|
|
|
|
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 3:37:43 PM | Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War 15 Jul 2008 20:04:21 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Allan Dowd
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, July 15 (Reuters) - Canada deported on Tuesday the first of some 200 Americans who deserted the U.S. military and sought refugee status to protest against the Iraq War.
Robin Long, 25, was removed a day after a Federal Court judge in Vancouver rejected his claim that he would suffer irreparable harm if returned to the United States. He fled across the border in 2005 as his army tank unit was preparing to deploy to Iraq.
The Canada Border Services Agency confirmed Long's removal, but declined to give other details, citing privacy laws. Long's refugee claim had already been rejected and he could not appeal Monday's court ruling.
The issue of U.S. deserters has evoked memories of Canada's acceptance of tens of thousands of draft dodgers and deserters during the Vietnam War. But it has also exposed a political split in the country -- even within its courts -- over what role it should play today.
Ottawa has deployed soldiers in Afghanistan but has refused to participate in the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
Long's supporters staged a small demonstration on Tuesday at the Peace Arch border crossing south of Vancouver.
"We may be small, but we represent a large body of people who disagree with what happened," said Sarah Bjorknas of the War Resisters Support Campaign.
Opponents of granting refugee status to deserters argue that, unlike during the Vietnam War, the United States does not now have a military draft and members of its military are volunteers who know the potential risks.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government has ignored a nonbinding motion passed by opposition parties in the House of Commons last month that would have allowed the Iraq deserters to stay.
Long and others have argued it was only after they had joined the military that they decided the U.S. government had lied to the public about the reasons for the Iraq War, and they were refusing to fight in an illegal conflict.
The Supreme Court of Canada refused last year to hear the appeals of two U.S. deserters whose applications for refugee status were turned down by immigration authorities.
But Federal Courts in Ontario this month temporarily blocked the removal of two deserters, including Joshua Key who the court said did not get a proper immigration hearing on his claim that the Iraq War was unjust.
Long's supporters had argued he should not be deported until the conflicting court rulings were resolved.
It is unknown how many Iraq War deserters have moved to Canada, but peace groups have said they know of about 200 people seeking refugee status. It is estimated that more than 50,000 war resisters moved to Canada during the Vietnam era.
Long fled to Nelson, British Columbia, an area of the Pacific Coast province where many Vietnam War resisters decided to remain even after Washington granted amnesty in 1977. (Editing by Rob Wilson)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, now that the Maple Leaf is no longer protection for deserters, what are your thoughts??? | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 3:53:19 PM | If you join an organization that is in the business of breaking things and killing people, and all of a sudden you have a moral objection to it. You need to petition to be an conscientious objector.
He took an oath and he violated that oath and his agreement.
He is getting what he deserves.
Now, they need to move on to the next coward.
 | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 4:08:02 PM | Well, we've discussed this before, and many of the same things still apply.
I was against this war from the start, and still am. That opposition is directed only against those who made this fatal error of US involvement, and the top military staff that agreed to sending in troops in a fatally flawed plan that obviously was even further complicated by political cronies like Bremer and the CPA involved in destroying any remaining chance of success by their "decision" making.
That said, I support the troops one hundred percent, and always have.
Now when it comes to cases like this one, I feel little sympathy to the men/women involved. They willingly signed up, and took an oath to serve. That means you remove your choice to run away from your moral choices , if you disagree with the decisions made by your government.
In the military, one also not only has a bond to country, but to your brothers and sisters in arms. That's a bond few of us can even imagine, closer perhaps than almost any other one normally found in our normal daily life.
Now, if one comes to the crossroads, and decides that this war is wrong, there are two choices to be made.
One can agree to continue one's involvement with it in country, oppose any orders felt to be immoral and/or illegal, and take any consequences for said actions willingly. This course of action involves a realization that "fighting from within" brings with it the chance to improve the situation with direct involvement.
This allows one to not break the bond between you and your fellow unit members, and to perhaps encourage others to follow ones example.
Easy ? No.
The other is to break that bond willingly, faced with a greater moral choice. This is perhaps the hardest of all options. It sets two ideals against one another, and that opposition is perhaps the hardest of all situations to face.
In that case one refuses to serve, and takes the consequences for that action willingly - and even proudly. If charged, one defends one's decision with complete passion. If that case is lost, then one accepts the sentence . Then one demands the maximum sentence possible(a la Gandhi, Great Trial) and gives those sentencing them the choice of complicity with this moral wrong by such a decision and their sentencing - or resigning their posts. 
