Should Canada send back a US deserter?

As a pacifist, I oppose all war, and support any soldier who decides to quit participating in war. I try to talk people out of joining in the first place, and if they bring back the draft I'll support draft-refusers and draft-dodgers. But if a person makes the mistake of joining and only later realizes his/her mistake, I'll support the choice to leave.

So, yes, I believe Canada should grant assylum.

From a legal technicality standpoint, these desertion cases are different than the Vietnam-era draft-dodger cases. Since Canada does not have a draft, draft-dodging is not a crime there, and Canada does not extradite people whose actions would not have been a crime in Canada. Therefore a draft-dodger seeking assylum in Canada has an open and shut case. But Canada does have a military, and presumably desertion is a crime there. So these people do not have the defense that their action would not have been a crime in Canada; and they must instead argue that they would be persecuted if they were extradited. That raises the controversial issue of whether legal prosecution for refusing to participate in a war the defendant considers illegal is "persecution" or not.

Again, I feel that Canada should grant assylum, but they have a much more difficult case to argue in court, since courts typically could not care less about right and wrong, but only about the technical issues involved.

 

There's an important piece of information we're missing here... Can anyone comment on just what exactly will happen if you (an active member of whatever military branch) elect the "objector" status (or some other similar mechanism) within any of the armed forces? I find it a bit difficult to believe you'd be thrown in jail, but rather something more amongst the lines of being dishonorably discharged, and forfeiting whatever benefits active members get.

Dare I ask if anyone here knows precise military law within this respect?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Mar 30 2006, 02:00 PM) [snapback]232398[/snapback]</div>

Since I'm MILDLY interested in this point, I did some brief, cursory research, and came up with this article:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=386694

Key excerpt:

"Petty Officer 2nd Class Mike Tonn from Fond du Lac served more than three years in the Navy before requesting a conscientious objector discharge in 2004. Tonn was 18 when he joined in July of 2000 "as a way to get out of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin," for the adventure and college money. It was pre-9-11 and he never thought he'd go to war.

Tonn said he realized he couldn't carry out the Navy's mission after the captain of the USS Lake Champlain asked him to give a speech to sailors on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday.

"He (King) pleaded to American soldiers they should get out of the war in Vietnam and it clicked with me," Tonn said. "I believed in what Martin Luther King said. . . . I realized I'm not going to walk down the street and kill someone."

Tonn's request was approved about four months later and he received an honorable discharge, but not before investigators tried to "trap" him with aggressive and passion-provoking questions, he said.

Tonn sought advice from an anti-war group before applying and interviewing and was prepared to answer the tough questions, he said.

Tonn said a few shipmates called him names but there was no serious backlash from superiors or civilians once he returned to Wisconsin. He now is an active member of Peace-Out and advises other troops on the conscientious objector process. He is attending college in Portland, Ore."


Some vague summary from the official Selective Service site from the U.S. Gov.:

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

Of course they're going to make it difficult, like getting out of any contract, but at least there is most certainly a way out, and not ONLY that, there are varying grades within...


Never fully doubt anything...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Mar 30 2006, 02:37 PM) [snapback]232414[/snapback]</div>

No see, you expressed a high degree of doubt of the possibility on this particular, specific aspect, and I attempted to shed some light on that specific matter for you, as your high degree of doubt is relatively unfounded sans research on the matter, it's a sub-discussion of the Josh Key case.

As for it being hard to reconcile, well, no kidding. When you sign a contract with the military...

(Keyword = MILITARY:

mil·i·tar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ml-tr)
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of members of the armed forces: a military bearing; military attire.
Performed or supported by the armed forces: military service.
Of or relating to war: military operations.
Of or relating to land forces. )

...there is an explicit understanding you may very well find yourself in a war.

The point is, there are alternatives if you don't want to shoot someone. They leave the door open for such things like transferring you to some duty, and I'd bet there are some more ways to get out of it too. Many people are propagating the idea that, essentially, if you don't want to fight, the evil, fascist, U.S. empire will throw you in JAIL.

