So if it's that difficult to prove either way, then it makes sense to allow him refuge in case he may be telling the truth. Even if he isn't, from what you're saying it would difficult to prove either way.
Federal Court rules in favour of U.S. war resister
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
So if it's that difficult to prove either way, then it makes sense to allow him refuge in case he may be telling the truth. Even if he isn't, from what you're saying it would difficult to prove either way.
Not at all. He won't serve much jail time but a Dishonorable Discharge will follow him till he sheds his mortal shell. Unless he wins the lottery.
If he is convicted of desertion... which is what he has done. How would justice not be served?
That was the punishment for stealing a horse back then. Like it or not.
This guy however will not be hung. He will face charges of desertion. If convicted he will do a short stint in the brig... then be discharged dishonorably (most likely) then released.
And Court Martials aren't kangaroo courts. We had a Cpl. who went to a Court Martial and was SO GUILTY. The charges he was brought up on were 100% fact... and he walked. He even bragged about it after privately to us. He absolutely did what they accused him of doing but he was able to convince a jury of his peers to believe otherwise.
If he is returned to the US and faces a Court Martial for Desertion... it will not be a difficult case at all for the US Army. There is in my opinion a 100% certainty that he will be found guilty of what he is... a deserter.
Now if Canadian authorities want to keep him because they know he is guilty and they don't want him to face that punishment then that is their choice.
The evidence of desertion is overwhelming. Everyone knows it.
I was speaking of war stories in general that I look at with skepticism.
Really? So to you, legality and justice are identical? Really?
Legality - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Justice - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
AK has this ridiculous law: "Moose may not be viewed from an airplane." So a pilot breaks the law and swerves to avoid a moose on the runway to keep his/her passengers safe? Yep, he would have been justified if he'd not looked at the moose and steered the plane right into it.
Yeah, the dude should have stayed and been murdered or supported his boss's illegal activities. That sure would have served justice.
Irrelevant.
So if I write the rules and you disobey them regardless that the rules may be unfair or even illegal, I can toss you in the sinbin and it's good justice?
ooooooooookay
In the case of the Deserter in question I believe justice will be served if he is found guilty of desertion because he has deserted his post.
I don't understand how some crazy law in AK has anything to do with desertion.
Now you're just letting emotions get in the way as well as embellishing. You were against the war in Iraq so you think this guy should walk even though he clearly is guilty.
By what authority do YOU (as an individual) have to write rules for me?
Missed this...
Irrelevant? How is this irrelevant? It is the only thing that is really relevant! He deserted. That is what he is being charged with! He is hiding in Canada because he knows he F***ed if he goes home! Plain and simple.
You believe. ok. I don't believe that the USA had any business making war on Iraq. I don't think the war was justifiable and it may even have been against the US's own rules of war. Sure the guy's likely guilty of desertion, so there's little question of the legality there, but there's certainly a question as to whether it is justifiable.
lol Sorry, but I'm over my emotional state of being humored. Well, maybe not totally yet.
How am I embellishing anything? I'm just providing examples of legalities as opposed to justice.
Besides, I never said any such thing about letting the guy take a walk, but I was definitely against the US vs. Iraq war. It was not justifiable and may not even have been legal.
Attaboy, avoid the question and the point both at the same time.
It's irrelevant to whether the action against him serves justice or not.
But as you don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between legality and justice, I can see your confusion.
The Nuremberg principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime.
In 1945 and 1946, during the Nuremberg Trials the issue of superior orders again arose. Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which specifically stated that following an unlawful order is not a valid defense against charges of war crimes. Thus, under Nuremberg Principle IV, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty. Nuremberg Principle IV states:
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Superior orders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fleeing to Canada and claiming refugee status would be a moral choice.
In 1945 and 1946, during the Nuremberg Trials the issue of superior orders again arose. Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which specifically stated that following an unlawful order is not a valid defense against charges of war crimes. Thus, under Nuremberg Principle IV, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty. Nuremberg Principle IV states:
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Superior orders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fleeing to Canada and claiming refugee status would be a moral choice.
Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 154. Obedience to Superior Orders
Quoting from the article:
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) instructs soldiers that:
Orders must be followed. Military effectiveness depends on the prompt obedience to orders. Virtually all orders you will receive from your superiors will be lawful, straightforward and require little clarification. What happens, however, if you receive an order that you believe to be questionable? Your first step of course must be to seek clarification. Then, if after doing so the order still appears to be questionable, in accordance with military custom you should still obey and execute the order – unless – the order is manifestly unlawful.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 11, § 4.
The Code of Conduct further states:
It is recognized that the lower you are in rank, the more difficult it will be to question orders. However, every member of the CF [Canadian Forces] has an obligation to disobey a manifestly unlawful order regardless of rank or position. A manifestly unlawful order is one which shocks the conscience of every reasonable, right-thinking person. For example, mistreating someone who has surrendered or beating a detainee is manifestly unlawful.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 11, § 5.
Quoting from the article:
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) instructs soldiers that:
Orders must be followed. Military effectiveness depends on the prompt obedience to orders. Virtually all orders you will receive from your superiors will be lawful, straightforward and require little clarification. What happens, however, if you receive an order that you believe to be questionable? Your first step of course must be to seek clarification. Then, if after doing so the order still appears to be questionable, in accordance with military custom you should still obey and execute the order – unless – the order is manifestly unlawful.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 11, § 4.
The Code of Conduct further states:
It is recognized that the lower you are in rank, the more difficult it will be to question orders. However, every member of the CF [Canadian Forces] has an obligation to disobey a manifestly unlawful order regardless of rank or position. A manifestly unlawful order is one which shocks the conscience of every reasonable, right-thinking person. For example, mistreating someone who has surrendered or beating a detainee is manifestly unlawful.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 11, § 5.
Not when you have sworn an oath. Standing up, refusing your orders, and making a stink would be a moral choice.
We do not want these ethical and physical cowards and liars in our country.
I agree that refusing orders would be a better choice... if that was a choice. I'm not in this ex-soldier's shoes.
Canada's federal court decided that the US court-martial system "fails to comply with basic fairness requirements found in Canadian and International Law". Ex-soldiers, such as Tindungan, who have spoken out publicly about their objections to US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are subjected to particularly harsh punishments because of having vocalized their political opinions....
Canada's federal court decided that the US court-martial system "fails to comply with basic fairness requirements found in Canadian and International Law". Ex-soldiers, such as Tindungan, who have spoken out publicly about their objections to US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are subjected to particularly harsh punishments because of having vocalized their political opinions....
I am pretty sure that Hitler made it legal to murder gypsies and whomever else but I'd hardly call that justice whether one signed the contract to be a German soldier or not.
So what if they are avoiding committing war crimes? No-one swears an oath to be a criminal or do inhumane things. No-one deserves even a 'slap-on-the-wrist' or prison or really even a dishonorable discharge for refusing to do such things oath or not. Your apparent inflexibility seems to show a lack of understanding of the situation. Participating in an illegal war is a breech of the GC and a crime under international law. These men have every right to refuse without threat of punishment or persecution.
petros; said:
Here in Gopherland, the Twins Cities has the highest number of escapees from the wars in Somalia and Ethiopia. Tens of thousands came here to escape conscription and military service even when they volunteered for war. Again, the USA has granted asylum to tens of thousands of people, not just one or two. And that doesn't even include escapees from Israel and Russia's military draft laws or their conflicts.
Therefore, nobody has any right to object when Canada gives refuge to anyone from the USA and its wars. It is hypocrisy of the worse kind when they do.
You believe.
The Iraq war is no different than many wars or military actions. What makes the war in Iraq any different than Yugoslavia or Libya for example?
See above. What was the reasoning for Libya? Canada was not under attack or threatened.
I wasn't avoiding anything. There is a big difference between you LG making up rules than a body of government making up rules. The deserter knew the rules before hand what would happen if he deserted.
I can see how you would say that as you appear not to be able to grasp the severity of desertion. I am not confused in the slightest.
If he ever returns... justice will be done.
No rules in war... was that what you said or was it someone else?
What were the war crimes he was specifically trying to avoid?
They do not have the right which is why they are being punished when they come back to the US. Each and every one who deserted his or her post.
ES: What makes the war in Iraq any different than Yugoslavia or Libya for example?
I think the main difference regarding Iraq compared to Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Libya is that the war was sold to the American public based on bold faced lies about Iraq's WMD threat (non-existent) and Saddam Hussein's involvement in the 9/11 attack (Hussein was not involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations#Skepticism_of_the_link ).