Failure to report means that someone else will serve in your place, and possibly die or be mentally/physically injured while doing so. This will be a direct consequence of your decision of moral objection, and it will be a burden carried by that person for the rest of his life.
As such, you have no right to run from the consequences of that action morally - and one must also consider it in one's calculations.
When faced with such types of decisions, courage and personal integrity cannot be ignored while doing so.
As such, I support such an action by my government totally. | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 4:54:55 PM | I was raised by a military father-100% military--if he was, we were, not questions asked or independent thinking accepted--I understood that most of my younger years--and at the first of Viet Nam, I thought 'gee, what can I do to help?? But my dad would not have his daughter in the military, after all that is only for men and fighting. Later I became very outspoken, protesting every idea of government intrusion from the US onto other 'innocent' countries that we had no business being in---
Long story , I DO support the troops in Iraq and prob Iran, in fact, my brother is in Afganastan-again---and my uncle was killed in Viet Nam--3rd tour-----but this has become an endless battle with an enemy we do not even know anymore--Again, I believe, if we were NOT there, there would be ,and prob will eventually, a full terriorist seige on our country and freedoms---
Now the so called opposers of the war by leaving and hiding--if you join a service, you don't pick and choose where you want to go fight, or 'gee, I don't want to go today'-yet you want the freedoms automatically that are here for YOU--when its all over, just come back and live freely because someone died for your life? ANY DESERTER DOES NOT DESERVE CITIZENSHIP OR TO LIVE IN THESE US AND NEED TO BE PROSECUTED BY LAW OF AWOL--- sorry I got on (long) roll----- jmo | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 5:06:40 PM | ---Now, they need to move on to the next coward.--- You know, some people may actually live by there principles, Yes they still are around..even today.. and maybe....just maybe....some of these people are.
They joined and found out it was all lies, so we send them back to the liars. Its the law, and we will live up to it, but maybe we should just understand why... instead of lables. I knew some from the Viet Nam days, and they never struck me as cowardly, but kind of intelligent. They knew who they were and were not going to go kill people and change every aspect about there themselves..for life.... for no reason. There is absoultly no reason to be in Iraq, none. | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 5:11:53 PM | | Well, I don't think an immigrant should go to another country just because he didn't like his job description, especially being he signed up knowing what it was. I think its fair Canada sent him back. | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 5:23:01 PM |
Now, if one comes to the crossroads, and decides that this war is wrong, there are two choices to be made. There is one choice to be made, as long as we have a volunteer Army, if a person believes War is wrong they should not join the Armed services as there is definitely the potential for combat.If someone joins the Armed services to take advantage of the Government services and College tuition they should consider the possibility of being sent into combat an opportunity cost. | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 5:26:02 PM | I still can't believe most guys sign up for the armed services knowingly because you get to kill or be killed in Iraq. I think that nobody had any idea what bad leadership was really capable of until 4 or 5 years ago when Cheney or Bush started ruling the world.
It's sad to hear that Canada deported an objector--but I wonder what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot? Hopefully the future of America holds a good leader, that would willingly take in war objectors to an illegitimate war, if Canada gets involved in one--but we don't even want people from Mexico. Whew, what is common sense? Does anybody at all consider equality of people to be a factor? Is it okay to kill people just because they live within the boundary of Iraq?
I still hold onto the words of Nelson Mandella - "Education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the world." | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 5:44:14 PM | | Personally i think it was the right choice to get him sent back, kudos for the Harper gov't for doing it. Now, he claimed that there was "highly classified info" that he was privy too in regards to his work in Iraq?...What sort of "info" would that be , that a lowly Sergeant from Calif. National Guard would be privy too??? A lame excuse more like to a clueless population not familiar with military rankings or procedure. Same goes for any other "dodger" who decided to run away here and hide, send them back!! They ENLISTED, they were not dragged kicking and screaming against their will! As well as those 50000+ Vietnam vets who fled up here where PET accepted them with open arms! Imagine a canadian soldier running off stateside and claiming to US authorities that he didn't want to fight in afghanistan,LOL, they would toss his arse in jail and throw away the key probably! This countyr should not subsidize someone elses cowardice by providig sanctuary and wasting out tax$$$ on these yellow bellies... | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 5:46:33 PM | We might end up getting all the US deserters back.
Not the same one who was just deported.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/04/refugee-ruling.html
U.S. deserter could qualify as refugee:
court
Last Updated: Friday, July 4, 2008 | 7:18 PM ET
An American war deserter could have a valid claim for refugee status in Canada, the Federal Court ruled on Friday.
