed.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 09 May 2007 10:42 AM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post
I'm finding it really hard to have sympathy for deserters in a volunteer army.

These people knew the kind of military they were joining when they signed up. They do not deserve a soft landing in Canada because they changed their minds. Moreso in regards to Soldiers who actually deployed to Iraq - They are war criminals.

The rest of us don't always have the luxury of avoiding the consequences of making bad decisions - Which is why it's important not to make bad decisions. These men, who wilfully shook hands with the devil, should be no different.

In addition, by accepting these deserters as refugees, we're acting as a pressure-release valve for failing American policy. By offering an easy-out, an opportunity is lost to have them participate directly in American-based anti-war effort.

It's clear that people are trying to do the right thing by supporting these deserters - But to my mind, it does not encourage reform, it delays it.

[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 09 May 2007 11:55 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Legless-Marine:
I'm finding it really hard to have sympathy for deserters in a volunteer army.

These people knew the kind of military they were joining when they signed up. They do not deserve a soft landing in Canada because they changed their minds. Moreso in regards to Soldiers who actually deployed to Iraq - They are war criminals.

The rest of us don't always have the luxury of avoiding the consequences of making bad decisions - Which is why it's important not to make bad decisions. These men, who wilfully shook hands with the devil, should be no different.

In addition, by accepting these deserters as refugees, we're acting as a pressure-release valve for failing American policy. By offering an easy-out, an opportunity is lost to have them participate directly in American-based anti-war effort.

It's clear that people are trying to do the right thing by supporting these deserters - But to my mind, it does not encourage reform, it delays it.

[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]


Arguably they should have known, but I really doubt many of "these people knew the kind of military they were joining".

The US has perhaps the most heavily indoctrinated sense of nationalism in the world (even having schoolchildren pledge allegiance to a flag every day is creepily Stalinist). Part of this indoctrination is the notion that what their military does is for a moral "good"--a notion reinforced endlessly by the mainstream press.

It is seldom an easy thing to desert an army.
I doubt that many of them would say to themselves when they signed up: "Well, if I don't like it I can always leave my country for good and avoid prison".

Additionally, the consequences of their "bad decision" to join does not affect them alone but the people in the country they illegally occupy.

I don't think having the only option of prison for NOT continuing with criminal activity is a humane or productive approach.

But the issue is really a dead one because Canadian government officials are so happy in Dick Cheney's Chocolate Factory that they will never change.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 09 May 2007 01:24 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm finding it really hard to have sympathy for deserters in a volunteer army.
These people knew the kind of military they were joining when they signed up. They do not deserve a soft landing in Canada because they changed their minds. Moreso in regards to Soldiers who actually deployed to Iraq - They are war criminals.

Well, if you really believe that those who went to Iraq are "war criminals" how could you possibly believe that those who refused to go are wrong ?

Presumably you understand that no one is obliged to become a war criminal, whether they volunteered or not.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 09 May 2007 01:29 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not to mention that the word "volunteer" is shakey in the context of this war, since the soldiers are rotated and shipped back quicker and longer for tours of "duty". How can it be volunteer if it is a seemingly endless war? You are no longer volunteering. You are now forced to go back. The Bush admin. gives new meaning to the word volunteer n'est pas?
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 09 May 2007 01:38 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The status of "volunteer" is actually quite mythical in this war.

For example, suppose you joined the National Guard because you wanted to help when hurricanes strike.

You might be told that you could be called up in case of a national emergncy.

But lo and behold, on September 13, 2001, Bush declared that, due to the Al Quaeda attack on the U.S., everyone was called up, and forced to invade Iraq .

Which had nothing to do with the 9-11 emergency.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 09 May 2007 02:00 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
The status of "volunteer" is actually quite mythical in this war.

For example, suppose you joined the National Guard because you wanted to help when hurricanes strike.

You might be told that you could be called up in case of a national emergncy.

But lo and behold, on September 13, 2001, Bush declared that, due to the Al Quaeda attack on the U.S., everyone was called up, and forced to invade Iraq .

Which had nothing to do with the 9-11 emergency.


Jeff

You correct about members of the Nation Guard however are not most of the deserters in Canada in members of the regular army?

If they are members of the regular army they should have known about their commitments to military. Therefore they are volunteered for overseas deployments and military operations.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 09 May 2007 02:56 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
About half of the thirty plus I know about are national guard.

Some others served their six years, and then were "stop-lossed", which means that they just call you right back up again after your contract is over, because of "national emergency".

Finally, just because someone volunteers for the Army in a real way does not mean that they are volunteering for illegal activity.

What's the point of calling it "illegal" if you go to jail when you DON'T do it?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 09 May 2007 04:55 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Have to admit I've changed my opinion over time about US war resisters coming to Canada. Originally I was against it, due to the fact that I had a somewhat undeveloped perception that if all people of conscience within the US were allowed to gain santuary elsewhere, then just the boneheads would be left. The natural assumption being that change must come from within, by disenfranchised people willing to stick their necks out. However I suppose that humanitarian concerns must override any thoughts of leaving these people in the grip of a bordering warlike nation consisting mainly of far right reactionaries with a mis-aligned sense of conscience and scruples.
From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 09 May 2007 08:32 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
The status of "volunteer" is actually quite mythical in this war.

