Should Canada send back a US deserter?

IMO, they should loosen the CO procedures. If you want to leave, fine, get issued a "DIS-honorable" discharge, and forfeiture of any and all current/future military benefits.

 

I agree there are three main issues:

Legal.... I'm not a lawyer, but the man volunteered for the military and signed a contract. That contract is binding, unless dissolved by both parties or a court of law.

Moral (ethical) - This person signed a contract and is morally obligated to execute the terms of that contract.

Political - Disertion is not tolerated in any society. If disertion is allowed, then the security provided by a military is not secure...

You can argue many things about the war, etc.... but this issue, when broken down to individuals, has nothing to do with the war. It has to do strictly with contracts and moral, ethical obligations.

If indeed someone's views change enough that they feel they can no longer participate in a contract (war), then they have legal avenues to pursue (CO, incarceration, discharge, etc)... Disertion is not an option and must be punished.

Send him back.

 

No, I don't believe in young men & women dying for not even close to a good reason. I do not believe in Bush's wars.

 

Interesting post. He did sign a contract with the army and agree to go to Iraq. But if Iraq was invaded on false pretenses - ie. WMD, then the contract, under law, would be void would it not?

And the soldier would be within his rights to sue the US military.


Contract never mentions war or any other particular action. Contract says you will join the military and accept conditions of military life. In exchange, you will receive compensation and the respect of your country.

Soldier has a right to disagree with any decision, but he must be willing to accept the consequences of that disagreement. Disertion is not an option.

 

This situation is both more complex and more simplistic than it at first appears. More complex, because there are issues with political autonomy, conscientious objection, and individual vs state/crown rights that deserve further consideration. More simplistic, because if Canada doesn't send him back, the US will just come get him.

 

Hypothetical question:
A Canadian soldier is caught owning an illegal gun in Canada and deserts to the USA because he feels he would be “persecuted†by Canada because of his belief that Canadians should have the right to keep and bear arms.

Should the USA return the Canadian soldier?

* The right keep and bear arms is, after all, an “American value†. . . heck, it's a constitutional right!
* If returned, would the soldier be persecuted because of his belief, or, prosecuted because he deserted?
* Would this be any business of the USA? (Remember, we are talking about a constitutional right, not some ever changing public policy/sentiment.)
* Should the USA be trying to dictate to Canada the laws and policies under which Canadian soldiers serve?

 

The Oath of Enlistment Mr Key spoke as he raised his right hand in front of a superior officer and at least one other witness:

“I, Joshua Key, 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.â€

The last words, "So help me God," are optional, depending on the individual's personal religious preferences. I wonder if Mr Key substituted it with “So help me Canada.â€

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Apr 1 2006, 01:39 AM) [snapback]233359[/snapback]</div>

Empahsis mine.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires that the soldier obey U.S. law and the laws of war, and prohibits the soldier from obeying an illegal order.

If the soldier believes, in good conscience, that the entire war is illegal (because it was entered into under false pretenses, and because "preemptive" war is illegal under international law and a violation of the laws of war) then that soldier has a legal obligation to refuse to participate in that war.

Hawks are in the habit of insisting that a soldier must obey every order without question. But the United States hanged Germans after WWII for obeying orders when, in the opinion of the judges, those people should have known that their actions were crimes against humanity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 1 2006, 06:57 PM) [snapback]233601[/snapback]</div>

You are making some very wild and inaccurate assumptions regarding this soldier's right to refuse to carry out the orders of superior officers. And if you think Mr Key's actions place the UCMJ and regulations on how to go about having oneself classified as a Conscientious Objector in his favor, you are delusional. Care to back up any of your clams with FACT and not just disjointed ramblings?

Please do try to explain how someone who claims to be a Conscientious Objector can utilize desertion as a legal remedy. [ I look forward to your attempt :lol: ]


UCMJ

§ 885. Art. 85.

Desertion

Release date: 2005-07-12

(a) Any member of the armed forces who—
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.
( b ) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.
( c ) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/us...85----000-.html

 

My previous post did not refer to conscious objectors. It refered to a soldier who believes in good faith that an order is illegal. In this case, the soldier is required to disobey that order. I extended that principle to a soldier to believes in good faith that an entire war is illegal. It is perfectly credible that some soldiers believe that the present war in Iraq is illegal, since large numbers of people (probably the majority of the world's population) believes this.

