Federal Court rules in favour of U.S. war resister


tay
+1
#1
On Friday February 1st, the Federal Court of Canada released a decision granting U.S. war resister Jules Tindungan a new hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). The Court found errors in the original IRB decision pertaining to issues which are at the heart of asylum claims by U.S. soldiers in Canada.

Mr. Tindungan is one of dozens of former U.S. soldiers who have sought asylum in Canada because of their objection to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tindungan refused to return to combat for the United States military in 2008 after serving a 15 month combat tour and seeing first-hand the breaches of the Geneva Conventions committed by U.S. forces.

Mr. Tindungan argued before the Refugee Board that he faces differential punishment in the U.S. because he has spoken out publicly against U.S. military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also argued that he would not get a fair trial if returned because the U.S. court-martial system is not an independent and impartial tribunal as required under Canadian and International law.

After reviewing Tindungan’s case, the Federal Court found that Tindungan “submitted voluminous documentary evidence from credible, third-party sources … that suggest that the U.S. has not complied with its international obligations”. However, the Refugee Board improperly ignored this evidence.

The Court further found that the U.S. court-martial system “fails to comply with basic fairness requirements found in Canadian and International Law”, therefore impacting whether Tindungan would receive a fair hearing if returned to the U.S.




War Resisters Support Campaign (external - login to view)
 
Machjo
#2
If his claim of violations of the Geneva convention is true, did he report this to his superiors? If not, why not? if he had a valid reason, then is he at least prepared to bring this to the International Court of Justice?

I'm willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt, but if his claim be true, then he should stand by it and walk the talk.
 
petros
+4
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

If his claim of violations of the Geneva convention is true, did he report this to his superiors? If not, why not? if he had a valid reason, then is he at least prepared to bring this to the International Court of Justice?

I'm willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt, but if his claim be true, then he should stand by it and walk the talk.

Jeepers man!!! Report that and get shot in the back in a friendly fire incident?

Great idea.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+3
#4
He probably should have thought a little more about what is expected of a soldier before he joined the army.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+5
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by tayView Post

On Friday February 1st, the Federal Court of Canada released a decision granting U.S. war resister Jules Tindungan a new hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). The Court found errors in the original IRB decision pertaining to issues which are at the heart of asylum claims by U.S. soldiers in Canada.
Mr. Tindungan is one of dozens of former U.S. soldiers who have sought asylum in Canada because of their objection to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tindungan refused to return to combat for the United States military in 2008 after serving a 15 month combat tour and seeing first-hand the breaches of the Geneva Conventions committed by U.S. forces.
Mr. Tindungan argued before the Refugee Board that he faces differential punishment in the U.S. because he has spoken out publicly against U.S. military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also argued that he would not get a fair trial if returned because the U.S. court-martial system is not an independent and impartial tribunal as required under Canadian and International law.
After reviewing Tindungan’s case, the Federal Court found that Tindungan “submitted voluminous documentary evidence from credible, third-party sources … that suggest that the U.S. has not complied with its international obligations”. However, the Refugee Board improperly ignored this evidence.
The Court further found that the U.S. court-martial system “fails to comply with basic...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Obviously, the Canadian Federal Court is staffed with idiots.

The dude joined the military, signed on the dotted line, and then decided he really didn't mean it.

Too bad.

His sentence in the US would be mild, it has been repeatedly for resisters. If they have cojones, and a REAL ethical problem with the actions of the US Military, they refuse their orders and take their medicine like a man.

If they are simply whiny bits of scum that suddenly decided it was all too hard, or they develop back trouble, they run to Canada, and we wind up spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars getting the scum removed.

Ship him back.

ASAP.
 
Machjo
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Jeepers man!!! Report that and get shot in the back in a friendly fire incident?

Great idea.

And that could be a valid reason. But once in Canada, what would be stopping him from now taking it to the ICJ? If his claim is true, then he can walk the talk and then we can consider giving him assylum.

Of course if his claim may true we should give him assylum; even a soldier should never be asked to comit war crimes. I'm just saying though that if he makes shuch a claim, and if he sincerely believes it to be true, then he should have no problems taking it to the ICJ. Right?
 
petros
+3
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

He probably should have thought a little more about what is expected of a soldier before he joined the army.