Please don't make me explain the difference between a conscript and a volunteer military.

quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

For example, suppose you joined the National Guard because you wanted to help when hurricanes strike.

That's an unrealistic expectation, considering both history, and the job description.

Once you voluntarily sign up, you don't get to cherrypick assignments.

[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 09 May 2007 08:36 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post
Double post - deleted.

[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 09 May 2007 08:42 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

Well, if you really believe that those who went to Iraq are "war criminals" how could you possibly believe that those who refused to go are wrong ?


Because I do not think in binary terms.


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 09 May 2007 08:48 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
Not to mention that the word "volunteer" is shakey in the context of this war, since the soldiers are rotated and shipped back quicker and longer for tours of "duty". How can it be volunteer if it is a seemingly endless war? You are no longer volunteering. You are now forced to go back. The Bush admin. gives new meaning to the word volunteer n'est pas?

Caveat emptor, n'est-ce pas?

(n'oubliez pas de lire les petites mots)


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 09 May 2007 09:02 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The natural assumption being that change must come from within, by disenfranchised people willing to stick their necks out. However I suppose that humanitarian concerns must override any thoughts of leaving these people in the grip of a bordering warlike nation consisting mainly of far right reactionaries with a mis-aligned sense of conscience and scruples.[/QB]


My greater concern is for the people of Iraq, and I do not mind re-feeding some defecting soldiers back into the American war machine in the hopes of gumming up the machinery.

These soldiers are not innocent victims. It is acceptable to sacrifice them at the alter of their own war, in the hopes of ending it.

If Canada makes it clear that we will not accept deserters, soldiers will be forced into other options. Instead of withdrawing to spend their time fishing in the Okanagan, they will be forced to stay in their own units, where they may eventually frag their peers. Others with injuries will remain in the US, where they will be able to add their vetran weight to the Antiwar movement. Legitimate war resisters, instead of fading into Canadian obscurity, will be jailed, and become rallying points for communities against the war.

Every deserter or resister we accept in Canada is an anti-war chess piece we withdraw from a strategic position.


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 09 May 2007 09:36 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Legless-Marine:
My greater concern is for the people of Iraq, and I do not mind re-feeding some defecting soldiers back into the American war machine in the hopes of gumming up the machinery.

These soldiers are not innocent victims. It is acceptable to sacrifice them at the alter of their own war, in the hopes of ending it.
...
Every deserter or resister we accept in Canada is an anti-war chess piece we withdraw from a strategic position.


Spoken like a true psychopath.

People are just pawns in the service of your lofty idea. Feed 'em into the machine. Sacrifice them at the alter [sic] of "their own war", even though it is not their war, and they want no part of it. Pursuit of some overall strategic goal with complete lack of empathy for individual people, and no concern about the actual impact on lives.

It is interesting that you, ostensibly some kind of anti-war activist, would share that same general outlook with both the Bush administration geniuses who started a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people, and terrorists who do things like flying planes into buildings.

Such an incredibly diverse group.

[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 09 May 2007 09:38 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Albireo:
Spoken like a true psychopath.

That's a cheap personal attack.

If attacking my state of mind hasn't taxed your resources, would you care to offer a counterpoint to my ideas?


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pepper-Pot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13391

posted 09 May 2007 10:04 PM      Profile for Pepper-Pot        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Legless-Marine:


My greater concern is for the people of Iraq, and I do not mind re-feeding some defecting soldiers back into the American war machine in the hopes of gumming up the machinery.

These soldiers are not innocent victims. It is acceptable to sacrifice them at the alter of their own war, in the hopes of ending it.

If Canada makes it clear that we will not accept deserters, soldiers will be forced into other options. Instead of withdrawing to spend their time fishing in the Okanagan, they will be forced to stay in their own units, where they may eventually frag their peers. Others with injuries will remain in the US, where they will be able to add their vetran weight to the Antiwar movement. Legitimate war resisters, instead of fading into Canadian obscurity, will be jailed, and become rallying points for communities against the war.

Every deserter or resister we accept in Canada is an anti-war chess piece we withdraw from a strategic position.


I see a sentiment (in the above words) viewing soldiers as pawns.The military-industrial-prison-pharmaceutical complex (which *initiates* war plans, manipulations and desires) TREATS them as such.Sacrificable pawns in the scheme of grand pursuits whether that be Manifest Destiny (via Elitist and Conspiratorial Authoritarian Capitalism) or invasion of adjacent countries (via Elitist Authoritarian Communism).

But the soldiers on the frontlines are not the primary orchestrators, and they are indeed human.Many are simply shallow thinkers with a desire to combat *perceived* evil threats and injustice around the world.

If you and the war-promoters can stop seeing humans (of any profession) as game pawns, society and the world at large (which includes EVERY single individual) will benefit.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 09 May 2007 10:07 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Legless-Marine:
That's a cheap personal attack.
Ah, so now things matter on a personal level. Real progress there.

I meant psychopathic in the way that you talk about using people, even at the cost of lives, with a complete lack of empathy -- viewing people as chess pieces to be sacrificed. You oppose the war, so you want to take war resisters who also oppose the war, "re-feed" them "back into the American war machine" in the vague hope that it will help to end the war. Even if they will be sent back to Iraq to kill or be killed. Your "ideas" are barely coherent, so they are very difficult to rebut.