CO status is another matter. The legal definition in the U.S. is extremely narrow, and since the military itself is allowed to make the ruling in each given case, it is ridiculously difficult for any given person to be recognized as a CO. Since most soldiers join when they are very young, many have not yet arrived at the moral definitions they will eventually live by.

My argument for desertion would simply be that (extremely rare and isolated cases aside) it is so nearly impossible for a soldier who has joined voluntarily, to convince the military itself that his/her moral views have changed, that a truly fair legal remedy for such a person does not exist. And if the law provides no remedy, then the law itself has no legitimacy. (There are people who worship the law and insist that it be followed religiously in every case. I am not one of those people. Note that everything the Nazis did was legal under German law at the time. There are times when the law must be broken. And when I regard a specific law as illigitimate, I will support a person who peacefully refuses to obey that law.)

Finally, when the law requires a person to kill innocent people (war always kills innocent people, whether it is the intention of the warmakers or not, so requiring a person to participate in war is indirectly a requirement to kill innocent people) then I assert for any such person the absolute right to use any peaceful means available to refuse.

All of this grows out of my personal conviction that killing civilians is a worse crime than refusing to kill. Other people have other views. But we were asked in this thread for our opinions as to whether Canada should extradite a deserter, and I gave my answer.

 

a big part of Mr. Keys problem comes from the fact that in Canada you cannot apply for landed immigrant status while in Canada. If he went to some other country and applied at a Canadian Embassy he would stand a change but as he's here, out you go and then apply. Sorry that's how it works here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 2 2006, 09:06 AM) [snapback]233776[/snapback]</div>

And as you will also notice by my posts, I have not disparaged true conscientious objectors – I know some myself, and they are good people. My area of contention is someone claiming conscientious objector status and then deserting an all voluntary force when legal remedies are available – and then, on top of that, expect Canada to give them refugee status!

[read the following and tell me if you disagree]
Military regulations today allow discharge or transfer to noncombatant status for people who object to participation in war in any form. The military's regulations parallel the civilian law, so any time a court rules on an issue like what a conscientious objector is, the court's ruling applies both to the draft and to the military. . . . if you're sincere and you qualify under the CO provisions, the law is on your side. There's a good chance that either the military or the courts will recognize your claim if you stand by it.
[So, do you agree or disagree???]

daniel QUOTE: “My argument for desertion would simply be that (extremely rare and isolated cases aside) it is so nearly impossible for a soldier who has joined voluntarily, to convince the military itself that his/her moral views have changed, that a truly fair legal remedy for such a person does not exist.â€

If you truly believe what you have stated, then your statement sorely conflicts with my personal experiences and knowledge derived from a 20+ year Navy career – but most likely, more convincing to you is the fact that your statement contradicts that of The Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors . . . which is what is written in green above. So, do you agree or disagree?
http://www.objector.org/advice/conscientio....html#pgfId-183

Mr Key isn't claiming to be a conscientious objector. He knows he is a deserter. The dumbest maneuver Mr Key made was not turning himself in right away and then running off to Canada.

Read how horribly the military system treated this war objector:
http://swiftsmartveterans.com/_wsn/page3.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Mar 31 2006, 09:15 AM) [snapback]232936[/snapback]</div>

Slight problem there is that the military has spent a bundle of money training this deserter and when the military and his fellow soldiers needed him the most he deserted. I can only imagine his job as a high explosives expert put him though tremendous pressure. He probably had to deal with IED's every day and now that they have found IED's with chemical warheads well . . .

Here is some interesting reading about CO's

http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm

Here is one about a CO that objected after the fact and was granted an Honorable Discharge. . .