He/they did more than one round before heading to Canada. If he wasn't upto to soldiering, He would have came straight here before being deployed to A-Stan or Iraq more than once.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

And that could be a valid reason. But once in Canada, what would be stopping him from now taking it to the ICJ? If his claim is true, then he can walk the talk and then we can consider giving him assylum.

Of course if his claim may true we should give him assylum; even a soldier should never be asked to comit war crimes. I'm just saying though that if he makes shuch a claim, and if he sincerely believes it to be true, then he should have no problems taking it to the ICJ. Right?

He was outspoken about what happened.

Quote: Originally Posted by Opie

Mr. Tindungan argued before the Refugee Board that he faces differential
punishment in the U.S. because he has spoken out publicly against U.S. military
actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also argued that he would not get a fair
trial if returned because the U.S. court-martial system is not an independent
and impartial tribunal as required under Canadian and International law.

If nobody is listening complaining doesn't work.
Last edited by petros; Feb 4th, 2013 at 05:36 PM..
 
Spade
Free Thinker
+3
#8
There are men of conscience in the military.
 
wulfie68
No Party Affiliation
#9
The "Federal Court of Canada"? WTH is that? I'm not a lawyer but I haven't heard of it...
 
CDNBear
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

The "Federal Court of Canada"? WTH is that? I'm not a lawyer but I haven't heard of it...

Federal Court (Canada) - Home Page (external - login to view)
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

The "Federal Court of Canada"? WTH is that? I'm not a lawyer but I haven't heard of it...

You're not alone, I'll bet a lot of people haven't heard of it. Or they just assume mention of Federal Court means SCC. It doesn't make the big news headlines as often as SCC does, I don't think.
 
BaalsTears
#12
There is lots of American riff raff who will make their way to Canada in the coming years. It's virgin territory for riff raff.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

There are men of conscience in the military.

Yes.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+5
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTearsView Post

There is lots of American riff raff who will make their way to Canada in the coming years. It's virgin territory for riff raff.

We already have a few draft dodgers and deserters. They are productive members of society. What you call riff raff we call people of conscience.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+5
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

We already have a few draft dodgers and deserters. They are productive members of society. What you call riff raff we call people of conscience.

Difference between the Vietnam War and when they volunteer. Agree????????????????
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+5
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

He probably should have thought a little more about what is expected of a soldier before he joined the army.


You do have a valid point. But the USA has never hesitated to grant asylum to people for the same reason. I mentioned a long time ago that a friend of mine has a wife who defected from Israel's army and she was readily granted asylum. Therefore if the USA does it for others, then it shouldn't offend anyone when it is done to those who run form the USA military and its wars.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+2
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Difference between the Vietnam War and when they volunteer. Agree????????????????

War is hell, but I doubt any soldier were ready for the nightmare of Iraq or Afghanistan. I know one guy in this town who is in the reserve. The only reason he puts on a uniform is because he says he has women crawling all over him. If he was put into active duty he would crap his pants. I think a lot of people who went over there to kill brown people were severely disillusioned with the reality of it all. After all, Hollyweird makes it out to be so romantic and patriotic to wear a uniform. I have no qualms about deserters , as you may have noticed. I council anybody contemplating the military life to forget it.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+4
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Obviously, the Canadian Federal Court is staffed with idiots.

The dude joined the military, signed on the dotted line, and then decided he really didn't mean it.

Too bad.

His sentence in the US would be mild, it has been repeatedly for resisters. If they have cojones, and a REAL ethical problem with the actions of the US Military, they refuse their orders and take their medicine like a man.

If they are simply whiny bits of scum that suddenly decided it was all too hard, or they develop back trouble, they run to Canada, and we wind up spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars getting the scum removed.

Ship him back.

ASAP.

Colpy - Your rush to judgement is a little harsh considering you do not know the exact circumstances. Was this man asked to do things against the GC? Could those things be interpreted as war crimes? Would he be in a position to be the scapegoat if it was all found out? Does he just have a set of ethics and the balls to say no to his superiors? We don't really know.

Many who join the military find out it is not what they imagined and nothing like the recruiting commercials and posters, especially in a war situation.