Iraq fully complied with all UNSC requirements to avoid war:
1) Iraq submitted an accurate document detailing the WMD programs, which indicated that they no longer possessed an WMD capability.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/108370-iraqs-12-000-page-pre.html
2) Iraq allowed UN weapon inspectors unfettered access to any location or person
Iraq even destroyed some missiles that UN weapon inspectors deemed as technical violations of UNSC limitations (Even though when carrying a weapon payload and guidance system without a tail wind, they were 100% compliant. However, unarmed and without a guidance system and a tail wind they could exceed the 100km limitation and kill someone by impaling them, making them technical violations of the distance limitation - ridiculous, but the US waited for UNSCOM to destroy these missiles and then declared war). Just a few weeks before the US declared war, UN weapon inspectors declared in a statement to the UNSC that they were confident that all remaining disarmament issues would be resolved within a few months, indicating that Iraq was not a WMD threat and was cooperating.
Security Council 7 March 2003
The US government lied to the American public. They falsely claimed that since the UN weapon inspectors couldn't find any WMD threat in Iraq, then Iraq must be hiding WMDs. Later after the US invaded Iraq illegally, (without any provocation or justification), US inspectors combed Iraq and proved that Iraq's claims about their WMD programs were accurate and that the UN weapon inspectors had found everything that could be found in Iraq.
Some idiots still haven't figured out that the Bush administration deliberately lied to and misled the public to start a war. Nearly all the referenced atrocities attributed to Hussein to justify war took place 10-25 years earlier and some were with the assistance of the US government when Ronald Reagan was the US President. These idiots still believe some BS about an intel screw up which led to war. If that were true, then whose head was put on the block for this screw up which directly led to the deaths of 30,000 Iraqi soldiers during the first few days of war, the violent deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and millions of homeless refugees???? So far no one has ever been taken to task, which proves there was never a screw up. The Iraq war and the lies supporting war were deliberate.
I'm sure if some country did the same thing to the US, killing as many US soldiers and civilians and destroying the homes of millions of Americans... I bet more Americans would better understand the Iraqis. I doubt Americans would accept "Oops" as an excuse either.
I also noticed that the US has never apologized to the Iraqi people, let alone compensated Iraqis for the unnecessary death and destruction.
BTW, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. The world is full of brutal dictators, yet the US has no problems with most of them.
Overthrowing Iraq's brutal dictator should have been the business of Iraqis. If they rose up and revolted against Hussein, then the Americans could have provided assistance to the rebels, like they do now in Syria and did in Libya and claim they are supporting a popular revolt. But at the time the US declared war Iraq was quiet and peaceful. No riots, no protests... just crippling economic sanctions that the US refused to lift (UNSC veto) despite the fact that it was known in 1998 that Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. No one had been executed in Iraq for at least three years before the US declared war. (last executions were for people convicted of capital crimes, including treason resulting from a failed coup attempt in 1998. )
The US could have supported an Iraqi revolt in 1991:
1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1991, the US dropped millions of leaflets and made countless radio broadcasts into Iraq promising to help Iraqis if they revolted against Hussein. When the Iraqis revolted, the US did nothing to help the rebels in the south and watched the slaughter from the sidelines.
So yes if any American soldier felt that the US led war against the Iraqi people, (hundreds of thousands Iraqi dead, millions of Iraqis made homeless) was an unjust illegal war and wanted to come to Canada to avoid being an accessory to US war crimes and crimes against humanity... I say welcome to Canada.
I think the main difference regarding Iraq compared to Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Libya is that the war was sold to the American public based on bold faced lies about Iraq's WMD threat (non-existent) and Saddam Hussein's involvement in the 9/11 attack (Hussein was not involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations#Skepticism_of_the_link ).