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0103-04.htm

Don't forget the affect his desertion had on the other soldiers in the unit. Personally I think he should have taken the path of Desmond Doss who just recently passed away. Although Doss entered the military as a CO the preceding story shows that CO status can be obtained after the fact. The Desmond Doss story is probably one of the bravest stories I have ever read concerning soldiers in combat, armed or unarmed. I wonder why Hollywood has not done a movie about him? He never much liked the term "conscientious objector" and preferred the title “conscientious cooperator†instead.

http://www.desmonddoss.com/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060324/ap_on_re_us/obit_doss

However it seems the military is not consistent in their handling of CO’s. Although it is a different branch of the service he volunteered to return to non-combat service and clear IED’s or landmines.

http://justworldnews.org/archives/001074.html

Wildkow

p.s. Oops missed this seems the military is a little less inconsistent than I thought.

http://news.adventist.org/data/2006/01/113...8/index.html.en

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Apr 2 2006, 02:33 PM) [snapback]233891[/snapback]</div>

The underlying problem is, how does one person decide what another person's TRUE beliefs are? While military regulations provide a means for a soldier to claim CO status (based on having changed after entering the military), in actual practice the military almost never grants such a petition. So, no I do not agree: The law is NOT on your side. Especially if you cannot afford a high-priced lawyer to argue your case. In my own case, I have been a pacifist since the age of about 12. But my pacifism is not based on belief in a god, and so my application for CO status in 1967 or 1968 (Vietnam-era draft) was summarily dismissed. Had I not been ruled 4-F on entirely different grounds, I'd have gone to Canada. And I rather regret that that's not how it turned out.

But I repeat that the bottom line for me is that I regard war as the ultimate evil and so I will support anyone who peacefully refuses to participate in it, regardless of what the law says. When the law tells people to kill people, then the law should be broken. And it simply does not matter for me what a person's real reason is for refusing to participate. If she or he is really a CO, or is just scared, or doesn't want to leave his sweetheart alone, or would rather be a stockbroker than a soldier, or just opposes this particular war; I just don't care, as long as he/she does not participate in war.

So really, our disagreement is not over whether a deserter has or has not broken the law; our disagreement is over whether a soldier is morally justified in breaking the law by laying down his gun and refusing to participate in war. And we're never going to reach agreement because you believe that war is justified and I do not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Mar 30 2006, 08:22 PM) [snapback]232718[/snapback]</div>

I don't like seeing fellow liberals using disingenuous arguments like this.

His punishment, were he convicted, would be for desertion, not for opposing the war in Iraq.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Frank Hudon @ Apr 2 2006, 01:35 PM) [snapback]233803[/snapback]</div>

Not to change the subject, but thats how it should work in the USA!! Do not reply to this, because it is off topic.

 

If you are part of the armed forces, you are bound to the orders of the Commander in Chier whether you agree or not.....
If you feel strongly enough to desert, then providing the country you go to wants to support your beliefs and hide you, you are now out of the country.

But you should not be allowed to return to the USA if you do not support its values. I too have considered moving to another country because of some of the defunked things we vote in and support. But its not right to say you want all the benifits of the USA by living in it, but not support the systems the country votes in and supports.

If you want to protest, or lobby against or fight... so be it, but do it lawfully. If you don't feel lawfull tactics are effective, then according to our laws you will be an outlaw if you pursue.

Sometimes moving to another country is a good choice.

But remember we have a voluntary army and armed forces....
If someone didnt' believe in the war or the Commander in Chief they shouldn't have joined.

Although I also see many that sign up for all the benifits, instant good paying paycheck and adventure and travel.. but then when the going gets tough.. the cowards defect to another country under the guise of "I don't support the war". That doesn't fly when you joined voluntarily.... Its a bit like a marriage.... if your going to join.. if for better or for worse.

Many just aren't able to submit to anything they don't see as good for themselves first. Joining the armed forces is a noble offer that says you are willing to sacrifice for others so they dont' have to. Willing to put your life on the line, so women, children and loved ones doesn't have to.

Those who don't support the war and want to run....... they are not worthy of living in this country. If the war is truely illegal.. let the congress and the people deal with it.. but don't sign a contract and then flake out.

We have too many flakes in this world that can't hold down a job, a marriage, a relationship, or any agreement or contract ..... in fact they have no credit at all with anybody, even thier own family will not loan them money....... thats why they joined the armed forces in the first place.... "to be somebody!"

Maybe we need to do a credit check before we let them join?.... to see if they are flakes in advance?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ghostofjk @ Apr 2 2006, 08:54 PM) [snapback]234015[/snapback]</div>

thats what liberals do......anything goes......

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 2 2006, 09:57 PM) [snapback]233960[/snapback]</div>

and this is evidenced by....

Of course they aren't going to hand it out like candy to everyone, while at the same time, you're I think you're exaggerating because of your viewpoints/beliefs.