Appeal court rules in favour of U.S. war dodger

[Machjo]

I know of no average 18-20 year old who joins the military that even gave the Geneva Convention a thought. That was something out of WW-II to them if they heard of it at all. Geez, kids today have trouble finding Switzerland on a map.

That's beside the point. If a US soldier has a gut feeling that something's wrong, he'd better think twice about it before taking action or he could regret it. If he's convinced though that he is in the right, then if he flees to Canada, certainly a lawyer would explore the possibilities and would certainly explore if he'd ever been ordered to violate any of the Geneva Conventions. If not, then he gets shipped back home to the US. If so, then he gets to stay in Canada and the Canadian government expresses concern over this matter to the international community. This would pressure the US government and military to clear their names and reputations in the eyes of the international community, and so they'd certainly challenge the soldier's claims. If they prove him wrong, then he goes to hard prison labour in Canada for having lied to the Canadian government and people, and once his stay is over, he'sthen sent to the US to face justice there.

If he's found to have told the truth, then the US faces international humiliation. Either way, it would make it very clear that a US soldier had better not desert to Canada unless he's got a solid case.

Canada is involved in Afghanistan, the 101st Airborne is in Afghanistan. No conscripts soldiers at all. Hinzman is deserting Canadian troops also.

I would support a Canadian soldier deserting to the US, and for the US to keep him, on condition that it ensure he has defected for a very valid reason such as being ordered to violate the Geneva Convention of some other serious breach of good faith on the part of the Canadian military. But again I'd also expect the US government to express its concerns so as to force Canada to respond to the charges, and again, if Canada proves the soldier wrong, make him suffer, and if the soldier is proven right, then Canadians would know what's really going on in Canada's military. Either way, it would force the truth out.

 

[gopher]

"During the Vietnam war we welcomed dodgers and deserters. It was our policy."

In NYC there are thousands of draft dodgers from Israel and Russia but nobody objects to their presence there. The government looks the other way as others use our shores to escape military service and it should have done the same here.

 

[Machjo]

"During the Vietnam war we welcomed dodgers and deserters. It was our policy."

In NYC there are thousands of draft dodgers from Israel and Russia but nobody objects to their presence there. The government looks the other way as others use our shores to escape military service and it should have done the same here.

Good point. What applies to one applies to all.

 

[CDNBear]

"During the Vietnam war we welcomed dodgers and deserters. It was our policy."

In NYC there are thousands of draft dodgers from Israel and Russia but nobody objects to their presence there. The government looks the other way as others use our shores to escape military service and it should have done the same here.

Good point. What applies to one applies to all.

He's talking about 2 countries that have mandatory service Mach.

All though I'm a proponent of mandatory service, I can fully appreciate those who do not believe in conflict wishing to avoid conscription.

 

[ironsides]

We are referring to countries who have all volunteer armies. You want to join the army, you know ahead of time what you might be called to do. We as individuals do not create our countries policy, but as a member of its military we effectively carry out that policy. A lot of money goes into creating a soldier and you are expected to earn your pay and serve out your enlistment. In the case of Canada and the U.S., you do not want to fight anyone, the answer is simple don't join the military. No one is forcing you.

 

[Machjo]

He's talking about 2 countries that have mandatory service Mach.

All though I'm a proponent of mandatory service, I can fully appreciate those who do not believe in conflict wishing to avoid conscription.

I'm hesitant about granting the 'right' to conscientious objection.

Of course conscription should not apply except when necessary, but when applied, the government ought to reserve the right to conscript.

As for the conscript himself, I'd say he has the right to request non-combat duties and the government should try to accommodate his request to the extent possible, while recognizing that in some cases it might not be possible, in which case he ought then to be obligated to serve and fight if needs be.

That said, there is also the question of good faith, in that he'd expect at the very least that the government not order him to violate any laws, national or otherwise, any breach of this trust constituting grounds to desert.

We are referring to countries who have all volunteer armies. You want to join the army, you know ahead of time what you might be called to do. We as individuals do not create our countries policy, but as a member of its military we effectively carry out that policy. A lot of money goes into creating a soldier and you are expected to earn your pay and serve out your enlistment. In the case of Canada and the U.S., you do not want to fight anyone, the answer is simple don't join the military. No one is forcing you.

You're missing the point. Let's say the issue is not about fighting per se, but rather about being ordered to commit acts in violation of international law. Of course a soldier should be expected to obey all LEGAL orders.

If I'm not mistaken, according to the Geneva Convention, a solider does have an obligation to disobey any order that conflicts with that Convention. Though unless i'm wrong, he must obey pretty well all other orders.

 

[TenPenny]

Of course conscription should not apply except when necessary, but when applied, the government ought to reserve the right to conscript.

Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription.

 

[ironsides]

I'm hesitant about granting the 'right' to conscientious objection.

Of course conscription should not apply except when necessary, but when applied, the government ought to reserve the right to conscript.

As for the conscript himself, I'd say he has the right to request non-combat duties and the government should try to accommodate his request to the extent possible, while recognizing that in some cases it might not be possible, in which case he ought then to be obligated to serve and fight if needs be.

That said, there is also the question of good faith, in that he'd expect at the very least that the government not order him to violate any laws, national or otherwise, any breach of this trust constituting grounds to desert.



You're missing the point. Let's say the issue is not about fighting per se, but rather about being ordered to commit acts in violation of international law. Of course a soldier should be expected to obey all LEGAL orders.

If I'm not mistaken, according to the Geneva Convention, a solider does have an obligation to disobey any order that conflicts with that Convention. Though unless i'm wrong, he must obey pretty well all other orders.

What is the definition of international law, if we all (individually) got to pick and chose who we were sent to fight, there would be no wars, which would be good. No one really wants to harm anyone. There is no universally recognized 'International Law" for anything. Those who signed the Geneva Convention do follow what they agreed as a (what a term to use) humane way to fight a war and treat wounded and prisoners. But war is not against Geneva Convention principles.

 

[Machjo]

What is the definition of international law, if we all (individually) got to pick and chose who we were sent to fight, there would be no wars, which would be good. No one really wants to harm anyone. There is no universally recognized 'International Law" for anything. Those who signed the Geneva Convention do follow what they agreed as a (what a term to use) humane way to fight a war and treat wounded and prisoners. But war is not against Geneva Convention principles.

I agree. There is no international law prohibiting war per se, though there are laws to define what we might call 'just war', and the Geneva Convention is part of that.

 

[gopher]

"Good point. What applies to one applies to all."


During Vietnam we had a draft as well. All the more reason to apply the same principle.