U.S. soldiers seeking refugee status in Canada

[Colpy]

"

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Gives oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies forign and domestic first and foremost..... obeying the orders of the President of the United States is secondary to that, even you should understand this. Clearly a large plithora of infringements on the constitution have occured from Bush since he's been in power, and my own interpretation of that would mean that since he has continually attacked many aspects of the Constitution since he's been in power, he is a domestic enemy and therefore any orders coming from him are null and void.

__________________

Interesting argument.......

But first you have to demonstrate how this "gentleman" serving would undermine the Constitution.

I agree that military trials for non-military personel are OBVIOUSLY a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

However, I do not believe anyone currently being arrested anywhere is being sent to Gitmo for military trial...........

Are you aware of any other more serious violation?

Because this guy, to use your defense, would have to PROVE that he, by serving as he agreed to do, would undermine the Constitution.

Good Luck with that.
​

 

[MikeyDB]

Colpy

And how would you feel about someone whose number came up and was sent to Viet Nam served for two years and decided that the morally correct thing to do was to leave?

And suppose this person was a Canadian working illegally in the U.S. at the time of the draft back in those wonderful days..... Does that mean that this individual answers to the laws of the United States before he answers to an informed conscience that recognizes the immorality and corruption behind below and all over that little dance in the bush?

 

[Colpy]

Colpy

And how would you feel about someone whose number came up and was sent to Viet Nam served for two years and decided that the morally correct thing to do was to leave?

And suppose this person was a Canadian working illegally in the U.S. at the time of the draft back in those wonderful days..... Does that mean that this individual answers to the laws of the United States before he answers to an informed conscience that recognizes the immorality and corruption behind below and all over that little dance in the bush?

If you read back, Mikey, you'll see I said Vietnam was a different case simply because of the draft.

I don't want to see anyone forced to serve in the armed forces against their will..........but these guys are VOLUNTEERS..........they signed up willingly, they SACRIFICED their free will to service of the nation...........IF he doesn't want to go back - FINE - serve your prison term.

BTW I have much more respect for guys who resisted the draft by doing their time than for those who ran to Canada......and more respect again for those who served.

 

[zoofer]

I say let him stay if he signs up for a stint in the Canadian army and serves in Afghanistan.

Did Kofi give his blessings to NATO on that one? If so he will feel so much better.

The Lefties want deserters to stay as it will increase their voter base and it pokes a stick at Uncle Sam. The deserters know that if the Dems get back the White House, amnesty along with the illegal immigrants is certain.

 

[MikeyDB]

Zoof-Baby...

You mean like amnesty like Ford for Nixon....or Bush for Libby...?

Amnesty is a wonderful thing when it's somone you like.....isn't it?

 

[zoofer]

Nixon was quite good actually. That tapes/break in affair was the only smudge on his otherwise exemplary service.
Scooter was innocent. Railroaded by a hyper judicial system prosecuted by zealots looking to get their man no matter what.
Same situation with Conrad Black.

Pardons are not blanket amnesty.

 

[talloola]

If he was discharged from the Army after his one year tour - they have no claim on him and I have no idea why he ran away to Canada unless he is trying to make a point.

Generally the military commitment is more than a "one year tour" - I think the story has
been fudged up to serve his agenda which obviously is against military service. If he was an objector in a more honest sense of the word - he could have served in another posting as there is U.S. military in many other areas without violent conflict.

Oops I see Thomaska has written the same....sorry for duplication of thought

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.

 

[EagleSmack]

I do! Canadians were active in Europe very shortly after war was declared. In fact, the first Canadian to die in battle was Sgt. Albert Price on September 4 1939 in a failed attack on the German ship, Admiral Scheer, in Wilhelmshaven.

http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/prince.html

Woof!

Well the official Canadian documents list the first Canadian to be killed was in Hong Kong after Pearl Harbor. Captured and executed.

Don't forget Americans fought in the Battle of Britain and fought against the Japanese with the Flying Tiger squadrons prior to Pearl Harbor as well.

 

[EagleSmack]

Indeed they are.