[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 20 October 2008 07:32 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is absolutely no justification in objecting to war resisters right to sanctuary solely because a military is a voluntary force. The rules of war apply equally to wars fought by conscripts and those fought with volunteers: there is no justifiable distinction between the two kinds of forces. That many object to war after joining the military is not surprising. The simple fact of military training is that it teaches those who were just recently civilians how to kill. Military training dehumanizes the enemy. The reality is that in contemporary warfare about 90 per cent of casualties are innocent civilians. The latter, in and of itself, makes modern warfare indefensible! “Good” wars are not wars that target civilians and imprison the innocent and subject the innocent to torture! The wars that war resisters object to are wars of aggression. Resisters deserve sanctuary! - Source

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 20 October 2008 11:45 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm kind of on the fence about this. It's nice to provide refuge for American servicepeople who feel they were given illegal orders, but at the same time, that's not really what our refugee program is for. There's limited resources and it's better to use them for people whose lives are in danger rather than people who will receive a jail sentence and a dishonourable discharge.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 October 2008 03:47 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We are more than wealthy enough here in Canada to be able to provide for anyone who enters our borders. Only the ridiculous notion that gumming up the immigration works is a good idea has kept our refugee system from working as intended - swiftly, efficiently and compassionately.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 21 October 2008 08:04 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How can anyone imagine an American war resister as a burdensome immigrant? Many have skills, all speak one of the languages of our country fluently - surely they are amongst the easiest to integrate into Canadian society.

I've never heard that the vietnam-era resisters created any notable economic burden, as an example.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420

posted 27 October 2008 08:58 AM      Profile for statica   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First off, we will hear today (Monday) from the Federal Court which will decide whether US war resister, Matt Lowell, will be deported on October 28th. He joined the army at 17, straight out of highschool, now works in the IT sector, has lived and paid taxes for over two years.

(there is actually a rally this afternoon from 4-6pm at Queen and University)

Patrick Hart had also received a deportation order to leave Canada with his wife and child by Oct 30/08, but that was temporary stayed until the new year as a series of court challenges and appeals work their way through the Federal court system (on behalf of Joshua Key and Corey Glass, etc)

The reason for these stays is the introduction of new evidence regarding immigration law in their Humanitarian and Compassionate ground and PRRA (to decide deportation orders) hearings that war resisters will be harshly punished if forcibly returned to the United States to stand trial.

This new evidence stems from the cases of 1: Robin Long and 2: James Burmeister.


1:Robin Long was arrested in BC and deported back to the United States. On August 22, he was sentenced to 15 months in prison and received a “dishonourable” discharge (which is the equivalent to a felony conviction: which means it will be almost impossible for him to find work in the US, plus he is now separated from his son unless he can get a pardon to visit Canada again)


2: James Burmeister was injured in Iraq and was in a hospital in Germany for head trauma injuries. There he was told he would have to redeploy and return from a German hospital back to Iraq. He fled to Canada. He voluntarily returned to the US in March 2008 and was immediately thrown into pre-trial confinement.


Despite voluntarily returning to the US and pleading guilty to his charges, James was sentenced to 9 months and received a bad conduct discharge (=felony conviction).


Both men were charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice Articles 85 and 86, which deal with AWOL cases and desertion.


First, consider this, these men are being put in jail for refusing to kill.

Consider also, some of these men and woman seeking refuge here in Canada have served multiple tours of duty and are resisting against the US military's Stop-Loss policy, which allows the President of the US to indefinately extend a soldier's tour of duty. It has been called a "back-door draft".

Now there is an added punishment for resisters tried in the US that relates to their speaking out against the President and against the Iraq war.

In the cases of both Robin and James, they had both participated in public events of protest against the US military and Bush. Speaking out in such a way is illegal under Uniform Code of Military Justice, for example Article 88 which forbids officers from criticizing their president.

It’s this trend of excessive punishment which the defense lawyers representing the war resisters here are using to try and stop the deportations in Federal court.

For example, in the case of James, the military “prosecution” team used evidence of his speaking out at public events and joining meetings/organizations against the war to prove their case that the maximum punishment possible was warrented.


These types of rulings will definitely affect other war resisters who are treated by the military courts if they were forced back to the US. Robin is the first case of a deportation.


And just to give a little bit of background.

There was a June 3rd motion in CND Parliament that passed (137-110) a motion allowing war resisters to stay in Canada, proposed by Olivia Chow and the NDP. Harper has refused to implement this motion.

During the Veitnam war, between 50,000 and 80,000 “draft dodgers” sought refugee status in Canada as Trudeau claimed that “Canada should be a haven against militarism”.

Canada has a tradition of accepting desenters, from the United Empire Loyalists to slaves through the underground railroad to soldiers from the US civil war.

Canada legally follows the Nurember Principles, and principal 4 argues that soldiers or officers have the right to refuse orders which they consider illegal. In the case of Iraq, in 2004, the UN declared the US invasion into Iraq an illegal war.

