Canada.... wtf mates?!?!

Ok, I love our Canadian players. Some of my best friends from the game are Canadian. Maybe you guys can help me out here.

Out of a couple million active duty members of the US military, two have deserted and scurried up to Canada.

These are not conscientious objectors. These are not draft dodgers. They are deserters.

They signed on the dotted line, put a paw in the air, and pledged to give their life to serve their country in the US military. They collected their pay checks. They received their benefits (health care, lodging, food, etc.). They received their incredibly expensive training.

When it stopped being paychecks, benefits, and running around playing soldier and turned into actual combat... they bailed on their commitments.

The problem is, it is looking like Canada might give them asylum.

Numerous Canadian newspapers and periodicals are hailing these deserters as heroes. I am not kidding. They are engaging in massive deification of these deserters. They have written that it is heroic because the US is led by a President that stole the election (I believe that gem was from a Toronto newspaper).

This disturbs me greatly. Canada is supposed to be a friend of ours. They should not be harboring criminals. A deserter is a criminal. This is not a political matter.

I'm sorry I don't have links to any news articles but I heard about this on TV news and haven't had time to look things up online. I am sure such information is easily found and I do not believe that any facts are in contention here.

If I recall, both deserters are privates in the Army.

I'm disgusted by these two scumbag, traitorous criminals and if Canada gives them asylum I'll be disappointed in our friend and neighbor.

I have already heard about proposed boycotts of Canadian products and services if they grant asylum and I do not think that would be good for Canada's economy.

So I ask our Canadian players: what do you think about this? Do you approve of your country granting asylum to these deserters?

I remember reading about one guy deserting, and coming up here and requesting asylum a few months ago. Personally, I think it's sad, and pathetic. These guys signed a legally binding document, and now they're renegging on their part of the deal(ie: serving in the US military for X amount of years). IMHO, there shouldn't even be a question of "Do we grant these guys asylum, and let them stay? Or do we hand them over to the US military, to mete out punishment?" Send those traitorous bastards back, and let the military deal with it.

I couldn't find news articles on this story. One Italian paper, The Village Voice and Chicago Sun Times (which page didn't load, guess you have to be a subscriber) but...

So far, it look like this is a case of they have entered Canada but the Canadian Gov. has not offered or issued asylum. They have to prove refugee status. Due to the work I have done and what the article states (I have it quoted below) this is incredibly hard to prove.

"To win refugee status, Hinzman and Hughey will have to demonstrate that they are fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution in the U.S.-an extremely tough claim. What's more, notes a former member of Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board, refugee law specifies that "prosecution is not persecution": Punishment for breaking a law is not grounds for asylum unless the law itself-China's one-child policy, for instance-is deemed a form of persecution."

From an article in The Village Voice link http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0414/solomon.php

I am a landed immigrant in Canada but I do, along with my Canadian born husband pay sizeable taxes. The thought that any of our money would go towards harbouring these two and more so paying for the refugee trial maddens me. When I know (again this has been the focus of my career ) there are real families and singles in incredibly dire political situations that cannot enter the country.

As has been stated prior, they willingly joined the forces. I would assume when one joins the military they do so with the understanding your being trained first and foremost to go to war. A solider who refuses to go to fight is like a stripper unwilling to get nekkid, looks impressive but not very useful.

Now I may be corrected but I understand that the American military recognises conscientious objectors. Did these men even have to turn deserter?

As the daughter of a career soldier, I have my own personal beliefs about these two but for the sake of this argument I am inclined to be more distressed they could be granted refugee status. I know, for a fact, there are woman and children deported back to third world countries and certain death because they do not have the proof the stringent refugee requirements demand.

As for Canadians in general, sometimes the greatest strength is the weakness. My experience of them is they are by and large an easy going, polite populace. They even poke fun of themselves for this trait. They are over taxed and under heard by the Government but they (we) do very little about it. Canadians are depicted in world's media as sitting on the sidelines a lot. However many Canadians do voice their opinions and they are often contrary to the Government policies, both domestic and foreign. Thing is, the population never bothers to take it beyond the neighbourhood Tim Hortons.