In a decision that may have an impact on dozens of refugee claimants in Canada, Federal Court Justice Robert Barnes said Canada's refugee board erred by rejecting the asylum bid of Joshua Key. He ordered that a new panel reconsider the application.
Key was sent to Iraq in 2003 as a combat engineer for eight months where he said he was responsible for nighttime raids on private Iraqi homes, which included searching for weapons.
He alleged that during his time in Iraq he witnessed several cases of abuse, humiliation, and looting by the U.S. army.
So he alleged that he witnessed several cases of abuse.
Did he report all this to superior's? If action was not taken he could keep going up the chain of command. Oh he could also reported it to the MP's.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/06/60II/main659336.shtml
Deserters: We Won't Go To Iraq
But today’s American deserters, such as Brandon Hughey, will need to convince a Canadian immigration board that they are refugees.
New Slogans for the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines.
 Join the US military, after joining, if you do not want to sever for your country, become a deserter. Then go to Canada and claim refugee status.
For them be refugees. For get it. They are and always will be a war deserters.
Send them all back. Let the US handle them. | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 6:14:39 PM | When one takes that oath, one swears to protect the country against all enemies foreign and domestic. This is a solemn oath, and one must be aware of the implications .....all of the implications.....implicit in it's words.
"I, _____, 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."
Now, that "true faith and allegiance" does not remove the obligation of the warrior towards his moral obligations, nor turn him into a machine without conscience. In fact, these are qualities that are critical to avoid turning free men in democracies into storm troopers with jackboots.
One is obligated to obey orders, but not illegal nor immoral ones.
If one wishes to argue that any order must be obeyed without objection, then one is arguing that the very essence of democracy is at risk. Free men, men of conscience, have not only the right to refuse (after careful considerations of the circumstances at hand) orders that they morally feel are wrong - they are bound to do that under law.
They must , however, also bear the responsibility of that refusal with courage and moral conviction. One must also realize that they will face the court-martial process while doing so - and that they can present their reasons for such a decision.
First off, it is forbidden to implement an anti-democratic policy that has not won the support of the people. By carrying out an order that violates the will of the people, the soldier is destroying the foundations on which the both the nation and army are built. The goal of the army is to carry out the will of the people. When the army is used for personal political objectives, it loses its mandate to act.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/5414
Now, this is from an Israeli paper, not an American one - but the moral obligation is an international one, under both international law - and moral conduct.
"Just following orders" is not a valid defense against immoral acts. Those who tried to use that defense at Nuremberg paid for it with their lives, and it did not absolve them of their guilt and responsibility for their actions.
"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."
The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense
And this is implicit in the oath taken, and equally important in it's significance to the topic at hand. This swearing of an oath binds the person making it to ALL of it's obligations - as he/she sees them.
If one morally makes the decision to oppose the war, based on his/her convictions, then that protection is given within the words of that oath.
It's clear, under military law, that military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of "obeying orders," and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful. However, here's the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders_2.htm
Should they not agree, then one accepts their decision and sentence.
That oath does not protect anyone against the implications of that decision in regards to any penalty imposed for making such a decision. One must accept that, or the oath becomes meaningless at it's foundation. One is given the right to refuse, but that right also bears with it an obligation to stand up and defend one's actions in the court-martial process.
If one is judged and sentenced by that court to prison ?
Then one accepts that decision willingly, and serves ones sentence willingly.
If that decision is actually made due to cowardice, or one runs away from it to a country like my own because they wish to escape the responsibility of the punishment, then one cannot expect a government to accept it without review.
Rights also carry with them responsibilities, and those rights do not protect cowards.
Again, from Gandhi, and included for thought about how one should face a sentencing at court-martial :
I am here, therefore, to invite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is deliberate crime, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you, the Judge and the assessors, is either to resign your posts and thus dissociate yourselves from evil, if you feel that the law you are called upon to administer is an evil, and that in reality I am innocent, or to inflict on me the severest penalty, if you believe that the system and the law you are assisting to administer are good for the people of this country, and that my activity is, therefore, injurious to the common weal.
http://www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/speeches/gto1922.htm
Now he was not a soldier, but his moral tone expressed there carries with it the same courage in regards to his moral integrity of decision I'd expect from anyone in such a position.
I support this soldiers right to oppose the war totally, and do believe he has some good reasons for doing so, and legal reasons for doing so under international law - and the UCMJ .
I will not support his right to be a coward, and escape his responsibilities for doing so. | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 6:26:08 PM | I'm of two minds on this one...
