U.S. Military Deserters in Canada Megathread

[Kirkhill]

Which reminds me of another phrase "in conscientiae rebus adhibenda non est maioris partis lex"  - in matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.

The only acceptable law, the only lasting law, is the law of the majority.  Any body of laws that do not have the support of the majority will not last.

Now, if you as an individual, choose not to adhere to that law then that is your prerogative.  You are quite free to be a drug dealer in Iran: your prerogative.  However don't be surprised if the local authorities visit local consequences on you, in accordance with the local law of the majority.

By the way Zell, did you study Latin or just swallow a legal dictionary?

 

[Edward Campbell]

The only acceptable law, the only lasting law, is the law of the majority.  Any body of laws that do not have the support of the majority will not last.

Now, if you as an individual, choose not to adhere to that law then that is your prerogative.  You are quite free to be a drug dealer in Iran: your prerogative.  However don't be surprised if the local authorities visit local consequences on you, in accordance with the local law of the majority ...

Sorry, Kirkhill, but I think Zell_Dietrich is quoting the correct principle. Matters of conscience must be understood as being related to fundamental principles. They cannot be made up as we go along or they are nothing more than passing fancies. Matters of conscience are related to our fundamental, natural rights - the ones that legally constituted majorities regularly, and always improperly, try to limit. Whenever and wherever our natural rights are constrained or threatened then majority and laws be damned, we must all oppose the majority and its improper law.

Thus, resisting conscription can be a matter of conscience. Running away and refusing face the proper consequences is not, on the other hand, principled.

 

[Kirkhill]

Edward,

I don't dispute the right of any man to follow his own conscience.  But.  At the same time I don't dispute the right of any group of individuals to create their own body of laws.

If the individual's conscience puts him at odds with the majority then he must needs accept the consequences, OR, find another society more accomodating.  There can't be an expectation that every society will be equally welcoming.

The question that I see in play is whether or not the individual's "Beliefs" cause harm to the society.  Personally I don't believe that anyone's "Beliefs" cause any society harm.  I have less of a problem with the notion of giving sanctuary to a "draft dodger" who would otherwise be coerced by the state to act against their conscience than I do with giving sanctuary to an individual who signs an open contract and then decides he doesn't like the terms.

I do believe that a person is liable for their actions - including their failure to act when action is called for. 

As an individual contributor to the society of Canada it doesn't offend me that people, including US soldiers, oppose operations in Iraq.  I do find that I am less than enamoured by the notion of accepting into our society those who find they can't live up to their freely undertaken obligations.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Zell:

Now that you've admitted to just wanting to stir a hornets nest - and having succeeded at that, be assured that you are now firmly on my "ignore" list.

It was not my intention to inflame emotions or upset anyone.  But I just saw a few pages of "send the cowards home" and people agreeing.  While I do understand it is a legitimate position (one taken by the courts and government of Canada) I've found though that when there is no debate on the issue, when someone actually does raise an argument it tends to have undue sway.  Besides, exploring different aspects of an issue is a valuable academic exercise,  even if it leads to absurd results.  I've seen people lock themselves into one way of thinking, and they become baffled by facts that don't fit their constructed view. 

I'm reminded of a phrase I learned a very long time ago: "If we all reacted the same way, we'd be predictable, and there's always more than one way to view a situation. What's true for the group is also true for the individual. It's simple: Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death." - Major Motoko Kusanagi (Not a real Major, the character in the movie)

Thus, resisting conscription can be a matter of conscience. Running away and refusing face the proper consequences is not, on the other hand, principled.

And bamb.  "You're not facing torture,  you freely chose to obligate yourself, you have no need to require sanctuary here - you can express your political opinions from prison, and Canada will see no discernible benefit from your presence".  This argument trumps the 'these foreigners are refusing to take part in illegal activities and therefore sending them back to be punished would be in support of those illegal activities'.

By the way Zell, did you study Latin or just swallow a legal dictionary?

Actually both.  Latin was a hobby of mine for a while and I did eat a few pages in a law book. (heated argument over the governments actions in Vancouver during an APEC summit.) But in my law classes I did do fairly well.

Now laws, reasoning and political motivations aside - I don't like the idea of sending foreigners back to a country to be punished for refusing to act against their conscience. (That's more opinion than reasoned argument and I know it.)

 

[Kirkhill]

......

Actually both.  Latin was a hobby of mine for a while and I did eat a few pages in a law book. (heated argument over the governments actions in Vancouver during an APEC summit.) But in my law classes I did do fairly well.

Now laws, reasoning and political motivations aside - I don't like the idea of sending foreigners back to a country to be punished for refusing to act against their conscience. (That's more opinion than reasoned argument and I know it.)

Just slow a little for those of us whose latin isn't up to the challenge (3 years of it 2 generations ago makes mine pretty rusty  ).

As to your "opinion" - equally my observation about sending them back was an "opinion".  I don't see their action as a reflection of conscience but one of moral turpitude: either on the ground of Wanting In Military Prowess or else of failure to honour a freely accepted and binding contract.

Cheers.

 

[Loachman]

The only acceptable law ... is the law of the majority. 