Then we agree

It's null and void according to common sense. The US like many other nations after WWII should be very aware of what is and is not considdered an illegal war or an act of aggression. The UN itself laid out definitions on this matter.

No it is not. A military contract can't be tied into what some people are calling an illegal war. The UN also laid out the rules in which Saddam's regime had to follow and he snubbed his nose at everything. The US took him to task for it while the UN waffled.

yeah yeah, I heard plenty already in regards to Kosovo. Shall we start nit picking and choosing which of our countries acted in the most illegals, or shall we stick to the topic at hand?

Kosovo stings doesn't it? Obviously the UN didn't support it therefore it was illegal. Let's not be hypocitical. This is very much part of the topic if you want to insert "illegal war" into the case of a US deserter.

Regardless, just as we did in Afghanistan under NATO, so we did in Kosovo. Under NATO approval, we are members, we go. Nobody backed the Iraq invasion, there was no organization which approved the invasion of Iraq except Bush's imaginary coalition of the silly.... there's a difference believe it or not.

But according to the UN, NATO was conducting an illegal war in Yugoslavia. No set organization backed the Iraq war but some countries did. The argument of an illegal war falls flat in the face of a deserter.

Blah blah blah.... cry me a friggin river. You can do whatever you want to do, they can do whatever the hell they want to... I will do what I want to do. Such is life. Each person has their own principles that they will uphold or won't..... the fact that someone will face losing everything they have for those principles is where I keep my respect. If you want to stay in the military just to go and shoot/kill people in a far away land regardless of why you're there or if those people pose a danger to your country and those you care for, who am I to dispute? In fact why would I care? Therefore, why do you care if this guy refuses to do the same thing you enjoy doing?

No one crying here. If you had a valid point and knew about the military I probably would be upset. But although you are not ignorant you show ignorance when you call an infantryman a "dumb ass foot soldier." The point is that he has deserted the Army and now he is in big trouble for his actions. BIG TROUBLE. Care is the wrong word in the way I look at it. The military cannot just throw up their hands and give a guy a pass while men and women like him who have signed the same contract are honoring their contract.

He apparently joined by his choice. He signed the contract, apparently he was discharged and that was that after already serving one year over in Iraq. Then they tried to suck him back in regardless if he was officially discharged or not..... to me, it sounds like he has every right to take off and give the US Military the Finger from our side of the border.

He was not discharged. He says he was discharge but that is not the truth. As was pointed out...you are not discharged until you complete your full service. He was relieved of his active duty obligation but was on the Inactive Ready Reserve. You are not discharged until your IRR status is fullfilled. After completing my four years active duty I did not get my honorable discharge until four years after that. I served 4 years in the IRR in which once a year I had to report for duty for one day to update paperwork so they would know where I was if there was a need to call me for active service. If I had not shown up on those days I would have been considered UA and I would have had a warrant out for my arrest AND would have had to answer under the UCMJ.

That fancy oath you speak of:

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Gives oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies forign and domestic first and foremost..... obeying the orders of the President of the United States is secondary to that, even you should understand this. Clearly a large plithora of infringements on the constitution have occured from Bush since he's been in power, and my own interpretation of that would mean that since he has continually attacked many aspects of the Constitution since he's been in power, he is a domestic enemy and therefore any orders coming from him are null and void.

That oath you mock is the oath he took. Your interpetation of the oath is false. 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. So you say he has attacked the Constitution but in reality he has not. You may not agree with what he has done but folks who say he has attacked the Constitution are just whinning because they can't stand the guy. All Republicans get blamed for doing that. It is an age old liberal attack that has never carried any weight legally. Just rantings and nothing more.

 

[MikeyDB]

A "war" predicated on lies and self-interest isn't a legitimate war regardless of how "legal" it may be made to appear. If a war and and invaision of self-intrerest is granted the legitimacy of self-defense , whether pre-emptive in nature or otherwise,perhaps the war practiced by Germany and Japan were legitimate and we should re-write history to reflect this truth you've unearthed.

 

[EagleSmack]

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.

Regardless of what he said on CTV he did not fullfill his obligation. It says he was honorably discharged and that is false. He has deserter status that means he was still obligated.

