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.
The background:
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?
Rules:
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.
18 comments:
On a case-by-case basis, I am fully in support of having them stay. If they go through proceedings and can show that they were misled by the US military through:
a) Unethical recruiting practices including:
i) Not having explained, in a manner clear to the individual, what is involved in signing up
ii) Not given the chance to understand the nature of the contract they were signing
iii) Not given a "cool-off" period to change their minds (if they complain within 2 weeks or so they should be able to back out)
b) Intentionally misleading comments, though I fear that most would be denied and it would be person-vs-person. If it can be shown that that recruiter had a history of doing so, or in court it can be whon that the recruiters are systematically encouraged to do so, then it should be taken into account.
c) Stop-lossed folks as long as conscription is not in place.
While it may seem that I would let all resisters stay, I have to say I have little pity for those who know they are joining the military and that they will be sent to war should one occur and then not want to go when their number comes up. As far as legality of the war, that decision needs to be made at the senior levels of the military and the courts and to have it done on an individual basis would destory an effective mobilization in a crisis.
Obviously if the person genuinely doesn't understand what they're getting into they need to be protected, as we protect all of the vulnerable individuals in our society. But if they are intelligent, know what they're getting into, and get queasy after a year of being in the military and desert they should be punished.
As far as what is effective punishment I would say a minimum of 3 years, maximum 10, with no possibility of early release and dishonourable discharge.
They SHOULD be allowed to stay, yes. I wouldn't even make them prove anything on a case-by-case basis, either, because a lot of people who supposedly "know what they're getting into" simply don't when it comes to reality. Unlike Scott, I have a lot of sympathy for that because I know the realities of U.S. culture when it comes to the way the military takes advantage of poverty.
As I understand it, though, Canada has signed treaties with the U.S. that would make that impossible. So even if the current government were inclined to let them stay (and I doubt they are), they wouldn't be able to. If I'm mistaken about that, I'd love to be corrected.
Thank you both very much for your comments.
Scott's criteria would support the case of every US war resister in Canada.
As far as legality of the war, that decision needs to be made at the senior levels of the military and the courts and to have it done on an individual basis would destory an effective mobilization in a crisis.
However, if actions being taken during the prosecution of a war violate international law and human rights standards, then individuals refusing to participate in those actions are in compliance with international standards.
In other words, men and women who refuse to murder civilians, or engage in gratuitous brutality (such as destroying homes or schools) are doing the right thing and should be supported, not punished.
As I understand it, though, Canada has signed treaties with the U.S. that would make that impossible. So even if the current government were inclined to let them stay (and I doubt they are), they wouldn't be able to. If I'm mistaken about that, I'd love to be corrected.
Fortunately I believe you are mistaken. Those treaties do exist, but the courts or the House of Commons may well come through.
The Bloc and the NDP are already supporting a provision which would let them stay. The Liberals have not taken a stand either way (of course). Some key Liberal MPs support the provision and it may happen.
This is why public support is so crucial.
I look forward to more opinions!
Those treaties do exist, but the courts or the House of Commons may well come through.
Can you tell me more about how that would work?
Can you tell me more about how that would work?
Any day or week now, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether the IRB must re-hear the resisters' cases, this time allowing evidence about the prosecution of the war itself - human rights violations, violations of international law, illegal war.
The resisters were not allowed to present any evidence about that.
There is great hope that if the Supreme Court tells the IRB it must hear this evidence, that the IRB's ruling may change.
The IRB can grant refugee status, regardless of the treaty.
At the same time, I'm told that a resolution in the House of Commons in support of the resisters staying in Canada could also over-ride the terms of that treaty, which are no longer relevant.
I can't say too much more about that, because the negotiations are in a private stage. (And obviously I'm not involved.)