Let us remember that the Iraq War as a war that Canadians forced PM Jean Chrétien to abstain from. 82% of Canadians currently oppose the war in Iraq.

According to the War Resister Support Campaign (WRSC), 64% of Canadians support the war resisters’ right to remain here

Desertion rates from the US military are up 80% since the conflict began and are at their highest since 1980. I’ve been told my numerous neo-cons, “what would happen if none of our soldiers came to fight (the Iraq war)?”

Well, that’s the point, ain’t it?

It's like that Rage song, "it has to start somewhere..."

to read more about the NDP and the June 3rd motion in Parliament: Historic vote in Parliament for war resisters

for more information on the campaign, check out:
War Resister Support Campaign

Feel free to PM me also if you want more info on the campaign, meeting times, public events and then I'll send you an email back.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: statica ]


From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 27 October 2008 09:04 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pepper-Pot:
As Charles Rangel suggested ? Only if the media was putting the cameras on the soldiers dead bodies and beaming those zoomed graphic shots back to the States.

I recently saw some footage of the Vietnam war delivered by the freelancing Journalists at the time, and thought how sterile and censored the media images currently are.The 1972 cameraman was running alongside a wounded soldier as he was being carried off the battlefield by medics, blood everywhere, and the eyes of the obviously deceased young soldier indicating the price 1 side pays in war.

Ufiltered footage of what the other side (innocent civilians : men , women & children in Iraq & Afghanistan) go through as they are blown to bits also has to be beamed directly to news watchers here and in the States as well.


But the corporate conglomerate media (Fox, NBC and ABC are especially bad) is an entrenched part of the military-industrial complex, and they don't have a liking for unfiltered truth.


If you want to see the truth of this war I have two words:

Al Jazeera.

Spread the word...

[available for free at YouTube]


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 27 October 2008 09:15 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

Because they wanted the benefits of being in the military without having to fight?

That's pretty much the only logical reason I can think of IF they knew what they were getting themselves into. If they didn't know, why the hell not? Were they intentionally deceived? Are they just stupid? Why would they not know?

Really, the best possible thing to do for people who don't want to fight in a war is to STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM THE MILITARY in the first place.


Actually, recruiters have been caught, on camera, *lying* to potential recruits and assuring them they will not go to Iraq.

They also go to high schools in areas where the unemployment rate is high and tell these kids about free education, experience, working as peacekeepers etc.

This has been well documented on video sites.

Take into account that the US media is highly censored and propagandized. If you speak with many Americans they're highly discouraged from watching Al Jazeera, or BBC, documentaries etc. and told that such outside news sources are "commie", "American-hating" "biased" "whiny liberal propaganda".

By leaving the military, obviously they lose any accrued benefits and subject themselves to military censure.

If we, as a country, agree this war is immoral and illegal, why would we not protect those who come to us for sanctuary?


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420

posted 27 October 2008 09:41 AM      Profile for statica   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

Because they wanted the benefits of being in the military without having to fight?

That's pretty much the only logical reason I can think of IF they knew what they were getting themselves into. If they didn't know, why the hell not? Were they intentionally deceived? Are they just stupid? Why would they not know?

Really, the best possible thing to do for people who don't want to fight in a war is to STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM THE MILITARY in the first place.


1: For many of the resisters in Canada, they joined before S11 or just after S11 even past 2002 when they (as they fully admit to) believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and there was definite link between Al Qaeda and Hussein.

So they admit to believing these falsehoods. Does this make them stupider than the rest of the US population who also believed what their own gov't was consistently telling them?

As for Corey Glass, he joined the National Guard and was told in no way/shape/form would he be sent to Iraq since he was to do such domestic assignments as hurricane and tornado relief. He was sent to Iraq.

Phil McDowell was told when he signed up that he was signing up for one tour of duty, but then he received Stop-Loss orders and would have been forced to redeploy after his contract ended (he had been discharged)

Another soldier (name not public) was completely willing to fight in Afghanistan and his original orders were for Afghanistan, but then he was deployed instead or Iraq, a war he believed to be illegal and wanted no part of.

quote:
Because they wanted the benefits of being in the military without having to fight?

Some of these men and woman have been in the military for years with multiple deployments, but because of such policies as Stop-Loss, they were told they could not leave the military. They have fought to the benefit of their country. They simply want to stop fighting and be discharged from the military, or they don't want to fight in an illegal and unjust war fabricated on false pretences and commit Nuremberg Principle 4 illegal infractions.


From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 27 October 2008 10:11 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by statica:

Some of these men and woman have been in the military for years with multiple deployments, but because of such policies as Stop-Loss, they were told they could not leave the military.


I think this [stop-loss] is an important point.

If I sign a contract to will work for an employer for a given period of time and am free to leave after that time--then the employer uses the force of the state to keep me working against my will...

...there's an old-fashioned word that adequately describes my employment situation:

Slavery.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 October 2008 04:44 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or, at the very least, "conscription" or "draft".

