The legality of hosting US AWOL soldiers in Canada?

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I'd like to know your ideas on the following.

It would seem to me that if Canada refused to go to war in Iraq on principle, the principle being respect for international law, then would it not stand to reason that Canada ought to maintain the same principle in relation to US soldiers fleeing to Canada?

On the one hand, I do sympathise with these soldiers, since I would not want to fight in an illegal war myself. Yet on the other, is there no international law requiring countries to send people who haven't fulfilled whatever legal obligation back to their home country? And is there any ground in international law to grant such soldiers refugee status in Canada?

My positin would be to accept US soldiers escaping to Canada to avoid military service only if it is fully in accordance with all international laws. If not, then I'd be interested in knowing if perhaps some new international laws might need to be drafted to deal with this situation. I believe this would give Canada the advantage of being able to claim to be functionning entirely within the parameters of international law, thus showing it to be consistent in abiding by its principles.

Your ideas?
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
You've answered your own question..... how can it be illegal to offer refuge to those that do not want to fight in an ILLEGAL war?
 

Rick van Opbergen

House Member
Sep 16, 2004
4,080
0
36
The Netherlands
www.google.com
Interesting issue Machjo. When I look at the rulings in the Netherlands (and I don't know whether they are the same for Canada), we have to send back people who are "on the run", whether they are deserters or criminals (I don't link the two here, don't worry), if the country asks so, except when there is the possibility that these people can receive the death penalty or can face any other hard "measures" (like torture). For what I know, this is not what is happening in the US, meaning these deserters will not be faced with the possibility of the death penalty (I've read comments here that one can receive the death penalty as a deserter, but in real life that would never happen). Although I do not agree with this war either, I do not see how Canada can retain these US soldiers when the law tells Canada to send the soldiers back.

Whether there should be new international laws? Good question. Could this not harm relations between neighboring countries, when one country is willing to absorb the deserters from the other country (on legal grounds) and that the other country gets really pissed about that? (to put it in such a way)
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
gerryh said:
You've answered your own question..... how can it be illegal to offer refuge to those that do not want to fight in an ILLEGAL war?

Sorry gerryh, but I didn't answer my own question. Yes, the war in Iraq is illegal. However, the contract signed between the soldier and the US military is a separate document. These might be linked according to some international law I don't know about, but there is no guarantee of that unless someone on this forum definitely knows international law on this issue. Just because the war in Iraq is illegal, the contract between the soldiers and the US government might be perfectly legal, according to international law (again, I don't know the answer). So it would seem to me that if international law would in fact require Canada to send the soldier back, then Canada ought to do so. This of course would not prevent Canada or any other nation to present a resolution to the UN to try to change the law so as to make it legal for Canada to keep US soldiers. At least if Canada's action is within international legal boundaries, then if the US has any issue with this, Canada could just say 'refer to internaitonal law'. But if Canada's doing it illegally, then it has some explaining to do to the US. And only as of the time that it's legal ought Canada to keep its soldiers
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Re: RE: The legality of hosting US AWOL soldiers in Canada?

Rick van Opbergen said:
Interesting issue Machjo. When I look at the rulings in the Netherlands (and I don't know whether they are the same for Canada), we have to send back people who are "on the run", whether they are deserters or criminals (I don't link the two here, don't worry), if the country asks so, except when there is the possibility that these people can receive the death penalty or can face any other hard "measures" (like torture). For what I know, this is not what is happening in the US, meaning these deserters will not be faced with the possibility of the death penalty (I've read comments here that one can receive the death penalty as a deserter, but in real life that would never happen). Although I do not agree with this war either, I do not see how Canada can retain these US soldiers when the law tells Canada to send the soldiers back.

The other nation might get angry, but there wouldn't be much it could do diplomatically if it's on legal grounds. But if it isn't on legal grounds, then Canada stands on as week a position on the AWOL soldier issue as the US does with the Iraq issue.

Again, I don't know. It might already be perfectly legal by international law, in which case it's already a non-issue and Canada is untouchable on this point. I just want to know whether or not it is, that's all. But thanks for your response.

Whether there should be new international laws? Good question. Could this not harm relations between neighboring countries, when one country is willing to absorb the deserters from the other country (on legal grounds) and that the other country gets really pissed about that? (to put it in such a way)
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Re: RE: The legality of hosting US AWOL soldiers in Canada?