It says he joined after 9/11/2001. It says he was discharged in July 2006 after serving four years. That tells me he entered in July of 2002. That tells me he was obligated to serve in the Inactive Reserve until July of 2010. So the fact remains that he fullfilled his original obligation but did not return when he was called back to active service which was clearly in the contract that he signed.

People...that is why he ran to Canada. He does not have a case here in the US. He would have to either fullfill his obligation, face punishment for refusal or leave the country as a deserter.

 

[Avro]

The real crime here is how many tours the military are being asked to serve in Bush's illegal botched war in Iraq only to be treated like garbage as veterans.

Americans should be ashamed of themselves and their government.

Btw, he should stay in the U.S. and serve his time in jail, military personel can't pick and choose the wars they will or will not fight.

 

[lone wolf]

Well the official Canadian documents list the first Canadian to be killed was in Hong Kong after Pearl Harbor. Captured and executed.

Don't forget Americans fought in the Battle of Britain and fought against the Japanese with the Flying Tiger squadrons prior to Pearl Harbor as well.

And they let you into the official records in Ottawa? Eag, you will never find the complete and unbiassed truth on the Internet. Nobody has forgot those few Americans who chose to forgo safety at home and corporate profit for honour and went off to war.

Woof!

 

[MikeyDB]

Eaglesmack

Your government is among the most corrupt governments in the world! Is an agreement made between a government that lies to its people valid and "lawful"? Is an agreement made between theives and liars furthering their interests ahead of the people and nation they're supposed to be representing a valid and honorable compact that should be honored when there is no honor in the authority creating the contract?

I understand some reservation on the part o America in honoring the Geneva Conventions, when we all know the great benefits of torture when it comes to obtaining information...I even understaned toxifying the lands of countless people with defoliants when you're involved in fighting a war predicated on counterfit reason from a bankrupt philosopy....

What "duty" does any American have to a government that kills its people in the name of wealth and power while disenfranchising women and ethnic minorities, allows fraud and deception to take hope and help away from cities ravaged by floods and hurricanes so defense contractors can continue reaping the benefits of some urgent necessity ...that turns out to be a lie every way it can be looked at?

 

[EagleSmack]

And they let you into the official records in Ottawa? Eag, you will never find the complete and unbiassed truth on the Internet. Nobody has forgot those few Americans who chose to forgo safety at home and corporate profit for honour and went off to war.

Woof!

Yeah perhaps you are right. Just as you got yours off the NET I got mine of the Canada at War webpage and that is what they said.

 

[lone wolf]

Yeah perhaps you are right. Just as you got yours off the NET I got mine of the Canada at War webpage and that is what they said.

No.... Actually, I got my information about P/O (Sgt) Albert Price from news of a dedication ceremony in the Legionaire Magazine, then searched it online to provide a link.

Want your tailfeathers back ... again?:lol:

Woof!

 

[EagleSmack]

No.... Actually, I got my information about P/O (Sgt) Albert Price from news of a dedication ceremony in the Legionaire Magazine, then searched it online to provide a link.

Want your tailfeathers back ... again?:lol:

Woof!

Well the source I got it from listed the guy as the first Canadian infantryman killed. Let me try to find it.

What does that mean? You've said that before.

 

[EagleSmack]

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!

 

[lone wolf]

Well the source I got it from listed the guy as the first Canadian infantryman killed. Let me try to find it.

What does that mean? You've said that before.

It doesn't surprise me that he was listed as the first infantryman killed. Hong Kong was the first time Canadians acted as self-contained units - and that was only because they were sent to the station as a unit for garrison detail. Prior to December 1941, all British subjects were recorded as British. The Royal Canadian Legion has been working to repatriate the names of Canadian war dead, but that isn't an easy task. Even today, Britain prefers to believe they stood alone in their finest hour. You Yanks really took the wind from their sails!

Hand your tailfeathers back = your ass got flamed in a good natured dogfight but you'll need those feathers for another go....

Woof!

 

[Avro]

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!

Perhaps you can join the army and take his place.

....now comes the great online lie.