U.S. war resister granted stay of deportation order
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
We would have built an arm ourselves. You wanted to be a part of the space program so you have to contribute. Where would Canada's Space Program be if they didn't hitch a ride EVERY TIME on the US Space Shuttle.
Let's not be silly here. Canada Arm is great...but it would have been built by us or another country.
That is what the deserter is saying. He has to say things like that to make folks feel sorry for him. As far as college...he isn't collecting the GI Bill now is he.
I agree 100%
Again, it is his word against the recruiters. But what is known is that in his written contract that he signed, nowhere does it say...
"Robin Long doesn't have to go to Iraq"
There is plenty off stuff in the written contract that says that you are ultimately a member of the armed services and subject to the orders of your superiors.
It is going to be nearly impossible to prove.
Oh he is a deserter. That is why he was sitting up in Canada. That is why he is now in the brig.
There is no need to change the contract. Again, it is a contract that we all signed and it says that we may be called to fight. Although it is colorful to call soldiers slaves the reality is that they are soldiers, Marines, sailors, etc. They do have to obey orders or face the consequences.
I can just speak from my own experience. My recruiter did not lie. When I went for the final interview in Boston the Gunnery Sgt. said...
"I am not sure what the recruiter told you but the only thing the Marines gaurantee you is the opportunity to become a Marine. Are you aware of that?"
"Yes Sir"
"We will try to put you into the MOS that you have chosen but ultimately you will go where the Corps wants you to go. However you signed up for the infantry so you can be assured that you will get your wish."
I got my wish!
Again though your missing the point Eaglesmack.
That isn't how the law works and the US government isn't ignorant of the fact. Its a balance of probabilities in a civil suit (contract breach) not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
and if this took place in a state where parole evidence is part of the contract, tough luck for the recruiter. All he needs to show is that its likely the recruiter said something along those lines.
And how hard is it to find a recruiter that tells kids you won't go to Iraq?
So if this did occur in a state with such laws (some have it some don't) then he isn't part of the Army and he doesn't owe them jack.
Now if he was then told "you are not guaranteed to not fight in Iraq" before it became official and signed anyways, thats different once again. I can only say from Experience in the Canuck army and mine didn't include any questions about being stationed anywhere causeI signed up for the reserves (I was just leaving High School).
As for where would our space program be:
Most likely alot more advanced than ours is now if we hadn't shut down our rocket range in Manitoba.
Canada working with the US on the space issues wasn't for our benefit to hitch a ride, if you get down to its that the US didn't trust us to have our own space program, considering how often we did work with the Soviets in other sectors.
The US never fully trusted us in the cold war, so its not some giant favour to us that our aerospace industries are so linked, that was a favour to the US to keep tabs on us.
That isn't how the law works and the US government isn't ignorant of the fact. Its a balance of probabilities in a civil suit (contract breach) not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
and if this took place in a state where parole evidence is part of the contract, tough luck for the recruiter. All he needs to show is that its likely the recruiter said something along those lines.
And how hard is it to find a recruiter that tells kids you won't go to Iraq?
So if this did occur in a state with such laws (some have it some don't) then he isn't part of the Army and he doesn't owe them jack.
Now if he was then told "you are not guaranteed to not fight in Iraq" before it became official and signed anyways, thats different once again. I can only say from Experience in the Canuck army and mine didn't include any questions about being stationed anywhere causeI signed up for the reserves (I was just leaving High School).
As for where would our space program be:
Most likely alot more advanced than ours is now if we hadn't shut down our rocket range in Manitoba.
Canada working with the US on the space issues wasn't for our benefit to hitch a ride, if you get down to its that the US didn't trust us to have our own space program, considering how often we did work with the Soviets in other sectors.
The US never fully trusted us in the cold war, so its not some giant favour to us that our aerospace industries are so linked, that was a favour to the US to keep tabs on us.
First off...he cannot file suit. That is in the contract as well. No member of the armed service can sue the military or US Govt. He cannot take the US Govt to court or the recruiter. So the laws that apply to US Citizens do not always apply to service members. Service members follow a stricter set of laws. That is why Robin is sitting in the brig. That is why he is not sueing the recruiter...he can't. And what makes Robin's word more believable than the recruiter? What makes Robin more credible. He's a deserter.