But hey... Bowling For Columbine made Canada seem like utopia and in alot of ways it is wonderful. Maybe you have to give up passion to live in it. I hope the deserters checked their public voices at the border, otherwise they will never blend in.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ailin
Now I may be corrected but I understand that the American military recognises conscientious objectors. Did these men even have to turn deserter?

---

Conscientious objector status only protects you from being drafted. These men were not drafted, they volunteered and swore an oath.

--However many Canadians do voice their opinions and they are often contrary to the Government policies, both domestic and foreign. Thing is, the population never bothers to take it beyond the neighbourhood Tim Hortons.--

You may have to explain Tim Hortons to the Americans.
It's the nation wide coffee shop chain. Named after a hockey player.

Protests are usually the biggest in Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver, and to a lesser extent, Montreal.

I always found it interesting how our PM is frequently on the front lines of the House of Commons; answering political attacks from the opposition parties. I think this is the "Question Period".

Is the US president challenged in the same way on a daily basis, directly, to his face, by the opposite party??

I've seen Bush Jr. speak without prepared statements. It's not pretty!!

Grantref, actually I was fairly certain I was right and was looking for a military person to affirm that and seems I am ...

March 14, 2003
Advice for Conscientious Objectors in the Armed Forces (html version). "A comprehensive, step-by-step guide to applying for conscientious objector status. This edition....builds upon a tradition which began in 1970 with the First Edition. Advice has since reached over 40,000 military men and women who had decided that they could no longer in good conscience remain in the military. The 1970 Advice spoke to a generation troubled by the war in Vietnam. This generation of conscientious objectors, too, has seen war--most recently in the Persian Gulf, and before that in Panama. It has experienced the end of the Cold War and the flowering of hopes for peace; and it has watched as those hopes turned to disappointment in the chaotic, dangerous post-Cold War world." The G.I. Rights Hotline has recently reported they "fielded a record number of calls, mostly from military personnel and families seeking advice on conscientious-objector and other discharges."


and the link to the actual booklet outlining how a serving GI goes about claiming this status ....


http://www.objector.org/Resources/adviceforcos.pdf

Kestra to keep this in the theme of the thread this isn't about American Vs. Canadian politics directly. If you re read what I wrote its really a point that Canadians are not how they are depicted around the world. They do by having an easy going nature do not sound the collective voice as loud as other parts of the world.

but we never heard on either of those prior posts the opinions on the topic :)

On every Air Force mobility line (the literal line you have to move station to station to before you are mobilized on a deployment into a combat area (heck we do them on deployments to non-combat areas too)) there are lawers there to advise commanders on the issue of consiensus objectors. I'm sure the other services do the same. Someone can become an objector after they join the military and there are provisions to deal with them, but becoming an objector is far from the easiest way to get out of going to war. If someone wanted to get out of going to combat there are easier ways to do it than run to Canada. I'll not list any of them here, as I have no intention of encouraging anyone to get out of deploying. All I'm going to say is that running to Canada shows a lack of imagination and inginuity, even for our most junior of enlisted troops.

Is the punishment for desertion still execution? Has that ever even been pulled off in recent history (past 50-100 years)? If so, the idea wasn't only showing a lack of imagination, it was also showing a complete lack of forsight.

I read that the punishment for this act would be 5 years in prison.

Over the last few years, the relationship between the governments of Canada and the US has been faltering. Largely because our ex-PM, Chretien, and his cronies clearly disliked Dubya and his policies.

Add to that the Iraq war which Canada did not participate in, the banning of Beef across the border by the US gov't, the calling of Bush a 'moron' by a senior gov't official, the calling of Canada 'Soviet Canuckistan' by PAt Buchanan I think ... all point to a decline in what has historically been a great relationship.

Now, we have a new Prime Minister who says he is dedicated to rebuilding that friendship, I expect that these soldiers will be politely (!) shown the way back to the US.