Rick van Opbergen said:
Interesting issue Machjo. When I look at the rulings in the Netherlands (and I don't know whether they are the same for Canada), we have to send back people who are "on the run", whether they are deserters or criminals (I don't link the two here, don't worry), if the country asks so, except when there is the possibility that these people can receive the death penalty or can face any other hard "measures" (like torture). For what I know, this is not what is happening in the US, meaning these deserters will not be faced with the possibility of the death penalty (I've read comments here that one can receive the death penalty as a deserter, but in real life that would never happen). Although I do not agree with this war either, I do not see how Canada can retain these US soldiers when the law tells Canada to send the soldiers back.

Whether there should be new international laws? Good question. Could this not harm relations between neighboring countries, when one country is willing to absorb the deserters from the other country (on legal grounds) and that the other country gets really pissed about that? (to put it in such a way)

However, the death penalty is the ultimate penalty for a deserter. So if Bush goes wackier than he is, and considering his record on death penalty, he could very well send few people to see St. Peter.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Ah, but I thought Canada also has the death penalty for treason, though I don't know about desertion. Anyone know?
 

Rick van Opbergen

House Member
Sep 16, 2004
4,080
0
36
The Netherlands
www.google.com
moghrabi said:
However, the death penalty is the ultimate penalty for a deserter. So if Bush goes wackier than he is, and considering his record on death penalty, he could very well send few people to see St. Peter.
But he won't. What would be the reaction of the US population, or the rest of the world for that matter, if Bush had plans to do so? I don't think it's realistic to assume Bush will ever do that.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: The legality of hosti

Yeah, Riel is the only Canadian ever executed for treason. The last time we shot Canadian soldiers for desertion was in WWI and, if I recall correctly, it was British officers who did that.

For Machjo's original question though...

Canada has signed a couple of international agreements saying that we will accept, as refugees, soldiers fleeing illegal wars. This has never been tested in Canada up until now. We have taken some soldiers in from wars that the entire Security Council condemned, but there was no challenge as to whether they could stay or not.

The closest thing we have to a precedent occurred in Britain during the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan. The British government tried to extradite a Russian soldier and the British courts made them extend refugee status to him.

Canada's laws and legal system are very similar to Britain's, so that is a very important precedent and would quite likely require us to accept American deserters avoiding Iraq.

It also has a lot to do with why the Canadian court (under rumoured political pressure...now there's a scandal somebody should be digging into) decided that the legality of the war in Iraq had no bearing on the Hinzman case.

There is little doubt that the war in Iraq, under international laws and agreements that Canada (and the US, BTW)is signatory to, is illegal. The only way the war could become legal without the consent of the Security Council is if Iraq presented a clear and present danger to the United States. It did not present such a threat, as the evidence (or lack thereof) since the invasion has clearly shown.

Anyway, the lower Canadian court has weaseled out of the question of the legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, so Hinzman (and approximately 5000 other US soldiers according to some estimates) are forced to rely on the likelyhood that they will be forced to commit war crimes while in Iraq.

That too is a very real possibility given the stories that have come to light since the invasion began. The use of DU is illegal, as is the use of Napalm...the US military has used both. The arrest of civilians is illegal...the US military has arrested civilians. Torture is illegal...the US military has committed torture. Questioning POWs is illegal...the US has questioned POWs, including the use of torture. Unnecessarily putting the lives of civilians at risk is illegal...the US military has done so. Targeting the press is illegal...the US military is widely believed to have targeted al Jazeera and other members of the international press.

I could go on...the list of contraventions of the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements is a long one. None of those contraventions, with the exception of the Abu Ghraib scandal, has been investigated or brought to trial though.

Does that clear things up at all machjo?
 

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
Hey!

I really enjoy reading stuff about soldiers and what it means to be a soldier and their personal stories. My heart bleeds for them. I guess that is why I was so active in labour unions. I used to watch miners enter a Uranium mine .... I used to watch pregnant women sit on 45 gallon drums of yellow cake while eating their lunch at the processing plant and they were not being told of the dangers.
Or, they felt immune. These soldiers must feel immune too.

Imagine being of "army" age in the U.S. and lookin' at a picture like this!



