A few other points.
Some on this thread brough tup the issue of conscientious objectors. I'm not aware of any internaitonal law which defends conscientious objectors, since such objection is by definition a challenge to the laws of the body politic, and as far as I know, conscientious objection would be illegal in any nation, including Canada. So to use conscientious objection as a defense will certainly fall on deaf ears in canada, as it ought to.
The other issue brought up was that if Canada accepts refugee soldiers on the grounds that the war is illegal, then that would have to apply to soldiers from Britain and Sudan as well. Well, as Reverend Blair mentionned, if international law and agreements Canada has signed do in fact require Canada to accept soldiers fleeing from illegal wars, then Canada ought to do the honourable thing and either abide by its agreements or sign off them, either way. But the point is, Canada must set an example by respecting contracts, agreements and international law. If it's not going to abide by its agreements, then it should not be so hypocritical as to sign them, and make it clear that it is has decided to abrogate such agreements. After all, the law ought to be above politics (i.e, apolitical). Canada can't sudden;y accept US refugees because it's got an ani-American streak, yt turn away British and Sudanese refugees because it doesn't concern us. Certainly the US will see through such hypocricy. So if Canada does indeed have such internaitonal obligations, then by all means accept the US refugees alongside their British and Sudanese counterparts.