First off, any case would be tossed out. How can he "likely" even prove that! It is ridiculous. Recruiters would be hauled in all the time if every disgruntled service member wanted an "out" from military service. Military Law and Civillian Law are separate.
Oh really...google his name and you will find out he is sitting in the brig in Colorado awaiting Court Martial. How is that civillian law suit helping him? Your hypothetical case is not even an option for this kid.
Again...it is not even in the kid's legal arsenal to try the recuriter lied bit.
So we forced the Canadians to shut down your space program. I thought you guys were independant? Why aren't we shutting down anyone elses? :roll:
Right, exoborant costs and technology have nothing to do with it. You built an electronic arm. Thanks...but when all is said and done...it is a movable arm
I agree...those NY Yankees and fans are so arrogant.
Yet you don't see the Canadian arrogance? Not surprising at all. :roll:
Eaglesmack, its a nice theory, and often the US government doesn't obey its own laws (especially lately)
But your missing the point.
He isn't accountable to military law if the contract that says he is part of the military is not valid.
If the contract is not valid, then its no different than if he never signed up in the first place.
Are you trying to imply EVERY US citizen is unable to sue the government and is held to military law?
Because if his initial contract is invalid, then he isn't part of the military. Thats it. He's not a deserter, because he isn't part of the military.
Now my guess? The recruiter did lie. My other guess, the recruiter was damn sure parole evidence isn't part of the contract where he was operating from.
Edit: His recruiter may be very stupid actually
California does have some strict laws about verbal promises being allowed into Parole Evidence rule. Im not sure if its as strict as Ontario mind you.
If such is the case that he legally did not enter into the military, in that case he would technically be avoiding a forced military sentance. And he should stay.
Perhaps morally he's a deserter, but you could also say morally he agreed to serve as long as he specifically didn't go to Iraq and only made that agreement. In which case I'd back him if for no other reason than I think recruiters who hang around high school and blatantly lie to children should be sent to the frontlines themselves or shot. War isn't a game to "joke around with"
But your missing the point.
He isn't accountable to military law if the contract that says he is part of the military is not valid.
If the contract is not valid, then its no different than if he never signed up in the first place.
Are you trying to imply EVERY US citizen is unable to sue the government and is held to military law?
Because if his initial contract is invalid, then he isn't part of the military. Thats it. He's not a deserter, because he isn't part of the military.
Now my guess? The recruiter did lie. My other guess, the recruiter was damn sure parole evidence isn't part of the contract where he was operating from.
Edit: His recruiter may be very stupid actually
California does have some strict laws about verbal promises being allowed into Parole Evidence rule. Im not sure if its as strict as Ontario mind you.
If such is the case that he legally did not enter into the military, in that case he would technically be avoiding a forced military sentance. And he should stay.
Perhaps morally he's a deserter, but you could also say morally he agreed to serve as long as he specifically didn't go to Iraq and only made that agreement. In which case I'd back him if for no other reason than I think recruiters who hang around high school and blatantly lie to children should be sent to the frontlines themselves or shot. War isn't a game to "joke around with"
Last edited:
But you are also saying that it is a fact that the recruiter lied. I tell you, I have heard lots of guys try to get out of the military by saying...
"My recruiter lied."
All unsuccessful.
But it is their word against the recruiters. The recruiter isn't even called to testify. What if the recruiter comes forth and says.
"I said no such thing. PFC Long is not being truthful and i said no such thing."
Then what? The contract that Long signed is what is binding. Civillian law is irrelevant in this case. Like I said...it isn't even in Long's legal arsenal to use that. He cannot sue. He joined the military, made it past his initial 180 days...he was a soldier. I can bet that when he gets his Bad Conduct Discharge the matter will be closed and he will have no recourse in any court, civillian or military.
Honestly...w/o even hearing what his recruiter has to say you are saying he may be stupid. What if this Long guy is an absolute dirt bag? Because he is a deserter and against the war does not automatically catapult him to the pillar of all honesty. What if he got in the Army and then realized it was a big mistake for him. That happens a lot. I was not on Parris Island one minute before the first guy tried to make a run for it! An hour later a guy said he didn't want to be a Marine and he was taken right out of formation and eventually discharged. We hadn't even got our first haircut!