On the one hand - these people all voluntarily enlisted to service. The job of a soldier is not a pleasant one - if they felt that they couldn't deal with it, they should not have volunteered. Once in ranks, you have NO say in where you'll be posted or what you'll be doing - you go where you're ordered and do what you're told. You can refuse, but you MUST accept the consequences. Don't run and hide in MY country because you can't take the heat.
I *do* have sympathy, however, for soldiers who have discharged their duty... but have had their tours extended under the 'Stop-Loss' rationale. This is a draft by another name... an organization cannot arbitrarily change the agreed-upon terms of service retroactively, and expect people to simply accept the changes. | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 6:30:59 PM | It seems to me that the fact that the commander in chief lied to go to war--and the fact that the war itself is illegal and immoral--MORALLLY absolves anyone in the military from fighting it, oath or no oath. The oath service men and women take is taken in good faith. The CIC violated that good faith. Why should anyone be morally compelled to kill for his lies? To make a few people rich? I don't think so.
I'm disappointed in this, but I don't think it does or would reflect the will of the majority of Canadians.
So...now this man (and presumably others) will be facing prison on their return to the US? That's still better, IMO, then going to Iraq. Perhaps it's a price that has to be paid and should be paid. Sometimes standing up for one's principles comes at great cost.... | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 6:38:10 PM |
It seems to me that the fact that the commander in chief lied to go to war--and the fact that the war itself is illegal and immoral--MORALLLY absolves anyone in the military from fighting it, oath or no oath.
That oath is a sacred one, and cannot be dismissed. It was taken willingly, by a free man, who CHOOSE to serve his country in it's military. This sometimes means going to war.
The military can order you on a suicide mission, if it wants to. Fear of death or injury is no defense against refusal of orders. One can die or be injured, even being transported to a court-martial or while training.
You can get killed crossing the street as a civilian, too.
One can oppose an order, and one is given the forum in which to do so under the court-martial process - but one must accept the penalty for doing so willingly. | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 6:51:07 PM | I understand what you are saying, MG, but this is not (at least in principle) about being afraid to go to war, it's about being unwilling to kill for an unjust, immoral, illegal cause. It's all good and well to talk about sacred oaths---but the president LIED to go to war, and the war is immoral. Yes, I have no doubt that these men will end up in prison....and maybe that is unavoidable. But I still consider their refusal to go to Iraq a morally sound one.
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.
Which takes precedence, the Constitution or the President? What if the PRESIDENT is actually the enemy of the constitution (hmmmmmm)? I guess it would be helpful to know what EXACTLY the constitution has to say about the process of going to war, and the importance of the president (as part of that process) not LYING TO CONGRESS. | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 7:11:14 PM | | I was in the military when I was young, and believe me if someone attempted to interfere with my country and my people, I would carry a gun, and end it one way or the other. I do not fear or turn from that to this day. This is not a war, its a police action that puts a target on the backs of every US military person and in Bannaistan on every occupier. These people will not become Christian or Secular or live the life WE want them to live. its there choice. Wake UP they do not want to live the life we so graciously offer them with the killing of Hundreds of thousands to millions, to do this. How stupid can one be. So if someone objects hes a coward, a criminal, a fool a loser, he has not life. Come on get real, this whole situation is a joke, that is costing billions of dollars in profit to the corps and lives to the mothers of every one killed....for no reason. | |
|
| |
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 7:45:38 PM | I think they should all be allowed to stay.
It happened during Vietnam... Why are things so different now?
The very fact that deserting the army is an act of treason punishable by death (I know it isn't enforced in this way) is absurd. The fact that that law still exists is absurd. The fact that is war is still going on is absurd.
Yes, these people did sign up in the first place,... But having met many war resisters that are currently residing in Canada, I see a different side. When you're told to shoot first and ask questions later, there is a problem. When you are told to bomb a family's house because it "might" house a terrorist, there is a problem.
Many of these people joined the army for lack of a better option - the army offers free education (Although I don't agree with this definition of "free"). | |
|
| |
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 8:42:24 PM | During the Vietnam conflict the Draft was in force, which meant people were chosen from the Selective Service lottery to serve in the military. They had little choice other than to pick which service they wanted to be in IF they went in before the "Date to Report". The Draft is no longer in effect, all military service in the USA is Voluntary.
Bush lied...about? Pay close attention now. We SOLD them the WMD's, evidence of that was brought out quite clearly during Colonel Oliver North's trial back in the late 80's. There's just this nagging question of what exactly did Saddam DO with the ones that WE and the French sold them. Some say he used them all...but nobody is quite sure about that. We did find a couple tons of shells filled with Mustard Gas out in the desert and some deceased anthrax, but that was far short of what we actually SOLD them...there are still quite a few unnaccounted for and so are the four mobile labs the French sold him. We are still trying to find those items. The UN has a comprehensive list of which we've accounted for around 8% of the total.