With due respect to the people involved, would not a few trials and dare I say a few death sentences not be the thing that gives this movement political traction with which to put the necessary pressure on the American population at large to grapple with this issue? The thing that concerns me is that if there isn't the kind of pressure there--the constant repetition of injustice being done over and over again to these men and women, that would drive good American men and women to march on Washington. To a certain extent, I see Canada serving as a pressure outlet to a conversation that really needs to be forced onto the American public at large--are we as just and as noble as we say we are? Or are we the same kind of monsters that people overseas have been painting us.
With due respect to the people involved, would not a few trials and dare I say a few death sentences not be the thing that gives this movement political traction with which to put the necessary pressure on the American population at large to grapple with this issue?
No. It would do no such thing.
What's more, it's not Canada's job to try to provoke such a thing anyway. Canada should do the right thing for the people within its borders, who have made the personal choice to turn away from this war. But Canada cannot be responsible for provoking the American populace into rebellion, nor should these brave people be turned into messages or pawns.
The thing that concerns me is that if there isn't the kind of pressure there--the constant repetition of injustice being done over and over again to these men and women, that would drive good American men and women to march on Washington.
Nothing will bring out the population in the kind of massive numbers we all want to see except a draft.
Prosecuting - and executing?! as you are suggesting - a few deserters will not do that. If you think that it will, you are misreading the American climate in a big way.
But all this is somewhat beside the point. The real answer to your comment is this:
Why should these very courageous people be sacrificed? Because we hope their sacrifice will spark an apathetic public to action? Haven't they already sacrificed enough???
The Key, will you give a yes or no answer to the question? Are you saying Canada should not let them stay?
I have given this issue a lot of thought. A bit of background. I enlisted in the US Army in 1978. Why I enlisted, who I "was" then, etc., is a story for a different post. What is relevant is that I was on active duty for 3 years and in and out of the reserves for another 19. Lest one rush to judgment, I do want to note that, in 1990, while my brother was jumping out of airplanes in Iraq, I was holding a sign, "Reserve Office Against the War." Nonetheless...
Given that every single person who currently serves in the US military - regardless of the tactics that got him/her there - has volunteered to do so, I initially struggled with the notion that one would then say, "Oh, but I don't want to go to war."
Let me comment on my use of the word "volunteer." Yes, I completely agree that there are unethical tactics, lies, etc. and that poverty is its own coercion. But, I do feel it appropriate to draw a distinction between those who, very much against their will, were forced, via the draft, to serve or run and those who walk in and sign up, albeit with a coercion of a different kind.
As has been more eloquently articulated by others here, as time passed and I thought more about recruiting tactics, the poverty draft, the misinformation of the Bush administration, and what service members have experienced or are experiencing in Iraq, I came to the conclusion that, as has also been pointed out, it is their obligation to refuse to serve.
Thus, my answer is, without reservation, YES. I would very much like to see Canada accept the resisters with open arms. Let them stay. As I have posted elsewhere, one of my regrets about going to a less urban, less populous place than, say, Toronto, is that I will be unable to actively and directly participate in the efforts to help those service members who have made their way to Canada.
So, for the tally, again, "Yes."
Absolutely, they should stay.
They are obeying international law, and it is the duty of Canada to support people in their efforts to obey international law, not to thwart them.
Thanks Ferdzy. :)
But, I do feel it appropriate to draw a distinction between those who, very much against their will, were forced, via the draft, to serve or run and those who walk in and sign up, albeit with a coercion of a different kind.
That's a good point.
As I have posted elsewhere, one of my regrets about going to a less urban, less populous place than, say, Toronto, is that I will be unable to actively and directly participate in the efforts to help those service members who have made their way to Canada.
I'm not so sure you won't be able to directly participate. There are Support Campaign chapters all over Canada. Perhaps you'll start one in Fredericton.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, MSEH. I appreciate it.
Re: "I'm not so sure you won't be able to directly participate. There are Support Campaign chapters all over Canada. Perhaps you'll start one in Fredericton."
Good point. I read that and did a quick search - like 2 seconds - and saw that Corey Glass just spoke at an event at UNB. And,I knew that Fredericton had a very active peace coalition - frederictonpeace.org. Should have assumed they'd be making some connections.
Thanks for the nudge.