Not unless the country is under martial law. I don't think your grasping what it means if the contract is not valid.
If there is a dispute if the contract is valid, then the civil court will rule (as long as the government obeys the rules) If he really is in the military.
The recruiter simply saying "I didn't do it" doesn't end it there. Its no different than any case.
If I smash your window and then show up and say "I didn't do it" does it end there? No.
So, the recruiter says "I didn't do it" , the Judge (after hearing all testimony and evidence) weighs the balance of probabilities.
If he says "No, it isn't valid"
Then Corey Glass isn't military, and the army can kiss his ass like any other useless punk with no life ambition.
Will that happen? Of course not. The way the law is set up and the way its selectively enforced are different. Women are supposed to get the same sentancing as men for violent crimes, but we can look statistically and see they don't.
Corey Glass should have a very descent defense, but he could have concrete proof he never even signed the contract and that the recruiter threatened to kill his mother and he still wouldn't get a trial.
Hence, he's in Canada. So American law isn't really too scary, and if we should kick him out or not, in my mind, is about whether he's done anything wrong or not.
And if he has fulfilled his contract and had it breached, then in my mind he owes nothing to the US government, and they really owe him something. He did more than he signed up for, even if its less than you want, too bad, he didn't agree to that.
So let him stay.
Im a man of law above else, and after looking into California civil law, he hasn't done anything wrong.
If he'd come from the New York National Guard Id tell him to get his ass back to face punishment.
How does being against the war make him any less than honest? Wasn't there another nation three-quarters of a century ago who developed the same attitude?
I agree...but his word can't be taken over the recruiters because it is one of those he said/she said situations. He could be telling the truth but he also could be just trying to save his butt. Saying the recruiter lied is a common excuse of disgruntled Service Members trying to get a discharge.
The bottom line is the contract. The signed contract. There is even a spot on the contract that you have to sign that says you are not gaurenteed anything. It has been so long since i signed it but it said something along the lines of the military will do whatever it can to ensure the MOS you have chosen will be honored. However the military retains the right to assign you to the needs of the armed services as they see fit.
I can't remember the exact wording as it has been over 20 years since I signed it. Heck...I even shivered signing that part.
I don't know what it means and I'm not going to presume anything. I don't equate displacement with death but clearly 1.2 million people dead is a lot of death. The brutality and death toll is obviously much higher than the US army or popular media is leading us to believe.
I understand it is not a game of numbers.....but 1.2 million is double the number that an article in the British Medical Journal The Lancet claimed, and that number is generally seen to be out landish. The death toll is likely closer to 200,000, many of which were the result of tribal/ethnic warfare.....hardly the Americans' fault.
People simply can't understand the real meaning of numbers like "million".............I sincerely doubt Iraqi deaths are anywhere close to that collossal figure.
We're on the same page. I'd be more inclined to have more respect for someone who shoots himself in the foot than I would a deserter. At least the sore foot took balls to get it there. The fact is, he signed on knowing full well people were being sent to Iraq. His number doesn't look much different than the guy ahead of him ... or the guy behind.
You yourself thought that if the displacement was higher than is the established claim then so too should the death toll, well, I agree it probably is. That would account for the higher number of dead then.
Killing 1.2 million people isn't something any country would own up to easily. It might even be the real reason the US wants to stay there for so long; to cover up their heinous crimes.
Just because something seems impossible doesn't mean it isn't and I've learnt a long time ago that when it comes to mans inhumanity to man anything really is possible.
Whatever the number is it is much higher than the one we are being given; of that I have no doubt whatsoever. That isn't too surprising since the US military specifically says it doesn't keep track of enemies killed. There is no reason for them to not keep track except they are hiding something. Like they hide the sight of their own dead soldiers from their people.
Iraqi civilian deaths from 2003 - 2008: 86171 - 94031
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
37% attributed to US military action.
Right. Who is the stupid one here. I can bet that if he was to have gone around after he signed up and said...
"I am joining up but the recruiter said I don't have to go to Iraq."
...everyone would have laughed or said he was crazy. Of course he was going to Iraq...especially in 2005!