The only times Canada has not extradited criminals back to the States has been if they stood a chance to be executed, as Canada abolished the death penalty. If these "soldiers" signed up then realized 'holy shit, I don't wanna get killed', well, I can understand that line of thinking, but, hey, you make your bed, etc.

Also, by the way, the overwhelming majority of Canadians like Americans, even if we do go to great lengths to talk about how we're 'not' American. It is sad how poor political relationships can lead to the misconception that that gov't speaks for its population it supposedly represents ... but that is another rant.

If it's possible for these two to get consientious objector status, then fleeing to Canada was pretty fuckin' idiotic.

However, I don't think it's fair to say, "You signed up for the military, now you're going to fight in this particular action." I mean, I can imagine signing up (especially in the post-9-11 fervor) to DEFEND your homeland. That, however, doesn't mean that you signed up to go attack whatever random place the current government deems _may_ be a threat at some point, or would be good for the economy, or some other of a myriad of reasons that have nothing to do with the original reason you signed up for the military which was to protect your country. So, yeah, I can imagine signing up and then realizing that you don't want to go get killed for something you don't believe in.

Again, though, if they had other options than fleeing to Canada, they really should have taken those first!

Hmm.

I don't know Talithia, I think that the military (any branch) makes it quite clear that you can be placed into combat zones if you're needed there. This is my experience dealing with the MEPS kids that come to the Hotel, they all know that they might end up in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, any place that they could be needed.

They signed a contract and there are penalties for breaching that contract, I think they should have to suffer them. Just like any type of contractual relationship people go into it bargaining for a certain benefit... Soldiers have huge benefits bestowed upon them, but they also have huge detriments placed on their shoulders for which I think non-soldiers should be greatful.

I think they should be returned to the States and be subjected to the proper authorities.

Yeah, but they signed a contract to join up in defense of this country, right? I mean, that's what all those "join the army" ads say. Considering most of GW's explanations for going to war with Iraq (instead of, hey, what ever happened to going after the guy responsible.. Bin Ladin?) as a defensive action haven't held under scrutiny... wouldn't it be fair to say they (the gov't) breeched the contract first?

For anyone interested, here's one story on the matter:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...190714,00.html

One of them did apply for conscientious objector status, and was denied. The other simply fled. (according to the article)

I feel bad for their problems, but I fail to see how they should be ours. They signed up willingly and should've known the potential consequences for doing so. They joined the military, where they train you to kill people and follow orders to do so. What were they expecting?

It is possible that they do face the death sentence, though I cannot see that being carried out. But if I did, I would probably say grant them asylum.

That said, send them back. As Jozep put so nicely, you make your own bed and you sleep in it.

-Khirmint

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Talithia
Yeah, but they signed a contract to join up in defense of this country, right? I mean, that's what all those "join the army" ads say. Considering most of GW's explanations for going to war with Iraq (instead of, hey, what ever happened to going after the guy responsible.. Bin Ladin?) as a defensive action haven't held under scrutiny... wouldn't it be fair to say they (the gov't) breeched the contract first?

---

I dont think so, maybe!! Im just a 1L. I would say that from the military contracts I've seen the military makes it really clear in 48 point font that says you may see combat.

I'm not denying the fact that when you sign up for the military you are well aware of the fact that you may see combat. And I don't think that "not wanting to see combat" is a valid excuse for getting out when you voluntarily signed up. However, there are _reasons_ for combat, and, in the case of Iraq, it can be argued that those reasons aren't exactly ones of defense of the United States.

That's what Im saying, I dont think anywhere on the contract they state that you will ONLY see combat in defense of the united states. I think it specifically says combat or as you are needed by the Government.. etc

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jozep
It is sad how poor political relationships can lead to the misconception that that gov't speaks for its population it supposedly represents ... but that is another rant.

---

I agree. That is exactly why I wanted to ask Canadians how THEY felt about this.

I think a community like Threshold shows how PEOPLE really feel about each other when they are able to forget for a moment about nationalistic ties.