There are more pictures here:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery.htm

Here are some stories which might add more information to the issue.

It is easy for me to post these links. It is not as though I had to run Google for an hour. I have my own database and its a simple task.

Draft Dodger Memorial Plans Anger U.S.
September 23, 2004
http://www.thenewmexicochannel.com/news/3754690/detail.html

U.S. War Objectors Seek Sanctuary In Canada: What Will Be Their Fate?
31 Aug 2004 by No Draft, No Way!
http://www.nodraftnoway.org/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1093969526&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&

JeremyHinzman.net
http://www.jeremyhinzman.net/index.html

Centre on Conscience and War
http://www.nisbco.org

War Resisters Support Campaign
http://www.resisters.ca

GI Rights
http://girights.objector.org


U.S. Soldiers Seek Asylum in Canada
By Marty Logan
December 02, 2004

Canadian leaders, not the country's refugee system, should decide the fate of soldiers who have deserted the U.S. military to apply for asylum in their northern neighbour, according to a support group.

One of those soldiers, Jeremy Hinzman, will go before Canada's refugee board Monday for a hearing on whether he qualifies for asylum. The adjudicator who will decide the case has already announced he will not consider the argument that Hinzman did not have to serve because the U.S.-led war on Iraq was illegal.

"While that may provide good grounds of appeal, if an appeal is necessary, Jeremy would have preferred to be able to bring that up," said Lee Zaslofsky of the War Resisters Support Campaign. "It's a disappointing and obviously mistaken ruling," he told IPS from Toronto.

At the same time, "this is a political question," added Zaslofsky. "This is not simply a question of 'can we get the refugee board to agree that Jeremy and the others are refugees under the definition'? The issue here is, will Canada let these guys stay?"

Hinzman arrived in Canada on Jan. 3, 2004 with his wife and child, fleeing his army unit, the 82nd Airborne Regiment, just days before it was to depart for Iraq. The army specialist, who had already served in Afghanistan, had applied to be discharged or reassigned as a conscientious objector (CO) but the military denied his request.

Going through the CO process can take up to a year, says Bill Galvin of the Washington, DC-based Centre on Conscience and War, a member of the GI Rights network.

"That's a year during which you have officially gone public saying you cannot in good conscience do this, and yet you are required to (serve)," he added.

Galvin told IPS that despite years of submitting Freedom of Information Act requests, the centre has yet to receive official figures from the defence department on the number of applications being made for CO status.

But he says his group is now processing a "couple dozen" submissions and estimates that another 10 organisations country-wide are doing similar work. Some soldiers apply independently, he noted.

But Galvin, himself a CO during the Vietnam War of the 1960s and 1970s, cautions soldiers who have left their units without permission (making them absent without leave, or AWOL) to think hard before heading to the U.S.-Canada border.

"Hundreds of people go AWOL every day; being AWOL is no big deal. (But) desertion is a specific intent and crime. If your intent is to never return or to avoid war ... that is much more serious."

"Part of the problem is, when folks go to Canada and apply for asylum, they provide the government with evidence," adds Galvin, "so by going to Canada they actually make their situation with the U.S. military worse."

Two recent conscientious objectors who deserted, Camilo Mejia and Stephen Funk, each were sentenced to one year in jail by military courts-martial earlier this year. "The fact that these guys (in Canada) have not only gone AWOL but gone to Canada, applied for asylum, and talked to the press, that's going to really hurt them" if they return to the United States, Galvin argues.

Galvin says that despite those risks it is estimated that a dozen other U.S. soldiers are already in Canada "underground," awaiting the outcome of Hinzman's refugee hearing.

Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) grants asylum to people who can prove they are "in need of protection," meaning that to remove them from Canada would create a danger of torture, a risk to their life or a risk of cruel and unusual punishment or treatment.

It also grants asylum to those who fit the definition found in the United Nations Refugee Convention; that is, they have a "well-founded fear of persecution" based on: race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group.

A decision from next week's hearing is not expected until February, says Zaslofsky. It could be appealed to the Federal Court of Canada and then to the immigration minister.

"I think there are many others who would be very encouraged to come north if there was such a ruling or if there were a policy decision by the government," he adds. - I'm not saying a flood ... but there are certainly many guys in the military ... who are very very demoralised and unwilling to go to Iraq."