By fighting in terrain that is tactically advantageous to US and detrimental to THEM, we are preventing futher acts of terrorism on US soil. It is far easier for potential terrorists to drive into Iraq and fight there, consequently, they ARE fighting there instead of in the UK, US, and other places. Would you rather have them over here blowing up things in New York again?? Or perhaps more London bus bombings?? Nah, it's far better to draw them out into not only Another Country, but into terrain which gives us a heavy advantage.
Now if the military could work without Congressional Restraints, the Iraq war would already be over, at the cost of a few dozen Iraqi cities being totally flattened by MOAB's. Sadr City, home of one of the worst groups would be a glass runway by now. Pick a city where we had heavy fighting?? Pull back our troops and bomb it to matchsticks. No population, no problem. A few MOAB's will clear up the worst problems. We would do it that way, but for some reason some idiot president wanted to win the "Hearts & Minds" instead of kicking butt & taking names. Most military prefer the General Patton Approach..."kill the **stards until there aren't enough left to field a good baseball team".
Dang civilians screw up everything, especially war. They screwed us back in 1775 and haven't stopped since. Wanna know WHY the Continental Army had such a hard time at Valley Forge?? It was because CONGRESS wouldn't give them the proper FUNDS to fight with!! Sound FAMILIAR??
As a former serviceman, I prefer that we Hang the deserters...old fashioned disease, old fashioned cure...if we went back to hanging criminals we'ed have far less of those bastiches too. | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 8:50:15 PM |
Dang civilians screw up everything, especially war. They screwed us back in 1775 and haven't stopped since.
Yes, dang them indeed. How dare they get in the way of all that fun!! Shame! | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 9:02:30 PM | | Vietnam was mainly draft dodgers. People who did not volunteer for Military Government . Went to Canada so they did not have to serve. Here these people volunteered for the Military. A very big difference. | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 10:42:24 PM | Canada is ruled by a very left wing regime . We're practically a socialist dictatorship .
We welcomed communists and glorified viet nam dodgers with ticker tape parades.
That was for show , to discredit true conservatives in the US.
The neocons are extremely influential . They hijacked the Canadian "conservative" party just like they hijacked the republicans.
Neocons and liberals are a kind of ally ...like cousins . It's a sort of controlled dispute .They agree on much more than they disagree .That is why the democratic congress is so totally ineffective at slowing down the war and that is why the normally very liberal Canadian regime returns dodgers.
When are people going to recognise that there is really only one establishment that plays both sides?
Or does it matter .. it makes for a good red team verse blue team narrative.? | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/17/2008 11:38:30 PM | MG I usually agree with you or when I don't you make a logical enough case as to not need any elaboration but...
Now when it comes to cases like this one, I feel little sympathy to the men/women involved. They willingly signed up, and took an oath to serve. That means you remove your choice to run away from your moral choices , if you disagree with the decisions made by your government.
Many of these men and women served with distinction in Afghanistan or other theatres of operation, yet balked at this one war.
I can't say I am familiar enough with Long's case to know if this is the case here, but for those that know the entire Iraq action was a debacle and trumped up refusing to be part of it...... those people I believe we owe some sanctuary. Just as we allowed Vietnam era draft dodgers while tens of thousands of our own men joined American forces, it is a choice. And not an easy one to walk away from that camaraderie. But when a man has served his country's call multiple times says, "this $hit just isn't kosher", I'm inclined to listen and ask why. Besides a few deserters (even if a few are actually cowards rather than informed objectors)would make better citizens than the Khadr clan or 30 000 Lebanese "paper Canadians". | |
|
| Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War
Posted: 7/18/2008 12:07:33 AM |
and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, Strange.. Didn't the German SS say that they were just following Hitler's orders?
The Iraq war was not sanctioned by the UN.. which as I understand it makes it an Illigal Act. The Canadian Government refused to get involved because the invasion was not sanctioned ~ so, why does the court/govn'mnt of Canada feel that Long (or any other "deserter" for that matter be sent back to America to face charges for something that is illegal to begin with>??
Those that say that Long has a moral obligation to serve because he chose to be in the service ~ have no Idea what atrocities and immoral actions he's witnessed in a war that was never sanctioned and was declared by a man that has lost his credibility to most of the of the world.
How many WMD were actually found? How many Iraqies flew those planes on 9/11?.. None!
Those that are there and fighting, I give all due respect to.. those that don't want to be there.. same deal! | |
|
|
| Page 1 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