Iraq fully complied with all UNSC requirements to avoid war:
1) Iraq submitted an accurate document detailing the WMD programs, which indicated that they no longer possessed an WMD capability.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/108370-iraqs-12-000-page-pre.html
2) Iraq allowed UN weapon inspectors unfettered access to any location or person
Iraq even destroyed some missiles that UN weapon inspectors deemed as technical violations of UNSC limitations (Even though when carrying a weapon payload and guidance system without a tail wind, they were 100% compliant. However, unarmed and without a guidance system and a tail wind they could exceed the 100km limitation and kill someone by impaling them, making them technical violations of the distance limitation - ridiculous, but the US waited for UNSCOM to destroy these missiles and then declared war). Just a few weeks before the US declared war, UN weapon inspectors declared in a statement to the UNSC that they were confident that all remaining disarmament issues would be resolved within a few months, indicating that Iraq was not a WMD threat and was cooperating.
Security Council 7 March 2003
The US government lied to the American public. They falsely claimed that since the UN weapon inspectors couldn't find any WMD threat in Iraq, then Iraq must be hiding WMDs. Later after the US invaded Iraq illegally, (without any provocation or justification), US inspectors combed Iraq and proved that Iraq's claims about their WMD programs were accurate and that the UN weapon inspectors had found everything that could be found in Iraq.
Some idiots still haven't figured out that the Bush administration deliberately lied to and misled the public to start a war. Nearly all the referenced atrocities attributed to Hussein to justify war took place 10-25 years earlier and some were with the assistance of the US government when Ronald Reagan was the US President. These idiots still believe some BS about an intel screw up which led to war. If that were true, then whose head was put on the block for this screw up which directly led to the deaths of 30,000 Iraqi soldiers during the first few days of war, the violent deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and millions of homeless refugees???? So far no one has ever been taken to task, which proves there was never a screw up. The Iraq war and the lies supporting war were deliberate.
I'm sure if some country did the same thing to the US, killing as many US soldiers and civilians and destroying the homes of millions of Americans... I bet more Americans would better understand the Iraqis. I doubt Americans would accept "Oops" as an excuse either.
I also noticed that the US has never apologized to the Iraqi people, let alone compensated Iraqis for the unnecessary death and destruction.
BTW, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. The world is full of brutal dictators, yet the US has no problems with most of them.
Overthrowing Iraq's brutal dictator should have been the business of Iraqis. If they rose up and revolted against Hussein, then the Americans could have provided assistance to the rebels, like they do now in Syria and did in Libya and claim they are supporting a popular revolt. But at the time the US declared war Iraq was quiet and peaceful. No riots, no protests... just crippling economic sanctions that the US refused to lift (UNSC veto) despite the fact that it was known in 1998 that Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. No one had been executed in Iraq for at least three years before the US declared war. (last executions were for people convicted of capital crimes, including treason resulting from a failed coup attempt in 1998. )
The US could have supported an Iraqi revolt in 1991:
1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1991, the US dropped millions of leaflets and made countless radio broadcasts into Iraq promising to help Iraqis if they revolted against Hussein. When the Iraqis revolted, the US did nothing to help the rebels in the south and watched the slaughter from the sidelines.
So yes if any American soldier felt that the US led war against the Iraqi people, (hundreds of thousands Iraqi dead, millions of Iraqis made homeless) was an unjust illegal war and wanted to come to Canada to avoid being an accessory to US war crimes and crimes against humanity... I say welcome to Canada.
Last edited:
I skipped most of your post outright. Its all babble any ways and reading through your idiocy is just time I won't get back.
You're welcome to them! But when they do tire of the cold they will return. The first funeral, sneaking back for one reason or other... they will be caught and punished severely. It warms me each time one returns and is arrested at the border.
I can summarize it for you ES.
You are one of the useful idiots who believed Bush's lies justifying war with Iraq. You still think an intel screw up led to war. When the US declared war in March 2003, you believed that Hussein was busy slaughtering Iraqis, possessed WMD stockpiles and the Iraqis were behind the events of 9/11.
Maybe one day a country will do to the US what the US did to Iraq. Maybe then you will understand why Iraqis hate Americans. Or you can read my previous posts, follow the links and figure it out for yourself....
You are one of the useful idiots who believed Bush's lies justifying war with Iraq. You still think an intel screw up led to war. When the US declared war in March 2003, you believed that Hussein was busy slaughtering Iraqis, possessed WMD stockpiles and the Iraqis were behind the events of 9/11.
Maybe one day a country will do to the US what the US did to Iraq. Maybe then you will understand why Iraqis hate Americans. Or you can read my previous posts, follow the links and figure it out for yourself....
Last edited: