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

[tay]

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

 

[Machjo]

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]

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]

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

 

[Colpy]

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

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Spade]

There are men of conscience in the military.

 

[wulfie68]

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

 

[CDNBear]

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

 

[SLM]

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]

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]

There are men of conscience in the military.

Yes.

 

[Cliffy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.


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.

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.