In which case, that demolishes the usual "They volunteered, they weren't drafted" argument.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420

posted 28 October 2008 06:26 AM      Profile for statica   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Salut! War resister Matt Lowell has received a stay of deportation!! That's all the info I have right now, just wanted to share the great news. Thanks to Alyssa Manning for her great work and to everyone for their support of Matt, especially the London campaigners and resisters!
From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 October 2008 08:08 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Congrats!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 28 October 2008 09:31 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by statica:
Salut! War resister Matt Lowell has received a stay of deportation!! That's all the info I have right now, just wanted to share the great news. Thanks to Alyssa Manning for her great work and to everyone for their support of Matt, especially the London campaigners and resisters!

EPIC WIN!

w00t


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Prometheus30
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15633

posted 04 November 2008 04:22 AM      Profile for Prometheus30     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TVParkdale:

Actually, recruiters have been caught, on camera, *lying* to potential recruits and assuring them they will not go to Iraq.

They also go to high schools in areas where the unemployment rate is high and tell these kids about free education, experience, working as peacekeepers etc.


As much as I hate to admit it ya you're right. Some recruiters outright lie to get people to serve in the military which is wrong wrong wrong.

I was a great recruiter. I was honest, didn't toe any party lines and didn't pull any punches. I convinced some people to join who were sitting on the fence and I pursuaded others not to join who I thought would be getting in over their head.

Lying to kids to get them to join is dishonourable.


From: ottawa | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 04 November 2008 08:01 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
...so is participating in an illegal war based on blatant lies and driven by shadowy objectives.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Prometheus30
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15633

posted 04 November 2008 08:46 AM      Profile for Prometheus30     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I love the illegal war mantra.

Which war are you talking about, Iraq or Afghanistan?
Who decided the latter war was illegal? The UN?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Liberals sent Canadian soldiers (under equiped) to Afghanistan in the first place. Should we put he Liberal party on trial for war crimes?

I hear you about the blatent lies and shadowy objectives!
I'm in Afghanistan right now. I thought I came here to protect the citizens of Afghanistan and help them get back on their feet and keep the Taliban regeme out. All I'm doing is guarding oil piplines, bombing villages and poisoning wells with depleted uranium

[ 04 November 2008: Message edited by: Prometheus30 ]


From: ottawa | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 04 November 2008 10:19 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I presumed you weren't an idiot; perhaps you could do me the same courtesy?

We are discussing American war resisters. In every case I know of, they are avoiding the war in Iraq.

[ 04 November 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 November 2008 10:22 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Iraq, you mean?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 04 November 2008 10:27 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Prometheus30:
I'm in Afghanistan right now. I thought I came here to protect the citizens of Afghanistan and help them get back on their feet and keep the Taliban regeme out. All I'm doing is guarding oil piplines, bombing villages and poisoning wells with depleted uranium

If you are truly there and doing that, why are you not refusing to participate in crimes against humanity?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 04 November 2008 10:36 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, Iraq.

I caught the mistake almost immediately, but got distracted in mid-correction by the bad cat who was up knocking things off the piano...


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Prometheus30
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15633

posted 05 November 2008 03:19 AM      Profile for Prometheus30     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An attempt at sarcasm on my part, poorly delivered apparently

I realize here I am the enemy. A soldier. To add further insult to injury I believe that we are helping the people of Afghanistan.
Hell I fully believe there are some here who would assault or even murder me if they could get away with it simply because I'm a soldier serving overseas. Sounds harsh sure but man reading some of the comments here....wow, scary stuff guys.

But back to Afghanistan. To the week, I returned 2 years later and have seen some good improvements. I can't comment on all the conspiracy theories people have, the secret pipelines being built, bush setting up a summer home etc..
To quote hitch hikers guide to the galaxy, my eyes and my ears are my universe. In my little corner I've seen a lot of positive changes and have spoken with locals who have noticed an increase in their quality of life.
Sometimes I just can't wrap my head around someones opinion when they base it off of what they are told in the media and not what they see with their own eyes or experience themselves. Blindly accepting facts from the media (or even from youtube as I've seen often enough) seems crazy to me.
If reporters write a story on me and can't even get my name right, when face to face I tell him or her my name and spell it out and they write it down, what other errors are they making along the way?

As far as the war resister, perhaps unlike many of my peers I'm not ready to instantly disclose these individuals as cowards and suggest all manner of physical punishments on them asyoung soldiers often do in perhaps a misplaced sense of outrage.
Some of them are just scared and want to back out of their contact (which IMO they should suffer penalties of a broken contract jail time epaying college money) and others I believe have either been tricked into joining (a la comments on recruiting) or have seem horrible horrible stuff and just cannot be privy to that stuff anymore-lest they suffer psychologically and physically.

All the spotlight war resistors seem to be from Iraq. Are there actually ones refusing to deploy to Afghanistan? I had assumed there had to be at least some but I may be wrong.
Everyone's story is different right? Cheering on these resistors without hearing their case or backround to me is as narrow minded as not voting for someone because their black or a muslim or pro peace.


From: ottawa | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 05 November 2008 09:29 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Prometheus30:
An attempt at sarcasm on my part, poorly delivered apparently

I realize here I am the enemy. A soldier. To add further insult to injury I believe that we are helping the people of Afghanistan.
Hell I fully believe there are some here who would assault or even murder me if they could get away with it simply because I'm a soldier serving overseas. Sounds harsh sure but man reading some of the comments here....wow, scary stuff guys.