Canada accepted tens of thousands of "draft dodgers" in the Vietnam era, but many people believe taking such a stand today would irritate already tense relations between the world's largest trading partners.

Prime Minister Paul Martin hosted U.S. President George W Bush on his first official visit to Canada this week, one year after he replaced former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who decided last year to keep his country out of the Iraq war, a decision that chilled relations between the neighbours.

Reportedly, Bush has asked Martin to provide experts for a controversial election scheduled for January in occupied Iraq, while the prime minister wants Washington to reopen the border to Canadian beef, blocked since a "mad cow" was exported south in 2003.

Also a resister during the Vietnam War, Zaslofsky says, "when we came there was no refugee process for us ... we were simply allowed to apply as landed immigrants ... at the time tens of thousands of people came to Canada (via that process).

"We would prefer some kind of provision like that ... we're not looking for (a process where) every single refugee case of every war resister who comes from the (United) States will be successful -- you can see that that's not a very reliable or pleasant process."

Two other U.S. soldiers have applied for asylum in Canada. David Sanders will have his hearing Jan. 28, while the case of Brandon Hughey is likely to come up after that date, says Zaslofsky.

He adds that the Canadian public largely supports the asylum seekers, noting his organisation has collected 15,000 signatures on a petition calling for the men to be permitted to stay in this country.

According to Zaslofsky, "It's getting very close to the time when the government will have to make a decision on this. These are actual human beings; it's not a theoretical issue any more. Are we going to offer up these guys on the altar of making nice with President Bush ... or is Canada going to do the right thing?"
 

Mooseskin Johnny

Electoral Member
Dec 23, 2004
134
0
16
BC
The Canadian attitude during Vietnam was that American deserters and draft dodgers didn't break any laws here. Trudeau set the stage and most of us went along with it.

The question will be whether Martin has enough fortitude to stand up to Bush. I don't think he does.
 

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
Martin is in a jam .....

If it is okay for a U.S. soldier to refuse service, then why not a refugee from Britain and maybe Sudan?

If Quebec separated from Canada and the Federal government called up the troops .... and people refused to go and defend Canada .... What would Martin say then?

Calm
 

Mooseskin Johnny

Electoral Member
Dec 23, 2004
134
0
16
BC
Paranoid Dot Calm said:
Martin is in a jam .....

If it is okay for a U.S. soldier to refuse service, then why not a refugee from Britain and maybe Sudan?

If Quebec separated from Canada and the Federal government called up the troops .... and people refused to go and defend Canada .... What would Martin say then?

Yes, Martin is in a jam, but simply because he has no spine.

I have no problem with Canada taking refugees.

This is not about a Canadian war; it is about an American one which most of the world considers to be illegal, immoral and just plain wrong. Yes, we should take American refugees. We should do everything we can to hinder the American war machine, including encouraging their soldiers to desert.
 

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
I just noticed that the link I posted for this story is no longer active.

Here is the story

Draft Dodger Memorial Plans Anger U.S.
September 23, 2004

There are plans for a bronze monument and a festival in Canada to honor U.S. draft dodgers -- and many Americans aren't glad to hear it. Draft Dodger Memorial Offensive?Do you think this memorial for U.S. draft dodgers is offensive?Yes. Draft dodgers shouldn't be honored.No. Vietnam War resisters were courageous and should be honored.

The project is called "Our Way Home." Its director said it was done to honor what he calls "the courageous legacy of Vietnam War resisters." He said it also pays tribute to Canadians who helped those Americans resettle in Canada when they fled the draft.

Officials in British Columbia said they've been flooded with angry phone calls and e-mails since the news spread about the memorial planned for 2006.

Local official Roy Heuckendorff said he was not surprised by the hostile U.S. response.

"A lot of the American people, particularly those who are veterans, feel very passionately about this," he said. "There is simply no doubt that this has really struck a nerve.

"I'm talking to people who are beside themselves, almost in tears. They have lost brothers, been injured themselves, lost friends -- they are just absolutely appalled and flabbergasted that this is going on."
 

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
If I were an American ....

I would not run and hide. I would simply refuse and take jail time. It would bankrupt the system!

That is the intelligent way of doing it. Canada need not invest a dime.
I think we should just sit back and let the Americans who oppose this war bankrupt their own system!

There is no way that the American justice system can handle thousands of arrests and convictions without it bankrupting their system.

Calm
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
I would not run and hide. I would simply refuse and take jail time. It would bankrupt the system!

On the other hand if they win their refugee claims, it will make news around the world. That can shift public opinion against Bush and his fellow war mongers. Part of what is happening with these refugee claims is that it has been covered, though not in a major or fair way, in the mainstream American press. Before the refugee claims it was relegated to the alternative press and wasn't even getting major coverage there.

I don't know if Hinzman and his fellow refugees had really considered that beforehand, but you can rest assured that his lawyer and the people giving these guys sanctuary had thought about it.

There is no way that the American justice system can handle thousands of arrests and convictions without it bankrupting their system.

There will be plenty of that, likely already is, anyway.

If it is okay for a U.S. soldier to refuse service, then why not a refugee from Britain and maybe Sudan?

If the war is illegal then there is no reason why not. We should welcome them all.

If Quebec separated from Canada and the Federal government called up the troops .... and people refused to go and defend Canada .... What would Martin say then?

He has no basis to say anything. We were the first country to recognise the Ukraine when it separated from the USSR. Civil wars are almost always illegal to fight under international agreements. If Quebec wants to go, as much as I would hate to see that, there is no way that starting a war is going to make them want to stay.

The Canadian attitude during Vietnam was that American deserters and draft dodgers didn't break any laws here. Trudeau set the stage and most of us went along with it.

Martin has moved towards that position by saying that Canada will accept, as immigrants, people who are evading the war in Iraq. That's a long way from accepting them as refugees on short notice or taking in draft dodgers as we did during Vietnam, but it does infer that if they follow our immigration rules we will not extradite them to the US.

Martin is trying to have it both ways, as usual.

The question will be whether Martin has enough fortitude to stand up to Bush. I don't think he does.

I don't think he does either. Eventually he's going to have fall off of the fence though and, while he's only got a minority government, he kind of has to fall on the side of Canadian public opinion.
 

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
I tend to admire a man who doesn't run .... but who stays and fights for what he thinks is right.

If a guy won't stand up for himself ..... then he shouldn't of signed up for any army.

I wanna see these guys put their lives on the line at home and thus supporting their troops abroad.

Let's see these so-called pacifists organize themselves .... let's start seeing 20 thousand a week just sit at home and have FBI arrest them under TV lights.

The reason I got re-elected local union president was by putting the cause ahead of my own personal life. I paid a heavy price. But, I stood up for myself, and others.

Is there a Mandella in the U.S.? Is there another Martin Luther King?

Calm
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
The main diference this time as compared to Vietnam is America has no draft, that forced kids to go over. However America went at it alone in Vietnam and pretty well alone in Iraq (afew thousand other troops- so bush can call it a "coalition" as it sounds better than illegeal invasion.)

Since It is an illegal war so we should take them. No if ands or buts or questions asked.

The current soldiers all signed up to protect their country not to invade other countries that did nothing to them. Afghanastan was legal and they "attaclked" america or were responsible for it 9/11. So that so called war is justified, even though not much has been accomplished there yet. Iraq did nothing to America.

Don't American soldiers have the duty to "disobey" illegal orders anyways? Which Iraq is. America is violating international law and more than likley there own law, But "W" ignores laws that are not conveinent to him.

Hell if I had a spare room I would invite a so called "deserter" to stay with me. I encourage them to come to Canada and not participate in any illegal actions that "W" orders.

The real question is whats next? Is "W" going to illegally invade someone else? if so, there will be more deserters, as they signed up to protect america and not invade other countries because Bush wants to flex his muscles.
 

Shmad

Electoral Member
Mar 24, 2002
550
0
16
Cache Creek, BC
www.justrant.com
All the more power to those who are finally realizing that they are in an illegal war and although it may not seem like doing the right thing, fleeing to Canada, they are not participating in an illegal war.

Granted I don't know how difficult it would be for them to receive Refugee status, but all the more power to the americans that are finally finally waking up and realizing what Hilter.. (sorry.. Bush).. is doing to them and their country.. They are among the limited amount of the American populous that has not been completely brainwashed.