Yes, let them stay.
Why? Bush lied.
Of course they should stay. Not only for humanitarian resons but also as a way for Canadians to protest an illegal and immoral war. We brought in thousands of war resistors during the Vietnam War, we should do the same today. The difference is that today we have a government that is a complete toady of the Bushite neocon fanatics.
I'm intrigued by MSEH's comment I initially struggled with the notion that one would then say, "Oh, but I don't want to go to war." I see what he's saying, and I realized he has reached the same conclusion as me, but for different reasons.
But it occurs to me, what's the problem with saying that? Why is there necessarily a moral conundrum there? I've mentioned it here before because I'm so impressed with it: there were New York State militia units who refused to cross the border in the War of 1812 because they had joined up to defend their homes, not destroy someone else's. They rejected the notion that refusing to translate the defense of one's own home into the razing of another's was hypocritical or treasonous. If they were capable of making that moral distinction in what they were willing to do to serve and defend their country 200 years ago, why not today, when the states are so much higher? Why, for instance, are National Guardsmen being sent abroad, instead of serving in the United States where they would, and should, be available to be poured into New Orleans when a hurricane hits, as was intended?
Just because you've declared yourself willing to defend your home with everything you've got, does that oblige you to nod and say nothing when Dad says, "Get your gun, boy. I don't like the way Smith looked at me in the driveway this morning, so we're kicking in his front door tonight."? And if Dad turns his wrath on you for objecting, hopefully you will have a compassionate neighbour willing and able to take you in. Otherwise, you are a slave.
But it occurs to me, what's the problem with saying that? Why is there necessarily a moral conundrum there?
That's an excellent - and often missed - point. In the US, because of its military history, people are very conditioned to think that the military must show absolute obedience, and anything less is treasonous.
When I would discuss war resistance with people in the US, they would often say, Yes, that's a brave choice, but if what if everyone in the military did that, where would we be? It must be punished to set an example.
I would point out that history shows us the far greater danger is over-obedience - following immoral orders - not individual conscience. Yet people feel an individual soldier saying, "I won't do this," is somehow a grave threat to society.
****
Btw, MSEH is a she. She is one of the moms of the Two Moms To Canada blog, linked in my sidebar.
I do not think it right, and I can't even think of how it could be legal, to imprison someone for refusing foreign service. In a liberal democracy, it simply cannot be right to give a soldier a choice of fighting in a foreign war or being imprisoned.
One exception I might be willing to make -- I don't know if I can or not, and it's certainly not applicable in the US right now, so it's sort of irrelevant at the moment -- is in a case where a country has declared war on another country. There is a much higher barrier to declaring war than to invading a country (which is why Bush did an end-run around it, of course); maybe in that situation I could see forcing soldiers to fight. However, that leaves us with conscripts dying in Flanders in 1917-18 and I certainly don't think that was right, so I'm not sure whether I'm totally behind this idea.
I do think a country could make a moral case for the fight-or-prison choice where an enemy has actually invaded the soldier's country. In that situation, soldiers' decisions not to fight directly affects the one thing that the military is charged to do: protect, in a literal sense, their country. In that case, a country might have a moral case for demanding its soldiers' services.
However, the second case is inapplicable to the current US wars, and the third case is obviously inapplicable except to brain-dead authoritarians who believe that "islamofascism" is actually present and working in North America (Mark Steyn, I'm talking to you).
So I believe the American resisters should stay, and should only be sent back if the regime can guarantee that they will not be imprisoned (and I don't think such a guarantee is possible under the current administration). If they were sent back, it would be reasonable to make those soldiers fulfill their remaining military service contract -- as long as it's within the borders of the USA.
When the USA is actually invaded, or when they actually declare war on a country (which hasn't happened, I believe, since 1941?), then we can revisit the issue. I'm pretty confident that that won't be necessary any time soon.
"Maximus Alexander": this is a reader survey asking for opinions on US war resisters being allowed to stay in Canada. Your speech was off-topic, and I removed it.
Post a Comment