But back to Afghanistan. To the week, I returned 2 years later and have seen some good improvements. I can't comment on all the conspiracy theories people have, the secret pipelines being built, bush setting up a summer home etc..
To quote hitch hikers guide to the galaxy, my eyes and my ears are my universe. In my little corner I've seen a lot of positive changes and have spoken with locals who have noticed an increase in their quality of life.
Sometimes I just can't wrap my head around someones opinion when they base it off of what they are told in the media and not what they see with their own eyes or experience themselves. Blindly accepting facts from the media (or even from youtube as I've seen often enough) seems crazy to me.
If reporters write a story on me and can't even get my name right, when face to face I tell him or her my name and spell it out and they write it down, what other errors are they making along the way?

As far as the war resister, perhaps unlike many of my peers I'm not ready to instantly disclose these individuals as cowards and suggest all manner of physical punishments on them asyoung soldiers often do in perhaps a misplaced sense of outrage.
Some of them are just scared and want to back out of their contact (which IMO they should suffer penalties of a broken contract jail time epaying college money) and others I believe have either been tricked into joining (a la comments on recruiting) or have seem horrible horrible stuff and just cannot be privy to that stuff anymore-lest they suffer psychologically and physically.

All the spotlight war resistors seem to be from Iraq. Are there actually ones refusing to deploy to Afghanistan? I had assumed there had to be at least some but I may be wrong.
Everyone's story is different right? Cheering on these resistors without hearing their case or backround to me is as narrow minded as not voting for someone because their black or a muslim or pro peace.


Prometheus30:

Any war resistors I know of are refusing to go back to Iraq, not Afghanistan.

That aside, Afghanistan is another problem altogether.

The problem with *any* invasion is that is exactly that--invasion.

I know you believe you are doing the right thing, that some areas may be improved by your presence and perhaps, in a small way, that's correct.

The larger picture is however, very different.

It's not just the problem that any military invades another country has that alone to contend with. Afghanis have been brutally subjugated to a number of regimes now and no one has ever successfully managed to stop Afghanis from engaging in wars of attrition when this happens. No one has every managed to successfully "conquer" them in a ground war.

The Taliban was being eroded inside and out, before Afghanistan was invaded. Support had dropped to less than 40%. Now it is steadily increasing.

Then there's the utter incompetency of the bureaucracy which has nothing to do with your position there but has much to do with why soldiers take the brunt of the hatred.

Let's look at historical precedent, shall we?

Wars of liberation are inevitably followed by civil war. This was taking its historical course with the Taliban and the moderates fighting for power in Afghanistan before this invasion. It sucks, it's dangerous, it's deadly, but it is the historical nature of the beast.

By re-invading after the Russians left, this course of [for want of a better term] natural process was again disrupted thus giving the moderates the same target as the Taliban--the invaders.

If we want to look in psychological terms, the Russians traumatized Afghanistan, pulled out, the Taliban traumatized it's own citizens then the Americans traumatized them again. This is generations of violence, bombing and economic insecurity.

Now, a nice fella like yourself comes along from the NATO forces. No matter what you do, you can't undo the generalized Afghani perception of you as "invader" since NATO is so firmly linked with the USA.

Anyone who deals with you, or allows you to be nice to them, is in essence, going to be targeted by their countrymen, as a collaborator and that's not an altogether unreasonable position. That person/village is going to have mixed feelings about your purpose. Trust is difficult to build and easy to shatter.

Canadian soldiers who reported rapes, violence and other horrors in Afghanistan were 'shut down'. Such Afghanis that witnessed these abuses, their rage must be exorbitant. Their have been numerous media reports of the USA paid mercenaries getting away with, literally, murder.

No one can MAKE a nation *want* peace, economic security or religious tolerance. A nation, like a person or a community has to have enough time without massive trauma to come to that place. They have to be able to think clearly and they can't do that when they're feeling violated. When chronically violated, most people WILL retaliate, even when it's not in their own best interest.

I wish you the best in your struggle there. I don't envy being in your position but must respect you for being courageous enough to try.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 November 2008 10:02 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Prometheus30:
I realize here I am the enemy. A soldier. To add further insult to injury I believe that we are helping the people of Afghanistan.
Hell I fully believe there are some here who would assault or even murder me if they could get away with it simply because I'm a soldier serving overseas. Sounds harsh sure but man reading some of the comments here....wow, scary stuff guys.

Bull shit, how about you put up some of the stuff you believe would indicate anyone here would assualt you, let alone murder you because you are a soldier. I call this a smear, and/or a huge injection of self delusion.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 05 November 2008 10:14 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hear, hear! BTW, this is the kind of "poor-me" reversal that wife batterers and their advocates put out all the time. It has become par for the course that people in a dominant position paint themselves as aggrieved.
Meanwhile, in a repetition of last July's Western forces attack on Afghan civilians ... "An airstrike by U.S.-led forces caused a large number of civilian casualties after it hit a wedding party in Kandahar Province in southern Afghanistan, Afghan officials said Wednesday. The casualties included many women and children, the officials said." (International Herald Tribune, Nov. 5, 2008)

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 05 November 2008 10:29 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
remind & martin:

What is it with you guys?

You take out-of-context statements then proceed to write short messages that have NOTHING to do with greater discussion at hand thus gumming up any real discussion that might be happening.

