U.S. Military Deserters in Canada Megathread

[Glorified Ape]

What would you call a firefighter who all of a sudden chose not to run into a burning building.

Morals in this guys case is like the soldier who's always hurt missing PT whom throws out his back right before an excersise. (Surprise surprise he's out at the bar that night)
Everyone knows whats going on, actually proving it is another story.

I'm always amazed at peoples ability to argue over anything on the internet.
This guy had a legal and moral obligation and he crap the bed.

I wouldn't call a firefighter who refused to enter a burning building a coward since I've never been in his position and thus I cannot sit in judgement of his cowardice or lack thereof. Would you call a firefighter who had entered the burning building before but refused this time a coward?

 

[geo]

think the firefighter analogy probably a bad one - the firefighters I know would most likely go into burning buildings one time too many at his / her risk & peril.
BUT, I think the point is:
if the man is sick, look after him, if he isn't, get to the bottom of it and redress the situation.
If the american people decide that their occupation of Iraq is immoral and they are dead set against it - then they should speak out; stand up and be counted.

The alternative, get back out there and help us put out the fires.

Canada adoes not have much of a need for deserters who have taken the king's penny.

IMHO

 

[Pte_Martin]

I totally agree they should be back We send other criminals back so why not them

 

[dapaterson]

They are still here because they are entitled to due process under Canadian law, which permits appeals of the initial decisions.  The wheels of refugee determination are slow to turn in Canada (a different subject); these cases are not atypical in their speed (or lack thereof).

 

[Bart Nikodem]

They broke US law, we want them back

Have they been convicted in absentia? Otherwise they allegedly broke US law.
I have nothing meaningful to add.
Bart

 

[Cloud Cover]

He didn't say they were found to have broken the law, he said they broke the law.

It is not for a Canadian court to determine if they broke US law, only a US judge of competent jurisdiction can do that. It is proper for a Canadian judge to determine whether they have jumped the immigration que for a valid reason. Doesn't look like they a valid reason that is known to our system of law. Unless the judge invents new law (a distinct possibility) they will be south bound soon enough.   Its not like they are going to be shot for desertion, or face torture, or be sent to Iraq - so the decision should be interesting.

S_Baker: you guys just might have to come up here and take them home.  Go on ... make it a moot point for us all.

 

[dapaterson]

well not to offend my dear CDN brothers and sisters but they are not refugees, they are desserters/criminals.  So no matter how much I hear about them deserving due process....send them back and they will get their due process where they broke the law!

I thought there was suppose to be a decision yesterday? 

I never said they were refugees.  I said that the refugee determination process is slow.  If it is determined that they do not meet the criteria to be granted refugee status they will be refused and a deportation order issued.

Until that determination is made, they can not be deported.

 

[Kat Stevens]

We regularly send back rapists, murderers, armed robbers, and hockey players with a DWI, why not these guys?  Were there not lawfully obtained arrest warrants issued on these clowns?  Begone, rabble.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Much as I want these dirtbags out, take the time, do it right, do it openly and that takes away any further attempts to deride our immigration system, ....from deserters, at least....

 

[Danjanou]

I told you Major I keep emailing them and offering a free ride to Buffalo, but they never get back to me. ;D

Hinzman’s refugee claim was denied in March 2005. His appeal was two days ago (Feb 7th). The Judge has yet to release her decision, if the appeal is successful then it goes back to the Refugee Board for another hearing. If not it should be a short time before he’s gone, i theory. I'm sure they'll try another ploy like using a local church as "sanctuary."

He was the first, and therefore the first through the bureaucratic process. Hopefully the courts will stand by the IRB decision that his refugee claim is not credible and that will help with precedents for the rest of these self absorbed opportunists.

Here’s a list of the known ones: http://www.resisters.ca/resisters_stories.html

They’re also looking for cash donations to help out there Sir, seems the little darlings don’t qualify for welfare and have to pay for their extra foam extra grande double lattes somehow. ;D

 

[Bart Nikodem]

Bruce,
The point of my post was that both men are yet to be convicted of the crime of desertion, either by a military or civilian court. At least that is the impression I got from perusing various websites today, unless as I said before they were tried in absentia and already convicted. As such it makes them alleged deserters not actual deserters as most people on this thread seem to be making them out to be. I understand this is semantics but It's important as a principle to me.
All the best,
Bart

 

