Layton: Deserters OK

[I think not]

Canada should welcome U.S. deserters, Layton says

May 5, 2006. 01:00 AM
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA—American deserters dodging military duty in Iraq share Canadian values and should be welcomed in this country, NDP Leader Jack Layton says.

"It makes a lot of sense to welcome these young people, recognize that they've taken a position that's exactly the same position that Canadians took," he said yesterday. "It would be inappropriate to send them back in my view ... We're glad they've chosen our country."

Layton urged the Conservative government to grant sanctuary to young soldiers, noting Canada became a safe haven for Americans seeking to avoid the Vietnam draft more than 30 years ago.

"We should be looking at it," he said. "These young people are courageous individuals. They've made a decision of conscience."

Layton denied that it would upset ties with the U.S. if Canada suddenly became a place of refuge for those fleeing that country's unpopular war.

"There are tens of thousands of people and their families now all across our country who came to us in an earlier period around the Vietnam War. I don't think that disrupted relations between the two countries."

His comments followed an Ottawa visit by Cindy Sheehan, who has become an outspoken anti-war campaigner after the death of her son Casey in Iraq. She used a Parliament Hill news conference yesterday to urge Canada to offer sanctuary to U.S. deserters.

When Casey expressed his misgivings about fighting in Iraq before his deployment, Sheehan offered to drive him to Canada. He was in Iraq five days before being killed in April 2004.

Responding to Sheehan's pitch yesterday, Immigration Minister Monte Solberg told reporters: "If Mrs. Sheehan has a bone to pick with the U.S. administration about the war in Iraq she should take that to Washington. It'll be Canadians who decide Canadian immigration policy."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...922&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

 

[BitWhys]

"If Mrs. Sheehan has a bone to pick with the U.S. administration about the war in Iraq she should take that to Washington. It'll be Canadians who decide Canadian immigration policy."

Canadians need not listen to their neighbours and Sheehan should be pressuring Bush to shape Canadian foreign policy? heh. Takes a CPC to see it that way. Maybe if Solberg got his head out of Harper's can and stopped stovepiping the PMO long enough to think for himself he'd realize that taking it up with Washington is EXACTLY what Sheehan's been doing. I guess I'll have to scratch another Tory off my "benefit of the doubt" list. *shrug*

off topic, but I can't say I agree with Cindy's take on our involvement in Afghanistan although in the larger picture being there does muddy up the waters, as it were. Nevertheless, I say let them come.

 

[Colpy]

This is silly.

We should welcome Mrs. Sheehan, listen to her politely, and express our sympathy for her loss.

AND we should deport deserters automatically, and ASAP>

They're deserters, for God's sake. From the all-volunteer army of our closest ally.

This is NOT Vietnam. These are NOT draftees.

Besides, what did we get for our generousity 35 years ago?

Svend Robinson.

Throw them out. Now.

 

[BitWhys]

...From the all-volunteer army of our closest ally...

Had I not preferred to start the stopwatch on that argument I would have already pointed out that the Cabal in Iraq was not what they signed up for and if our "closest ally" were half the man it used to be we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Colpy]

Sorry, joining the military is not like booking a cruise on the Carribean. You don't get to pick your destiniation.

In fact, you surrender your right to decide your own fate.

If one feels so strongly that the Iraq conflict is wrong, that's fine. They should stand in place, refuse their orders, and do their time. That would be honourable.

Running to Canada with your tail between your legs in defiance of the oath you voluntarily took is NOT honourable, and we should NOT be a party to it.

 

[Said1]

...From the all-volunteer army of our closest ally...

Had I not preferred to start the stopwatch on that argument I would have already pointed out that the Cabal in Iraq was not what they signed up for and if our "closest ally" were half the man it used to be we wouldn't be having this conversation.

What did they sign for, free education and/or trade certification?

 

[BitWhys]

My guess? probably.

why should it matter?

 

[BitWhys]

and rather than running the stopwatch on the pending persistence I'll submit at this juncture that contract law does NOT take precedence over fundamental human morality.

 

[elevennevele]

Re: RE: Layton: Deserters OK

It's been documented that US soldiers have been ordered, or alternatively commit atrocity in Iraq on their own will. The argument that one has to serve their contract regardless of any social conscience can be used by a nazi war criminal to disavow any personal responsibility for crimes committed.

You might not be the one pulling the trigger, or dropping bombs on a village indiscriminate of the innocents that also occupy it, or holding a child hostage to catch the father, or detaining a person’s wife for the same leverage, or torturing people for sketchy information, or shooting a farmer to vent frustrations (all of which has been done in Iraq), but in being part of the military operation that is responsible for all these things, you are still associated to the crimes.

None of this is a soldier’s duty and wasn't part of the contract signed, in my opinion.

Someone however suggested that the noble thing would be to simply refuse orders and do ‘time’. Sure, I'll agree to that. I have a suspicion however that ‘time’ in a US detention isn’t where the person will likely end up. Either way and you are treated with dishonour.

If it wasn't a fraudulent war devoid of such crimes ‘consistently’ being committed and ‘sanctioned’ by ranking officers/government then I would agree the soldiers would not have any justification to flee from their combat duties.

 

[mabudon]

That is a pretty important point, that soldiers have the DUTY to not follow orders that circumvent international agreements as to the conduct of warfare etc

That fact is what makes this issue quite different than "they sigend up so TOUGH" since depending on a lot of factors, deserting MAY in fact be serving a much higher duty to the human race than simply doing what you're told because "YOU signed up"

If it were, say, 1938 and there were Germans saying "we don't want to be in the army, it seems we are being asked to commit crimes" would the same logic of "you sigend up" apply??? (and I'm not making a value judgement on the US here, so please don't respond with "typical US bashing" since that is NOT what I'm getting at)

I really think that the actual political issue is that accepting "deserters" (and I really think that in this day and age, the term is rather quaint, kinda like grown men calling each other "sissy") would constitute some de facto commentary on the US's foreign policy gaffes in general, and as much as some folks like to cry "anti americanism is rampant in Canada" our government (no matter who it is) seems pretty reluctant to point out the obvious in this particualr case (being that of the illegal invasion and sacking of Iraq)

 

[Colpy]

Once again, this is NOT Vietnam, these people are volunteers. Having taken the oath, they should do their duty.