...and I wonder, truly, why?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Mar 30 2006, 03:09 PM) [snapback]232440[/snapback]</div>

:lol: this is why I, for the most part, have no interest in aruging with your contingency... There is nothing that can be presented for which you would either refine, or heaven forbid, cause you to change your position... :lol:

Really, think about it, Canada doesn't seem to believe any serious repercussions will come of it, and US Gov. sources (yes, I know, biased by that monster Bush who should be impeached right? lolololol) seem to leave a LOT of wiggle room for such, similar mechanisms. So, what is more likely? That situations like the ones I pointed out are "exceptions", or yours?

:lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Mar 30 2006, 04:55 PM) [snapback]232518[/snapback]</div>

Then again, we are talking 2 out of roughly 20... Don't you think you might be jumping to conclusions a bit? After all there are many variables being left out of this story...

Sure, I think it's reasonable to get that feeling from that statement, however, it's very nebulous at best. Are they guaranteed to get jail time? Of course not, besides, back to the missing variables, it's not clear why the 'proper channels' didn't work. I'm just saying, there's waaaaay too much we don't know about his case in particular.

You said, *Canadian Values*. I'm not sure about applying *Canadian Values* to those who aren't quite Canadian, that's kind of like extraterritorial application of laws in a sense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Mar 30 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]232518[/snapback]</div>

If Mr Key were a Canadian citizen when he joined the US Army, then the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board may have a difficult decision on its hands regarding “betrayal of Canadian values.â€

Instead of owning up to the consequences of his actions (joining the US military), Mr Key is looking for the easiest way out of the situation he put himself in by fleeing to Canada . . . a country with a legal and political system he hopes will be sympathetic to his cause.

Mr Key's actions has elevated what is essentially a personal morality and legal conflict into an international incident which was hoisted upon Canada just because Canada happens to be geographically, culturally, and politically to Mr Key's liking. This has noting to do with Canada, except Mr Key decided to flee there.

Should Canada allow Mr Key to stay? Not unless Canada wants more “refugees†like Mr Key to use Canada for their own personal gain . . . no-matter-the-cause.

Is Mr Key a refugee? No.
If he were to be returned to the United States, would he be persecuted because of his newfound beliefs? NO! If that were the case, then everyone who holds his beliefs would be persecuted, whether desertion was involved or not. That fact proves Mr Key is not a refugee from persecution.
Mr Key would be prosecuted for the act of desertion – a violation of his enlistment contract, a legal conflict -not because of what he does or doesn't believe, a moral conflict.

It would be best for everyone involved if Mr Key were to stand trial on the desertion charges, serve out whatever sentence is handed down, and then get on with his life - and if that then involves migrating to Canada, so be it. Instead, his desertion has been elevated to pit one side against another, and possibly one country against another. The subject is desertion, not belief systems.

Mr Key needs to take responsibility for his own actions.

 

In all honesty, my preference would simply be to simply agree to send any deserter to any country they choose, and bar them from EVER returning. That is plenty of punishment and serves the purpose well.

 

I don't believe in Bush's wars. I would not send that person back here to be put in prison.

 

Don't we (the USA) shoot or hang deserters, in time of war?

 

See, this is what I mean...

Is it possible to have a non-biased, rational, discussion when looking through glasses as such?

Nope. You come into an argument with a serious anti-Bush slant, almost any counter argument is effectively useless because the core beliefs are in different places...

When people can take a point, and TRULY put asided their bias, then you have a good argument. Anything other is just a pissing match.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Mar 31 2006, 12:15 PM) [snapback]232902[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

No, seriously, aren't we at war?
Don't we view desertion, and treat deserters, differently when at war than we do in peacetime?

Guess what Rumsfeld would say?

How about we allow the deserter's old comrades to decide his fate?