[ChopperHead]

why do we even let these people into the country in the first place? dont you have to go through customs or something that regulates who comes in and out of Canada? if so then why didnt we just say ok America is that way see ya. American desserters have been coming to Canada forever, Why? cause they know they can probably stay here. We need to get tough on this and stop these people from getting into the country at all or if they do make it in have like a Zero tolerance policy provide a map for a nominal fee and point them in correct direction to the USA. I feel the same way for any criminals not just deserters. send em packing

 

[Danjanou]

why do we even let these people into the country in the first place? don’t you have to go through customs or something that regulates who comes in and out of Canada? if so then why didn’t we just say ok America is that way see ya. American deserters have been coming to Canada forever, Why? cause they know they can probably stay here. We need to get tough on this and stop these people from getting into the country at all or if they do make it in have like a Zero tolerance policy provide a map for a nominal fee and point them in correct direction to the USA. I feel the same way for any criminal’s not just deserters. send em packing

Simple they don’t stroll in with big neon signs screaming “deserter” on their heads. How many people cross the border on a daily basis either way. Last time I checked if the wife and I want to go spend a weekend in Buffalo, Rochester or Detroit no problem, hop in the car and drive there. Proof of citizenship and a wave through right.

Check their “stories” many were on leave and simple went AWOL and came up here. No list created for Customs and Immigration to check names against, as at that point they technically weren’t deserters right. “Evening sir, US citizen s yup the missus and I thought we’d come over the border for a night of gambling, see the falls and show the kids marine land tomorrow.”

 

[ChopperHead]

good point. I wasnt thinking of it like that. I was thinking more along the lines of that people already knew they had desserted. but either way in 2 weeks or whatever the time limit is when the RCMP comes looking for them shouldnt they simply be deported back to the US. even if we didnt know they were desserters or whatever else they broke Canadian policy and law and tried to stay in the country longer then permitted so they have already broken laws right there.

 

[3rd Herd]

Now,

  Will we get them back or ?

I would not hold my breath. It seems historically that ever time there is the smell of gunpowder south of the line Canada's immigration rates showed a blip in increased migration. I do have a few names to add to the list from the last experience and yet thirty plus years later they are still here.

 

[dapaterson]

3rd Herd: But there's a difference between most Vietnam era migrants and those today.  I have no particular quarrel with granting asylum to those fleeing the draft (I call it involuntary servitude, regardless of the US Supreme Court's opinion); this group is deserters, an important distinction.  The new group made a commitment and swore an oath that they are now repudiating, something I find morally offensive.

(And if anyone wants to discuss/debate the legality or advisability of the draft, please find an existing thread, rather than hijacking this one)

 

[ChopperHead]

i agree with 3rd. I doubt they will be sent packing or if they are it will take so damn long being tied of with appeal after appeal and public lbbying etc etc etc if it's going to happen probably wont for like 5 years

 

[3rd Herd]

3rd Herd: But there's a difference between most Vietnam era migrants and those today.  I have no particular quarrel with granting asylum to those fleeing the draft (I call it involuntary servitude, regardless of the US Supreme Court's opinion); this group is deserters, an important distinction.  The new group made a commitment and swore an oath that they are now repudiating, something I find morally offensive.

(And if anyone wants to discuss/debate the legality or advisability of the draft, please find an existing thread, rather than hijacking this one)

let me me qualify my earlier post. The ones I was referring too had short hair cuts, last place of residence was FT Lewis, or Camp Pendleton and had either just finished AIT or were just going on AIT. And yes to me personally those that fled the draft are just as bad in MY books.

 

[ChopperHead]

I think the draft dodgers are just as guilty as well. However i did not live in that time so I dont really understand the political and all the other factors involved but to me those are just making excuses. But we wont turn this into another Draft doging thread so back to the topic at hand.

 

[dapaterson]

There is no foot dragging.  There is the usual inertia of courts in determining what the legal residency status of the individuals concerned, particularly since there is no handy precedent to which they can refer.

And while some people have tried to expand the scope of the court's deliberations, the court currently reviewing the initial rejection of their claim to refugee status has as its mandate to review whether that decision (and any decisions made in support of that determination) were well-founded legally.

Due process in this instance refers to the courts determining whether these individuals meet the criteria for refugee status within Canada.  That's completely apart from any determination under the UMCJ (I believe that's the American acronym, though I'm willing to be corrected).

The other question is this:  has the US government ever requested that these individuals be extradited?  Basic, but sometimes the basic things do get overlooked.