I do have some sympathy for those who would not serve in Iraq for some higher moral principle, those are not for me to dictate to another individual.

However, if it IS a higher moral principle, that individual's point would best be made by refusing to go, and taking the consequences, much like those few Israeli soldiers who have refused to serve in the occupied territories.

I disagree with both stands, but could respect the man who took them in that fashion.

Running to Canada is cowardice, pure and simple.

We don't want them.

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: Layton: Deserters OK

...Running to Canada is cowardice, pure and simple.

We don't want them.

 

[I think not]

Not following orders and deserting are two different issues. Orders contradicting the rules of engagement and soldier wrestling with his/her conscious have procedures of dealing with situations like these, and I believe escaping to the North is NOT on the them.

 

[aeon]

Canada should welcome U.S. deserters, Layton says

May 5, 2006. 01:00 AM
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA—American deserters dodging military duty in Iraq share Canadian values and should be welcomed in this country, NDP Leader Jack Layton says.

"It makes a lot of sense to welcome these young people, recognize that they've taken a position that's exactly the same position that Canadians took," he said yesterday. "It would be inappropriate to send them back in my view ... We're glad they've chosen our country."


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...922&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

I agree we should welcome them, those peoples have guts to do what they do, in a country where democracy is just a suggestion.


If i would be american, and my president would have sent me in harms way, based on a lie, i would do exactly what they do.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: Layton: Deserters OK

Running to Canada is cowardice, pure and simple.

We don't want them.

It is not coward to do it, what is coward is accepting your government that send you on the other side of the planet, based on a lie, and you keep your mouth shout, that is the best definition of coward, let all welcome all soldier from usa, so the war in iraq, will stop.

 

[MagnoliaApples]

Re: RE: Layton: Deserters OK

"Colpy"-> ...Running to Canada is cowardice, pure and simple.

We don't want them.

Correction - YOU don't want them.

For a long time Canada has been known as a place of asylum. Where did alot of the African Americans go when they were being lynched, shot or beated to death. Thank God there was somewhere they could go adn i'm pround of the fact that Canada didn't "deport" them back to the hands that were harming them.

I understand that people may think that these are different issues but they do share a common thread being human rights. In the first instance people were coming here so that their rights as a human being wouldn't be violated where as with the ' deserters' are fleeing here so that they don't have to violate human rights.

There's a very interesting article written by Paul Rockwell revealing what kinds of atrocities that are occuring everyday in Iraq.
'Checkpoint Killings' the murder of innocent Iraqi people, women and children, everyone is a target. There is alot that isn't being exposed by the media.

[url]http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/0429-30.htm [/url]

A person signs up to join the military to be a member of a group that is there to protect their country from a threat. Generally you don't want to kill people but should the occasion arise, you are willing to risk your life to save innocent people from an enemy. That's the whole driving force to ever kill someone when you're a member of the military. You do it because you believe that you are doing the right thing.

This all changes when you realize that your govenment is taking advantage of it's military and using you as a weapon to harm unarmed, innocent people, using unethical techiques and going against rules of engagement. The soldiers out there are being ordered to shoot innocent Iraqis. When they refuse to become murderers they get punished.

It would be different if they could just 'choose' to not engaged in these atrocities but they can't with out some form of punishment including getting kicked out of the military with a dishonorable discharge. If he follows the orders, he may commit war crimes which will be with him for the rest of his life and if he doesn't follow orders, he puts his life and career in jeopardy. It's the same ' screwed if you do and screwed if you don't' ultimatum that Bush gave the world before this all started - "Either you are with us or against us" B.S

So I say let them come here. I don't think they are deserters. They are the Americans I would be pround to help out. Like i said before, this is not exactly the same situation as when we helped the African Americans in their plight so many years ago but this is still an issue that has to do with politics and human rights.

How would helping the soldiers out affect us? I think that on a global scale we would be regarded as sympathizers to thier cause and we'd be making a statement that we don't agree when countries go against the rules of war and it could separate us from being in the pocket of a war mongering country.

What i would worry about more is if we decided to send them back, would we be perceived as a country that condones war crimes and crimes against humanity. I think that would be more of a detriment to our reputation than anything else!

 

[I think not]

You can have them, they can keep company with other asylum seekers, like the Tamil Tigers.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Layton: Deserters OK

My guess? probably.

why should it matter?

Yes, it should matter. There is always the risk of having to serve in a defensive/offensive capacity, like it or not.

 

[Roger]

Colpy's right, they didn't sign on for a cruise, and you all forget, they did sign on of their own free will.

Once in the military, unless you're a General, you're there to follow orders. To desert IS to disobey orders. The fact is, the bulk of these deserters are cowards who only signed on to the US Military for room, board and a paid college education. Eight years ago, nobody ever imagined we would all be in the situation we're currently in in the world.

Anyone who signed on to the military since 911 was an idiot if they didn't know what they were getting into. I'd like to see the demographics on the deserters. You also can't equate this conflict in any way or form to the Nazi atrocities.

 

[BitWhys]

Just because these folks screwed up by assuming they could trust the US Government to make the right decisions on their behalf is no reason abandon them. I say we should support our own troops by sparing their bretheren the injustice of unearned jail time.