Of course I have received some negative comments, as will happen about nearly any issue. The negative views are based on ignorance and false assumptions: the argument says the soldiers volunteered for duty, and so have an obligation to continue. This is not actually true.
The negative opinions are probably also based on some bigotry. Some Canadians believe too many people are allowed to live in Canada, that immigration is "out of control", and they react negatively to almost anyone's desire to stay in Canada.
In addition, some people love all authority and hate all defiance of it. A soldier breaking ranks to leave the military is offensive to many people, and they look no further.
In this post, I'd like to hear your thoughts. I'm soliciting all opinions, and none will be deleted, unless they violate the comment policy of this blog. I ask, however, that you read this entire post before commenting.
Joshua Key, for example, was promised dozens of time that, because he had a family, he would not see active combat. He was promised this up until the minute he signed, then promptly shipped to a combat-training unit and off to Iraq. [Source: The Deserter's Tale, by Joshua Key and Lawrence Hill, and Key's sworn testimony to the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board.]
Many links about stop-loss can be found in my comments here. As I say there, calling the US military "voluntary" is like calling breathing optional.
The Nuremberg Principles state:
Principle I: Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
Principle II: The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III: The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V: Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VII: Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
In other words, AWOL US soldiers are not only following their consciences and their humanity, they are complying with international law. The United States is in violation of international law. The AWOL vets are only in violation of US law.
* * * *
That's the background. Everything is verifiable, although I will not get caught up in demands for proof.
My questions are:
Do you think Canada should allow former US troops who are absent-without-leave to remain legally in Canada? Why or why not?
1. Please read this entire post before you comment.
2. If you challenge any of my information, be prepared to back up your claims.
3. Please refrain from personal attacks. Bigoted statements of any kind will be deleted, and you will be banned from further discussion.
Obviously this is not meant to be a scientific survey. I just want to hear what you all have to say. Thanks.