I myself signed up in the 80s. I worked hard and trained harder (including jump school). I was promoted twice in 2 years. I was then asked to go to Bosnia as, shall we say, an investigator. While their I learned many things and saw many things most of which was sickening but when I reported to my superiors it was swept under the rug multiple times or redacted or even changed completely. I cannot give you details of who was involved and what went on for a few reasons but mainly because it is part of an agreement that allowed me to leave our forces early. I chose to leave early because I could not be a part of what was happening and live with myself. It took some doing but I managed to secure an early release without getting myself, and others, in the brig for a long period. To this day I have mixed feeling about the military, I am proud I joined and was successful but ashamed of the things I was a party to. It is not all black & white my friend and it is not at all like you see in the movies. The poor schlep in the article served 15 months overseas before he decided he could no longer be a part of it. His reasons seem valid to me and should not be judged to harshly without knowing what really happened.

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Difference between the Vietnam War and when they volunteer. Agree????????????????

That depends. Whether you refuse to serve against your will or refuse to serve because you cannot morally do things you know are illegal or inhumane doesn't matter, both are valid reasons.
 
tay
+4
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

He probably should have thought a little more about what is expected of a soldier before he joined the army.


He did.

He joined the Military to protect his country from threats from others, not attacking countries who were no threat to America...............
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Colpy - Your rush to judgement is a little harsh considering you do not know the exact circumstances. Was this man asked to do things against the GC? Could those things be interpreted as war crimes? Would he be in a position to be the scapegoat if it was all found out? Does he just have a set of ethics and the balls to say no to his superiors? We don't really know.
Many who join the military find out it is not what they imagined and nothing like the recruiting commercials and posters, especially in a war situation.
I myself signed up in the 80s. I worked hard and trained harder (including jump school). I was promoted twice in 2 years. I was then asked to go to Bosnia as, shall we say, an investigator. While their I learned many things and saw many things most of which was sickening but when I reported to my superiors it was swept under the rug multiple times or redacted or even changed completely. I cannot give you details of who was involved and what went on for a few reasons but mainly because it is part of an agreement that allowed me to leave our forces early. I chose to leave early because I could not be a part of what was happening and live with myself. It took some doing but I managed to secure an early release without getting myself, and others, in the brig for a long period. To this day I have mixed feeling about the military, I am proud I joined and was successful but ashamed of the things I was a party to. It is not all black & white...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Once again, if you have an ethical problem with what is going on, if you believe your orders are un lawful or so unethical you are unable to carry them out, then refuse your orders, and take your medicine.

That would earn them my respect.

Deserting and running to Canada earns my scorn.

And it is not even that difficult. The average resister in the USA is punished with considerably LESS than a year in jail, and a dishonourable discharge.

They don't shoot them any more.
 
petros
+5
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

You do have a valid point. But the USA has never hesitated to grant asylum to people for the same reason. I mentioned a long time ago that a friend of mine has a wife who defected from Israel's army and she was readily granted asylum. Therefore if the USA does it for others, then it shouldn't offend anyone when it is done to those who run form the USA military and its wars.

Hey hey hey. Don't be bringing logic and reality into this, this outrage!

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

then refuse your orders, and take your medicine..

Why is there medicine for doing what is right? Who is taking the medicine for the real ills of what is wrong?
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by tayView Post

He did.

He joined the Military to protect his country from threats from others, not attacking countries who were no threat to America...............

So you're saying 9/11 never happened?
 
gerryh
+7
#23  Top Rated Post
9/11........ right..... of course.... that explains Iraq.
 
Machjo
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

He/they did more than one round before heading to Canada. If he wasn't upto to soldiering, He would have came straight here before being deployed to A-Stan or Iraq more than once.

He was outspoken about what happened.

But by requiring him to take it to the ICJ first, then we're at least giving the US a chance to defend itself against his accusations. If it fails to prove conclusively that he'd never been asked to commit war crimes, then we give him assylum. At least then the US saves face in that he has failed to prove conclusively that it did ask him to do so, and he gets assylum if it fails to prove it didn/t each has a right to defend their claim.
 
earth_as_one
+3
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

He probably should have thought a little more about what is expected of a soldier before he joined the army.

Seeing and being ordered to commit war crimes probably came as a surprise. But some young people are naive. Volunteering to serve your country shouldn't turn anyone into an underpaid mercenary fighting for big oil interests. Any soldier who figured that out is welcome to Canada IMO.

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Difference between the Vietnam War and when they volunteer. Agree????????????????