I've seen this in a number of interesting threads you have managed to shut down with your absurd "quipping".

It's called "obstructionist".


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 05 November 2008 10:37 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Call it what you may, TVParkdale, I think remind and I accurately addressed the tenor of Prometheus whatever's position.
He did write "All I'm doing is guarding oil piplines, bombing villages and poisoning wells with depleted uranium", and I am thankful for that. I wish he would come back and try to get that published under his name.
But his whine that some of us are out to murder him is totally inappropriate.
BTW, I am not too impressed either with your own attempt to make excuses for Afghani resistance: "(...)No one can MAKE a nation *want* peace, economic security or religious tolerance. A nation, like a person or a community has to have enough time without massive trauma to come to that place.(...)"

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 November 2008 10:44 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TVParkdale:
I wish you the best in your struggle there. I don't envy being in your position but must respect you for being courageous enough to try.
Yeah, nice anti-war position, TVP! Not!

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 05 November 2008 11:06 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Call it what you may, I think remind and I accurately addressed the tenor of Prometheus whatever's position.
He did write "All I'm doing is guarding oil piplines, bombing villages and poisoning wells with depleted uranium", and I am thankful for that. I wish he would come back and try to get that published under his name.
But his whine that some of us are out to murder him is totally inappropriate.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


He also explained that he was being sarcastic/ironic in that statement about oil pipelines etc.

If you believe his statement that someone is "out to murder him" is over-the-top then simply say that and why you believe your position to be an accurate assessment.

Or try asking why he'd be that worried?

Cutting off the discussion by accusing him of being akin to a wife-beater is just as much or more, over-the-top. It's not relevant either, to the majority of the points he expressed.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 November 2008 11:17 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No TVP, the burden is upon him to provide proof of his smearing assertations that someone here would be happy to assault or murder him because he is a soldier. That level of accusation requires proof and supported quotes. It is not up to us, the accused, to rebutt his spurious claims of something so heinious and try to sooth his alleged victimhood.

Moreover, there is more actual evidence indicating that what he tried to later say was sarcastic, is in fact very close to the truth.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 05 November 2008 11:31 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Yeah, nice anti-war position, TVP! Not!

Really? Why do soldiers go to war?

Because the state sends them.

They have a job to do. Most are not from privileged families, with paid educations, good skill sets and qualified for high-paying jobs with benefits.

People do what they do to SURVIVE in most cases.

Many are from poverty-ridden neighbourhoods where just putting food on the table is a day-to-day struggle.

I refuse to play judge and jury against someone for trying to survive with the only skills they can sell, in many cases.

Saying soldiers are responsible for war is like saying that factory workers are responsible for the corporate agenda.

I find it remarkable that those who have always had enough to eat, been housed adequately, are educated and skilled can be so deliberately blind as to why someone with nothing left but their body to sell to the state can blame them for trying to survive, get an education and build a life.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 05 November 2008 11:36 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems to me that when I watch APTN I see more ads for the Canadian Forces than on other TV channels. IMO that is a deliberate strategy to target our community with the highest unemployment and fewest opportunities.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 05 November 2008 11:37 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
No TVP, the burden is upon him to provide proof of his smearing assertations that someone here would be happy to assault or murder him because he is a soldier. That level of accusation requires proof and supported quotes. It is not up to us, the accused, to rebutt his spurious claims of something so heinious and try to sooth his alleged victimhood.

Moreover, there is more actual evidence indicating that what he tried to later say was sarcastic, is in fact very close to the truth.


^^^^^^^Sarcasm AGAIN.

Then why not, in your first post, simply quote his assertion and tell him "PROVE IT".

Of course, that would entail a level of respect to not only Prometheus, but the rest of the board.

A level I believe, that is lacking in a number of your posts.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 November 2008 11:37 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, you would prefer that we respect them for their "courage" and wish them well in their quest to kill and destroy while making sneering verbal attacks on the folks back home who are actively fighting against the war and the truly courageous soldiers who refuse to commit war crimes.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 05 November 2008 11:43 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
It seems to me that when I watch APTN I see more ads for the Canadian Forces than on other TV channels. IMO that is a deliberate strategy to target our community with the highest unemployment and fewest opportunities.

I'm not surprised. See post about why I can't blame soldiers for joining.

After all, many Vietnam, Korean and WWII vets joined AIM.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 05 November 2008 11:53 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TVParkdale:
I refuse to play judge and jury against someone for trying to survive with the only skills they can sell, in many cases.
Saying soldiers are responsible for war is like saying that factory workers are responsible for the corporate agenda. I find it remarkable that those who have always had enough to eat, been housed adequately, are educated and skilled can be so deliberately blind as to why someone with nothing left but their body to sell to the state can blame them for trying to survive, get an education and build a life.

I've always had this view as well. It's what they do or don't do while in the service to the state that counts IMO. Guilt by association under the circumstances that you outlined, I've always viewed this as the mantra of the elite.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 05 November 2008 11:54 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Then why not, in your first post, simply quote his assertion and tell him "PROVE IT".