There is a very fine line between majority rule and mob rule, and the difference is mainly window dressing.

Somebody once described democracy as four wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner, and liberty as a well-armed sheep disputing the vote.

We have a constitution, and courts to interpret it and laws, partially to limit the effects of that majority/mob rule.

Without constitution and courts, it is too easy to pass laws that cause harm to individuals or certain groups for no morally justifiable reason. It's too easy even with them, but at least they limit negative effects.

Any body of laws that do not have the support of the majority will not last.

"Support" can be defined in any number of ways, and can vary considerably in degree, as can opposition.

There is widespread support for our drug laws, but it's pretty weak and most people probably don't really care. Active opposition is limited, but strong. Passive opposition, those who smoke dope in the privacy of their own homes or social gatherings, falls in between.

Current firearms legislation is similar.

Most such support is based upon uninformed opinion, and given without the supporter being able to explain why.

Just because the majority of people "support" something, to whatever degree and for whatever reason, doesn't make it right. Just ask a certain six million Jews.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree there is a fine distinction to be made between "majority rule" and "mob rule".  However I stand by my contention that without majority support no body of laws can stand.  No matter how "right" a law is, if it is enforced against the will of the majority then the majority will find themselves at odds with a minority perceived as authoritarian and out of touch.  At that point the majority truly risks reverting to a mob.

We do indeed have a constitution and a court to curb the rule of the majority.  I would note that in the example you cited the nation in question also had a constitution and a high court.  That didn't stop the atrocities any more than hundreds of others of courts and constitutions over the millenia.

We need the courts and the laws to limit the mob but the sad fact (or at least in my opinion it is an observable fact) is that the courts contain the seeds of their own destruction.  They are made of people just as the mobs are so constituted.  There is little inherent difference between those people that judge for a living and those that judge for pleasure AND profit.  All judgement, as I have said before, is arbitrary.  The power of the judge comes from having the trust of others to make a reasonable arbitrary decision.

Unfortunately as the people making the judgements do so they invariably cause distress to at least one individual, usually also to their party of supporters.  Occasionally, and this is often seen as the definition of a successfuly judgement, it offends all parties equally.  As the court makes more and more judgements, it makes more and more enemies.  Ultimately it loses legitimacy and is seen as an oppressive other rather than a contributing and fundamental part of society.  It then has to expend more energy and resources enforcing its judgements in an unaccomodating society.

And then the majority exerts itself - often in an eruption of unfettered, and unattractive mob rule.

The results in a cycle of enforced order with authoritarian abuses followed by chaotic disorder with democratic abuses.  In the intervals we get a few years of balance.

The alternative is to accept that you can't impose, you can only persuade.  That means that you have to accept that there will be unpleasantness.  The best you can hope for is to set an example and hope that others will see advantage in following it.

Ultimately I find example in the twin histories of Britain and France over the last four centuries.  In about 1608 there wasn't much to choose between the two States.  Both of them tried authoritarian models under the auspices of the House of Guise.  Britain adopted pragmatism as a governing principle in 1689.  France persisted in the search for the "right".   Britain entered into a 300 year period of prosperity.   France entered into an ongoing cycle of monarchy, republic and revolution.

Constitutions are routinely defined as being cast in stone, an effort to impose stability in a changing and unpredictable world.  However societies grow and expand and move and in doing so create pressure.  If you attempt to contain pressure in a stone vessel you will eventually see the vessel explode.  You can create a vent and govern the pressure but eventually even the governor is overtaken by the accumulating pressure.

I think it is far better NOT to attempt to limit and contain, but rather to watch and follow and divert as the opportunity presents itself.  There is a lot of truth in King Ralph's line about the successful politician finding out which way the parade is going and then getting out in front of it to lead it.

You can't order women not to wear burkas, or hijabs, or commit suttee.  You can only give them the opportunity to see what life is like without out them and then, if they choose to oppose the community standard assist, encourage and protect them.

I think you said as much in your great response to nicky0013.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080530.codeserters31/BNStory/specialComment/home

It looks like that motion will go through,  although in a non-binding form.  With the troubles the tories are having lately, this might be a good wedge issue.

 

[Redeye]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080530.codeserters31/BNStory/specialComment/home

It looks like that motion will go through,  although in a non-binding form.  With the troubles the tories are having lately, this might be a good wedge issue.

I doubt it.  It doesn't take much explaining to many people to show the difference between the current deserters and Vietnam-era draft dodgers.  If those like Corey Glass et al were as courageous as people want us to think they are for deserting, they'd have already gone back to the US and faced justice for their decisions.  They would have had the courage to accept the consequences of their decisions instead of running away from them.

 

[Kirkhill]

Zell,

I think,on any of these wedge issues, where the three gang up on the one, the problem of the three will be getting their supporters to unite behind one of them in a general election.  Meanwhile those that disagree with internationalism, social justice, global warming, etc. have much simpler choice.

Chris.

 

[vonGarvin]

Just because the majority of people "support" something, to whatever degree and for whatever reason, doesn't make it right. Just ask a certain six million Jews.