Volunteering or conscription to serve your country has limitations, since just following orders has never been an excuse for committing war crimes or crimes against humanity. If this soldier has witnessed or been ordered to violate the Laws of War ( Laws of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view) ), then he can reasonably refuse to continue to serve especially when their country is not threatened and acting illegally.

16 September 2004
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan | World news | The Guardian (external - login to view)

American soldiers swear an oath to support and defend the constitution from enemies, not help big oil companies plunder a nation's oil wealth.

U.S. Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment (external - login to view)

Canadian soldiers swear this oath:
“I, ……………….., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God
Letter To Oath Keepers of Canada- Canada's Military Oath of Allegience & The Queen's Oath- The Truth Will Shock You | The "OLD" Owen Sound Free Press (external - login to view)

Which is kind of bizarre since Canada's sovereign swears this coronation oath:
Canadian Oath of Allegiance

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

War is hell, but I doubt any soldier were ready for the nightmare of Iraq or Afghanistan. I know one guy in this town who is in the reserve. The only reason he puts on a uniform is because he says he has women crawling all over him. If he was put into active duty he would crap his pants. I think a lot of people who went over there to kill brown people were severely disillusioned with the reality of it all. After all, Hollyweird makes it out to be so romantic and patriotic to wear a uniform. I have no qualms about deserters , as you may have noticed. I council anybody contemplating the military life to forget it.

If someone is required to commit war crimes, crimes against humanity in support of plundering the resources of another country for crappy pay... then I'd agree. But if they truly serve and protect their country, then I'd disagree.

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Once again, if you have an ethical problem with what is going on, if you believe your orders are un lawful or so unethical you are unable to carry them out, then refuse your orders, and take your medicine.

That would earn them my respect.

Deserting and running to Canada earns my scorn.

And it is not even that difficult. The average resister in the USA is punished with considerably LESS than a year in jail, and a dishonourable discharge.

They don't shoot them any more.

How would you know if they did?
AP: New details on Tillman's death - USATODAY.com (external - login to view)

Why would someone burn Tillman's uniform and his body armor? I have no idea who killed Tillman or why... but the evidence suggests murder.

If one soldier was going to squeal on anothers war crimes, three bullets to the head is a possible outcome.
 
petros
+3
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

But by requiring him to take it to the ICJ first, then we're at least giving the US a chance to defend itself against his accusations. If it fails to prove conclusively that he'd never been asked to commit war crimes, then we give him assylum. At least then the US saves face in that he has failed to prove conclusively that it did ask him to do so, and he gets assylum if it fails to prove it didn/t each has a right to defend their claim.

If you want to fund his lawyer, go right ahead. You can't just walk in there without having legal back-up.

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

AP: New details on Tillman's death - USATODAY.com (external - login to view)

Why would someone burn Tillman's uniform and his body armor? I have no idea who killed Tillman or why... but the evidence suggests murder.
If one soldier was going to squeal on anothers war crimes, three bullets to the head is a possible outcome.

Good example.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#27
Hey if you want to have another leech on your system let him stay. How much have these deserters cost Canada thus far?

No matter. For the most part they seem to all come back one day to face the music.

Keep them all.
 
petros
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Hey if you want to have another leech on your system let him stay. How much have these deserters cost Canada thus far?

No matter. For the most part they seem to all come back one day to face the music.

Keep them all.

There are oodles of them who stationed themselves in Canada. It's how BC got into the weed business.
 
EagleSmack
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

There are oodles of them who stationed themselves in Canada. It's how BC got into the weed business.

Oh I think the weed biz was doing quite ok before. From what I hear you guys up there really know that biz.

What is the count these days of deserters up there? Not the draft dodgers from the Vietnam Era but the deserters from the Iraq-Afghan Era.
 
petros
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Oh I think the weed biz was doing quite ok before. From what I hear you guys up there really know that biz.

What is the count these days of deserters up there? Not the draft dodgers from the Vietnam Era but the deserters from the Iraq-Afghan Era.

It was the Vietnam Era draft dodgers that started the BC weed industry.

Good question.
 

Similar Threads

12
Supreme Court Rules in favour of Opitz
by mentalfloss | Oct 27th, 2012
4
Federal Court says NO to Sumas Energy 2 (SE2)
by no1important | Nov 9th, 2005
no new posts