In your haste to jump all over remind in yet another thread you perhaps didn't actually read her post maybe...?

quote:
Bull shit, how about you put up some of the stuff you believe would indicate anyone here would assualt you, let alone murder you because you are a soldier. I call this a smear, and/or a huge injection of self delusion.

TVParkdale you need to get over yourself.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 05 November 2008 11:56 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Yes, you would prefer that we respect them for their "courage" and wish them well in their quest to kill and destroy while making sneering verbal attacks on the folks back home who are actively fighting against the war and the truly courageous soldiers who refuse to commit war crimes.

"Sneering". Would you like to explain exactly what I said that could be viewed as "sneering"?

Now, onto what you've said.

I believe in targeting the powers that are *responsible*.

Understanding is not either/or.

I have supported the war resisters as well.

Neither of these groups is responsible for starting or maintaining this war. Both are damaged by it.

Blaming the soldiers will not bring them home. It only serves the agenda of those who keep them there by increasing their level of shame so that it becomes "us" vs. "them".

You want to blame someone? Blame the governments and corporations who are benefiting from these conflicts.

Put your outrage where it belongs.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 05 November 2008 11:57 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

TVParkdale you need to get over yourself.


Ah, more sarcasm and belittling.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 05 November 2008 11:59 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:

I've always had this view as well. It's what they do or don't do while in the service to the state that counts IMO. Guilt by association under the circumstances that you outlined, I've always viewed this as the mantra of the elite.


Thank you. I can't blame people for trying to survive. I may not agree with them--but I can't blame them.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 05 November 2008 12:00 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Slumberjack, it is not because we stand up to the bullshit victimization claims of someone who alleges to be a soldier that our critique of the war machine is reducible to one of soldiers.
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 November 2008 12:05 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
M. Spector didn't say you were sneering, TVP, he said Prometheus30 was. And he was.

Prometheus, it is inappropriate for you to speculate that babblers would murder you if they could. If you continue to pull that kind of crap here, you will need to find another forum to post on.

remind made the point well. TVP, there is nothing wrong with babblers objecting to being characterized as people who would murder other babblers if they could.

By the same token, there was also no need for everyone else who agreed with remind to start piling on after the point had been made.

Maybe stop and think to yourself: "Is my only contribution to this thread going to be a post where I scold another babbler for doing something they shouldn't have in this thread, or to pile on when someone else has already raised an objection?" If the answer is yes, then maybe it's best not to bother, or to e-mail a moderator instead if you're that offended by it.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 November 2008 12:14 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TVParkdale:
why not, in your first post, simply quote his assertion and tell him "PROVE IT".
I did, and I also called bull shit, because that is what it is from any perspective.

quote:
Of course, that would entail a level of respect to not only Prometheus, but the rest of the board.
I have no respect for anyone who level murderous violent charges against against babblers.

quote:
A level I believe, that is lacking in a number of your posts.

Funny, I feel the same way about yours, only I lack the crass it takes to try and silence another's opinion by levelling such charges after being in a community less than a month.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 05 November 2008 12:17 PM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
M. Spector didn't say you were sneering, TVP, he said Prometheus30 was. And he was.

Well, it seemed directed to me [my quotes] so thank you for clarifying.

remind made the point well. TVP, there is nothing wrong with babblers objecting to being characterized as people who would murder other babblers if they could.


Frankly, I'd just like to see what Prometheus has to say.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 November 2008 12:32 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, if you just want to see what Prometheus has to say, then maybe leave off chastising other babblers for their behaviour and leave that to the moderators. You can always e-mail us if there's a problem.

remind, please just drop it now. We don't have to fight every single slight to the death, do we? Is it really that important?

Let's move on.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 November 2008 12:43 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, I was composing the rebuttal to TVP, and had to go answer the door, and then came back and posted it and had not had a chance to see any of the subsequent posts, including yours. As such, was not trying to carry on after you interceded, and next time I will check if there has been an intercession while I was away during the composing of a rebuttal post.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420

posted 05 November 2008 12:46 PM      Profile for statica   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Any war resistors I know of are refusing to go back to Iraq, not Afghanistan.


quote:
Francisco Juarez bristles at being labelled Canada's first Afghanistan war resister.

But the 35-year-old former army reserve member is proud to have turned his back on the military because he doesn't believe in the Afghan mission.


Former reservist refused to serve in Afghanistan

Video from Youtube:


From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 November 2008 12:47 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, sorry! I wondered afterwards whether we had maybe just cross-posted. But even so (and now I'm addressing everyone, remind, not you), I don't think these arguments have to drag on and on and on. In our constant attempts to always have the very, very last word, to leave no slight unanswered, these threads become 50 posts of back and forth bickering. Can't we all just take a breath and maybe every once in a while just ignore something that someone else says? Does it always have to go like that?

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 05 November 2008 12:53 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"I'm in control of my legs. Nobody can make me do this."
He refused to be the Universal Soldier kudos to him for his bravery.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420

posted 05 November 2008 12:59 PM      Profile for statica   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Thank you. I can't blame people for trying to survive. I may not agree with them--but I can't blame them.

I can't blame people for wanting others to survive...and I don't think you should be sent to prison and receive a felony conviction for NOT wanting to kill.


From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 05 November 2008 01:02 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A good note upon which to close this lengthy thread.
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca