U.S. soldiers seeking refugee status in Canada

[Praxius]

I watched him being interviewed last night on the news, CTV Canada, he said he served
his alloted time, was discharged, returned to civilian life, then they came to him and
said he had to go over to iraq again, he refused, saying he had completed his tour,
and they would not leave him alone. If this story is as he said, I am on his side, and
the u.s. military should butt out. Until someone comes forward and proves he is
lying I will believe him, he seemed very honest and straight forward.

That's how I see it. The other side of the argument has a bit of elbow room if he joined up on his accord and then PO'd over the border without even seeing any of the action. He apparently served his time he joined up to do, he filled out his obligation, and the Military, by the sounds of it, wanted more.

 

[Colpy]

That's how I see it. The other side of the argument has a bit of elbow room if he joined up on his accord and then PO'd over the border without even seeing any of the action. He apparently served his time he joined up to do, he filled out his obligation, and the Military, by the sounds of it, wanted more.

Your obligation extends much further than your tour.

You know that when you go in.

Even in the Canadian MILITIA, you can be called up for active service for five years after you QUIT!

NO CHOICE!

Best read the small print when you join.

 

[talloola]

Your obligation extends much further than your tour.

You know that when you go in.

Even in the Canadian MILITIA, you can be called up for active service for five years after you QUIT!

NO CHOICE!

Best read the small print when you join.

If what you say is true, the military should explain that in detail up front, as it obviously
is a contract trying to hide facts that come up to bite you later. Every soldier who
enlists should have that explained to them FULLY, so that they know. Lots of contracts
have fine print, hidden far into the story, trying to hide the information, and hoping
that it won't be seen. The military should be ashamed if they do that, these guys
die for their country, they shouldn't be duped like that. I welcome any of them who
have served a year, then were discharged, come on up, and don't go back.

 

[MHz]

Did anybody ask him if he would fight for Canada, should the need arise?

I saw a pic of a Hummer in Iraq, in the windshield was a sign that read "Two years my ass." That would indicate he was National Guard and not regular armed forces, are they under they very same contract.

 

[Praxius]

I did a little more looking into this...this guy is on welfare...Canadian welfare... keep dolling out your cash to keep our deserters. From the article it looks as if they all are on welfare. Enjoy! Your hard earned cash going to these guys. One of them was in the Marines for less than a year and didn't even go to Iraq. Looks like you are paying for him too!

Good, like I honestly care. Our taxes already go to some pretty stupid things, a minor blip on the radar. They're on Welfare? Who would have thunk it? I know being a Canadian myself it's a pain in the ass to get a job, I imagine they're not getting jobs tossed left and right to them either. At least our government and our people still have some humanity left to give them some money for living. You seem to imply they should be so lucky to be bumming off our streets for spare change and mouth wash.

I could continue to respond to your previous comments, however looking through it, you seem to be missing some key points (I guess by your mind set, so am I *shrugs*) I mean, if you can't see that Bush has contradicted your constitution with such things as the Patriot Act and a slew of other brainiac plans since he's been in power, then that's your loss more then it is ours.

But one point I would like to make is the way you tried to explain how that Oath is constructed. If it is indeed the way you worded it and is how it's supposed to be, then it too, much like most things I tend to see set as law or rule in the US.... Contradicting.

"There is no number in which orders shall be followed. It doesn't read that one will defend the Constitution THEN SECONDLY the President...THIRDLY the officers...etc. It is all one and the same."

If a soldier is to obey and uphold the constitution as equally as obey and follow the orders of the President of the US, and also follow the orders of their officers.... then when one or all three contradict oaths to each section..... what is one supposed to do? Follow the Constitution? Follow the President in what he tells you to do? Or follow the officers over the President in which they have direct command over you?

Now if you say the soldier is supposed to follow the President's orders over the Officer's..... then you already begin to contradict your explination on how this oath works and you don't seem to understand it yourself.

Either that or this oath is ment to be contradicting, and therefore nulls itself once again, and is a complete joke.

Or..... it falls back to my explination on upholding the constitution first, then following the orders of the president second, and the officers' third.

And if it follows under my explination (Which if it's supposed to make any sense, it should) Then we fall back to my explination and justification for this former soldier to resist the war in Iraq and any orders issued by the President of the US.

You got some screwed up country down there.

 

[Colpy]

How does serving your country in Iraq violate the US Constitution?

It does not.

 

[Praxius]

How does serving your country in Iraq violate the US Constitution?

It does not.

*pssh* never mind, you didn't get it. I repeated my explination a few times already.

 

[EagleSmack]

Perhaps you can join the army and take his place.

....now comes the great online lie.

Which is?

 

[MHz]

How does serving your country in Iraq violate the US Constitution?

It does not.

The politicians lying to start a war is what is unconstitutional. A citizen has the right to refuse to do something that is a harm to the welfare of the country. An illegal war does just that.

 

[karrie]

EagleSmack, I hope you'll forgive me picking your brain.

There has been a lot of talk about this war in Iraq being an illegal war. I don't think here is really the place to debate whether it is or not, but if we were to play a hypothetical scenario and assume it were, as a member of a nation's army, what are the responsibilities of the soldiers to not commit war crimes, including fighting an illegal war? Where does the onus lie in the end? Can soldiers be brought up on individual charges?

And if the onus does lie with them in some way to refuse to fight an illegal war, what are the correct steps?

 

[EagleSmack]

If what you say is true, the military should explain that in detail up front, as it obviously
is a contract trying to hide facts that come up to bite you later. Every soldier who
enlists should have that explained to them FULLY, so that they know. Lots of contracts
have fine print, hidden far into the story, trying to hide the information, and hoping
that it won't be seen. The military should be ashamed if they do that, these guys
die for their country, they shouldn't be duped like that. I welcome any of them who
have served a year, then were discharged, come on up, and don't go back.

Everyone who signs up for the armed service knows this. It is an 8 year obligation. The only people who bash on recruiters are people who have an axe to grind with the US Military. Recruiters are up front in what you owe the military and it is written clearly. When I joined I knew I owed 8 years. When I saw 8 years clearly spelled out I said

"Eight years! I thought I was only signing for four?!"
"You have an 8 year obligation. At the end of your four years active duty you will be dismissed from active service but not discharged. You will be placed in the Inactive Ready Reserve."
"What's that?"
"The IRR means that you can be called back at any time within those four years if you are needed. When you are dismissed (notice the word dismissed and not discharge) from active service you will have listed a place of address. You will be contacted once each year to report to active duty for one day to fill out a change of address. You don't have to wear your uniform but you can. If you do you have to have your hair cut and be within regulations."
"So it is not the reserves like my father does...one weekend a month and two weeks a year?"
"No"

That is why this guy is sitting in Canada collecting welfare folks.

 

[MHz]

If a soldier is to obey and uphold the constitution as equally as obey and follow the orders of the President of the US, and also follow the orders of their officers.... then when one or all three contradict oaths to each section..... what is one supposed to do? Follow the Constitution? Follow the President in what he tells you to do? Or follow the officers over the President in which they have direct command over you?

Are you sure that they are equal, it looks to me like there is a set order, 1st being the country, domestic could include the next person mentioned, the Prez. There are certain acts in the constitution that spell out when a Prez. is acting against the constitution.
The 2nd oath is to the leader of the country, provided he is acting within the rules set out in the constitution.

The 3rd is obey police, etc.

Interesting that it is written as Admiralty Law and not Civil Law.
That makes presentations to the courts just a bit different.

 

[talloola]

Everyone who signs up for the armed service knows this. It is an 8 year obligation. The only people who bash on recruiters are people who have an axe to grind with the US Military. Recruiters are up front in what you owe the military and it is written clearly. When I joined I knew I owed 8 years. When I saw 8 years clearly spelled out I said

"Eight years! I thought I was only signing for four?!"
"You have an 8 year obligation. At the end of your four years active duty you will be dismissed from active service but not discharged. You will be placed in the Inactive Ready Reserve."
"What's that?"
"The IRR means that you can be called back at any time within those four years if you are needed. When you are dismissed (notice the word dismissed and not discharge) from active service you will have listed a place of address. You will be contacted once each year to report to active duty for one day to fill out a change of address. You don't have to wear your uniform but you can. If you do you have to have your hair cut and be within regulations."
"So it is not the reserves like my father does...one weekend a month and two weeks a year?"
"No"

That is why this guy is sitting in Canada collecting welfare folks.

OK, I accept your explanation, but would like to hear from others, if they disagree,
and have explanation.

 

[Praxius]

Are you sure that they are equal, it looks to me like there is a set order, 1st being the country, domestic could include the next person mentioned, the Prez. There are certain acts in the constitution that spell out when a Prez. is acting against the constitution.
The 2nd oath is to the leader of the country, provided he is acting within the rules set out in the constitution.

The 3rd is obey police, etc.

Interesting that it is written as Admiralty Law and not Civil Law.
That makes presentations to the courts just a bit different.

I always figured the US Constitution was sorta the be all end all for what the US is supposed to be about. I figured this was why citizens of the US have the right to bear (fire)Arms to fend off enemies forign and domestic. If the elected president becomes an enemy or threat to the Constitution, then the people of the US as well as the soldiers of the US are to uphold the Constitution 1st and foremost.

So if Bush has attacked and attempted to screw around with the Constitution (which he's already done countless times so far) then wouldn't he be a Domestic Enemy of the State, and thus if he is an enemy of the State and Constitution, then shouldn't any and all of his commands and orders be null and void to any soldiers under his command, due to the Costitution being the be-all thing to protect to substain the identity of the USoA.

 

[EagleSmack]

EagleSmack, I hope you'll forgive me picking your brain.

There has been a lot of talk about this war in Iraq being an illegal war. I don't think here is really the place to debate whether it is or not, but if we were to play a hypothetical scenario and assume it were, as a member of a nation's army, what are the responsibilities of the soldiers to not commit war crimes, including fighting an illegal war? Where does the onus lie in the end? Can soldiers be brought up on individual charges?

And if the onus does lie with them in some way to refuse to fight an illegal war, what are the correct steps?

I do not think it is the right place to bring this up either but that is what has been brought up in here as an excuse for a deserter who defected to Canada.

The Administration decided to go to war whether you agree with it or not. Congress approved. So regardless of what other nations of the world said the US did it. Again, that will be debated and argued over forever. I personally think we pulled the trigger too fast but now that we are there we have to see it through.

During the course of this war soldiers, Marines, etc have to conduct themselves properly. When they are called to go to Iraq, they must go. When they get there they must fight or do whatever their job requires. So when Marines and soldiers do nasty things just to do nasty things they get punished.

Individual soldiers cannot not decide for themselves that this is illegal no matter how many support groups or drums are pounded out in front of the White House. No matter how many countries come out in protest...they're Americans...they volunteered...they signed a contract...and made a decision for themselves that they are not going. Now they are listed as deserters.

 

[talloola]

Everyone who signs up for the armed service knows this. It is an 8 year obligation. The only people who bash on recruiters are people who have an axe to grind with the US Military. Recruiters are up front in what you owe the military and it is written clearly. When I joined I knew I owed 8 years. When I saw 8 years clearly spelled out I said

"Eight years! I thought I was only signing for four?!"
"You have an 8 year obligation. At the end of your four years active duty you will be dismissed from active service but not discharged. You will be placed in the Inactive Ready Reserve."
"What's that?"
"The IRR means that you can be called back at any time within those four years if you are needed. When you are dismissed (notice the word dismissed and not discharge) from active service you will have listed a place of address. You will be contacted once each year to report to active duty for one day to fill out a change of address. You don't have to wear your uniform but you can. If you do you have to have your hair cut and be within regulations."
"So it is not the reserves like my father does...one weekend a month and two weeks a year?"
"No"

That is why this guy is sitting in Canada collecting welfare folks.

Yup, we'll help them out through this, and when our own military return home, WE'LL
make sure they are well taken care of also.

 

[karrie]

The Administration decided to go ...

During the course of this war soldiers, Marines, etc have to conduct themselves properly. When they are called to go to Iraq, they must go. When they get there they must fight or do whatever their job requires. So when Marines and soldiers do nasty things just to do nasty things they get punished.

Individual soldiers cannot not decide for themselves that this is illegal ...

Okay, so, now here's where I show off how little I know... lol... individuals being brought to international courts for war crimes, because they did what their country said to do, from within the military they had to serve... how do charges ever stick if they HAVE to do what they are told? Or is it only the top brass being brought up on war crimes?

 

[MikeyDB]

Fashioning honor out of corruption and failure seems to be a distinctly American passtime.

As an accused cynic, can someone please help me out with the issue of where common sense and integrity, personal responsibility and accountability to fundamental human morality falls?

Because we made a mistake and slaughtered more people than Saddam Hussein ever killed...we have to do the honorable thing and keep our fists firmly wrapped around the petroleum pipelines....

And so because of some "agreement" some "contract" made between young men and a lying corrupt political system....the onus is on the individual to surrender his or her life in the name of lies and deceit.

Great argument.

 

[karrie]

Fashioning honor out of corruption and failure seems to be a distinctly American passtime.

As an accused cynic...

That's an awful way to put it!! Did you read what I posted about Cynicism today?

 

[EagleSmack]

Are you sure that they are equal, it looks to me like there is a set order, 1st being the country, domestic could include the next person mentioned, the Prez. There are certain acts in the constitution that spell out when a Prez. is acting against the constitution.
The 2nd oath is to the leader of the country, provided he is acting within the rules set out in the constitution.

The 3rd is obey police, etc.

Interesting that it is written as Admiralty Law and not Civil Law.
That makes presentations to the courts just a bit different.

I just have to laugh a bit as "Officers" does not mean police or law enforcement officials. The military has enlisted men and women (Privates, PFC's, Lance Corporals, Corporals etc.) and it also has commisioned officers (2nd Lt, 1st Lt, Captains, Majors etc.) men and women who give the orders. The Officer Corps is above the Enlisted Corps. A boot 2nd Lt. outranks a 20 year Sgt. Major. It is how it is done all over the world. But for one who may not have a lot of knowledge it can be confusing.

But the oath is an oath that encompasses all. We are to defend the Constitution and obey the order of all appointed over us. They are one in the same.