I think I can speak for our American players when I say that we love (and love to tease) our Canadian Thresher brethren (and I imagine this goes both ways). :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Talithia
I'm not denying the fact that when you sign up for the military you are well aware of the fact that you may see combat. And I don't think that "not wanting to see combat" is a valid excuse for getting out when you voluntarily signed up. However, there are _reasons_ for combat, and, in the case of Iraq, it can be argued that those reasons aren't exactly ones of defense of the United States.

---

When you join the military, you don't get to make that argument. You follow orders.

Furthermore, was it "defense" of the United States when we helped out in the Balkans? Nope. That doesn't mean soldiers can say "hmm I don't think I feel like it."

When you make a committment like joining the military, you no longer have the same options available to you as a civlian. In fact, that's why the very CONCEPT of a civilian exists: because civilians are different from the military.

When you sign up for the military, you sign up to take orders, not to make stratigical, or ploitical decisions. Anyone signing up for the military thinking they can pick and choose when to take orders, and which conflicts to get involved in....is an idiot. Also, assuming you are only going to 'defend' your country, or that it even means that you will be sitting around Stateside with a gun, waiting for invaders to cross our borders..is just silly. Thats not how the world works.

Also, I am getting tired of hearing people say, "Well, what about our real target? Bin Laden?" WHAT THE FUCK DO PEOPLE THINK WE ARE DOING IN AFGANASTAN? Pat Tilman DIED in combat fighting suspected Taliban and Al Queda in Afganastan. Also, as a side note, its not a war on Bin Laden, its a war against terrorism, and that shit is everywhere. Don't assume that just because the War in Iraq is getting more Media coverage that we are not working all over the world on eradicating terrorist scum.

Umm..and I am off topic now..please Canadians, these guys knew exactly what they were signing up for, I have been to recruiters, and I have many friends in the military, they don't pretend you might not have to fight, or go overseas. These guys I assume are part of the "Lets milk the military for the benefits, and hope we don't have to fight" brigade. They deserve to be tried, and sent to prison.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
I read that the punishment for this act would be 5 years in prison.

---

The punishment would depend on what specific charges were brought against them. Either their commander (non-judicial punishment) or a court would decide thier sentence, but most likely it would be a court since the court can give out much harsher punishment, which is usually called for in these cases. Generally you'll have six officers on the jury. If the person being tried is enlisted, they gets to decide if they want any enlisted members on the jury, but traditionally enlisted jury members are more harsh with sentencing than officers, so most of the time the defendant asks for the softies. The maximum sentences would be:

Quote:

---

(1) Completed or attempted desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

(2) Other cases of completed or attempted desertion.

(a) Terminated by apprehension. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.
(b) Terminated otherwise. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.

(3) In time of war. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

---

A complete side note, the act of completed or attempted desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty carries the same maximum punishment as consensual sodomy with an adult...who knew?

In all likelyhood the US Government would ask for the maximum of five years. It's hard to imagine a court not giving the maximum, but you never know. I'm not sure what the legal definition of "time of war" is in these cases, but I don't think the Government would try to push for the death penalty. Of course I'm not an expert on military law, I've just seen a lot of non-judicial punishment paperwork and have been a juror for a court martial.

What some people consider more damaging than the time in prison is the dishonorable discharge. A bad-conduct discharge isn't that bad, but either a bad-conduct or a dishonorable discharge preclude someone from federal employment and must be reported when applying for hunting licences and purchacing hand guns, and on most applications for employemnt. It is a federal conviction, which definitely has an impact on the rest of a persons life.

Ok, I'm done with what is most likely an unwanted post on the military justice system.

I've been thinking about this and something that really upsets me is that these soldiers, leaving a combat zone, might make some 'political' statement. But holy shit did they think about the type of danger they put their former fellow soldiers in? Those that are living up to their responsibilities, etc..?

Yeah that upsets me.

the only news i listen to is on at 6.30am for 5 minutes on the way to work in the morning. since i only work that early once every two weeks, i may have missed this story! so i don't really have much of an opinion on this matter.