This thread has just jumped the shark, having just achieved "Reductio ad Hitlerum"

 

[Armymedic]

Here is one part of the article I find a bit disturbing:

Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis put forward a motion in Parliament's standing committee on citizenship and immigration to allow resisters of wars not sanctioned by the UN to stay in Canada. Opposition party MPs joined ranks to pass the motion, which should soon be brought to a vote in Parliament.

Is that legislation only to include war resisters from the US, or is it going to be open to all comers from all over the world?

 

[Armymedic]

And how has the US policy of "stop loss" affecting this issue, and,

Is any of the US resisters a victim of stop loss?

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

This thread has just jumped the shark, having just achieved "Reductio ad Hitlerum"

This thread violated Goodwin's law over 3 times by my count... but it survives - go figure :-S

But it is hard not to make reference to that era since allot of our morality was shaped by the decisions made then.  Even if you're ordered to do something, you are legally responsible for your actions.  http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergEinsatzgruppenTrial.html

Lets say you volunteered for your nation's army,  then your country invades Elbonia.  You're posted to a detention camp and you're ordered to rough up prisoners... (blah blah blah http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444 )

Now as a third party,  do you not have a duty to help protect those who say no? By allowing those who are faced with the choice of violating their conscience and international law or face punishment from their homeland a safe refuge, are you not by extention reducing the chance that such violations will occur?  ( I think that was argued before )

 

[geo]

Zell.... you forget that these individuals all voluntarily enrolled into the US military.
I would further a guess that they enrolled after 9/11
They knew exactly what they were committing themselves to do, if required, when they signed all that paperwork.

This is nothing like the 60s when citzens were drafted into the military - regardless of their wants or desires.

Question - what will happen to these deserters if they go home ???
-  Go to jail and throw away the keys ? - I don't think so.  For one thing, it costs too much to incarcerate. They will most likely be charged with being AWOL, released under a less than perfect discharge category and be left to their own devices to earn a living and raise a fiamly.

Send em home!

 

[LineDoggie]

We had a Deserter in My unit in July 2004 before we went to Iraq. He had Lived in Buffalo prior to joining us at Fort Hood, Tx.

It is my fondest wish that someday he faces Justice for running out on his comrades.

 

[vonGarvin]

There was something odd about the motion in parliament by our short sighted members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.  They want to allow any person opposed to a non-UN sanctioned "war" to be allowed to enter the nation.  Fine.  What of those members of the Canadian Forces who didn't want to participate in Kosovo?  Remember Kosovo?  NATO resorted to arms without UN sanction.  By the way, for you revisionists out there, the PM at the time was NOT Harper, but Chretien.  And some Canadian Squadrons have "Kosovo" as a battle honour.

Go figure...

 

[MarkOttawa]

A letter of mine in the Ottawa Citizen:

Deserters are refusing to join a UN-sanctioned war
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/letters/story.html?id=7ef667c4-4084-4c12-9e3e-b14b874ee601

The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Re: Let them stay, June 9.
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=5d43c6e2-ec70-4498-8b4a-8ab7a2a8a5ed&sponsor=Hardly.TheU.S

Letter-writer Jan Heynen, advocating that the government let American deserters who refuse to serve in Iraq stay in Canada, writes that "The illegality of that war has been demonstrated many times."

Hardly.

The U.S. and coalition military presence, and use of force, have in fact been fully authorized by the UN Security Council since it adopted resolution No. 1511 on Oct. 16, 2003.

That UN resolution "authorizes a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq ..."

Most recently, on Dec. 18, 2007, the Security Council extended the mandate of those foreign forces -- for the last time -- until Dec. 31, 2008.

After that, their presence will need to be on the basis of agreement with the government of Iraq.

So, contrary to Ms. Heynen's belief, since October 2003, any U.S. deserters concerned about Iraq are in fact refusing to participate in a UN-sanctioned war.

Mark Collins,

Ottawa

And a post at The Torch:

Deserters, Iraq, and the UN--and our ignorant politicians
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/06/deserters-iraq-and-un-and-our-ignorant.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And how has the US policy of "stop loss" affecting this issue, and,

Is any of the US resisters a victim of stop loss?

A person who was about to be given an honourable discharge and then hit with a stop loss who snapped and deserted would be somewhat forgiveable. If they returned to face the music I would respect them.

 

[civmick]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080704.wclaim05/BNStory/National/

Extract follows:

U.S. deserter wins appeal in fight for refugee status

TU THANH HA

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

July 4, 2008 at 9:47 PM EDT

The Immigration and Refugee Board was wrong when it decided that an American deserter couldn't claim refugee status in Canada because the military transgressions he was evading weren't severe enough to be war crimes or crimes against humanity, the Federal Court ruled Friday.

The judgment lowers one of the bars that the recent wave of American deserters need to clear when they seek asylum in Canada.

It said that dodging orders that are “contrary to the basic rules or norms of human conduct” is enough grounds to apply for refugee protection.

“Military action which systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates either combatants or non-combatants is capable of supporting a refugee claim where that is the proven reason for refusing to serve,” wrote Mr. Justice Robert Barnes, who is also a court-martial appellate judge.