Admiral Beez
Superstar
To MOT I don't think it mattered what she meant, as long as it could be paraphrased to support his opinion.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Mot
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Look, if you want to get all Jesus'y on this thread fine, but at least get your info right. The Jesus story is not centred on persecution, but is about sacrificing one's self, and submitting to the persecution for your beliefs and the greater cause thereof as a sign to others. So, if these deserters wanted to follow the Christian model, they shouldn't hide from the cause they supported, but instead should return to the States and become, ahem..... martyrs to their cause by accepting the consequences and punishment, however unjust for their actions to show and encourage others to also refuse to obey immoral military orders.
So, if you want to, for whatever reason, apply Christian thinking to your deserters, you need to look no further than the Christian Saints George, Sergius and Bacchus. These three were soldiers in the Roman Empire, and were all ordered to kill innocent civilians, what they considered an immoral act. They refused to obey orders, but did not, like our current batch of deserters, flee to safety. They instead stood their ground, and were terribly tortured and then executed for their troubles. That is how the Christian history views soldiers that know they should not take part in immoral acts and then refuse to take part. The Christian history tells us that they should refuse to obey, and then bravely take their punishment, not flee like cowards.
For an even better example, the Roman Theban Legion had all 6,600 of its members killed by the Roman Emperor for refusing to take part in what they considered immoral acts. Here's the text of what the Roman soldiers said..... http://bibleprobe.com/theban.html "``Emperor, we are your soldiers. We owe you military service and obedience, but we cannot stain our hands with the blood of innocent people." These 6,600 soldiers did not flee to safety, but were willingly executed for refusing to obey orders.
So, MOT, I would think again before suggesting that a Christian model of thinking be applied to these soldiers, for to Christians, soldiers who refuse to obey immoral orders must stand up for their beliefs and take the consequences, not flee to safety. Perhaps all this Christian history is bunkum and irrelevant to you, that's fine, but you keep bringing up Christians, so I thought we'd better make sure you know of what you speak.
Mot
Active Member
How do you know that Hydrogen? Mental Anguish is a part of thousands of court cases each year. Besides Mr. Long was already physically assaulted while in Canadian custody. The majority in Parliament aleady voted to let them stay and once again Harper is ignoring the will of Parliament. Also you, Beez and Keith are in the minority on this issue as polling indicates.
Mot
Active Member
Only in your kind of Christian world is refusing to kill innocent civilians in an immoral war wrong and the soldier should be executed for it. Bush agrees with you and your brand of religion. I could not have made Christianity look any worse than you just did. Bravo!!!
Christianity is by far not a religion of peace and yet how many times have we heard you talking about Muslims on this forum. Pot meet kettle.
I am curious, when will you stand by your word and stop posting on topics you claim you are done with? Perhaps until the next time you can gleefully post at the misery of others I suppose.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Polls can go either way. How about they ask this question:
"Do you want to allow US deserters to stay if the US will allow Canadian deserters to stay in the USA?"
or this one
"Do you think we should allows US deserters to stay in Canada if it adversely affects our trade relations with the US?"
I would suggest that the answer would be quite different. Polls have their place. But governments have to deal with laws and our relations with other countries. Laws are not meant to be bent on a whim. And smart governments don't risk jeapordizing relations with their largest neighbour and economic partner. That's reality.
I have already said, that parliament was being opportunistic and playing politics with it. If they thought there was any traction to be had on the issue, why not make it a confidence vote? The war in Iraq is unpopular anyway. At the end of the day, if the Liberals were in power they would have done the same thing. They know it, that's why the bill isn't a confidence vote. Some day they'll be back in power and they don't want the Americans remembering that they facilitated a torrent of defections from the US Armed Forces.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that in the Christian world soldiers do die for their refusals, not that they should.
I'm not trying to make Christianity look worse or good. I am trying to show you that the idea of soldiers fleeing from their convictions is inconsistent with Christianity.
I wasn't aware that Bush had called for the execution of the deserters.
I never said it was. I don't think anyone has ever said this on UT. You keep looking for a fight when none is offered or provoked.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Refugee laws do not allow for cases of mental anguish. They only take into account the possibility of physical harm. And then too, physical harm that would contravene Canadian laws. For example, getting roughed up while resisting arrest, would not earn one any merit.
In the case of Mr. Long, of course he will suffer adverse consequences to his lifestyle. That's the result of some poor decisions he made. The Canadian courts and refugee system is not meant to shelter one from poor decisions, only from material threats to his person. He is not going to be killed or abused in the US. He will serve his time and go his own way. Again, its sad, but there is no material threat to his person. If there was the death penalty for desertion, he would certainly have a case. As is, accepting him would be a political statement, that we bend our refugee laws for US military deserters.
As for Mr. Long being assaulted while in Canadian custody, I'd like to read more about that.... but even if its true, it does not entitle him to residency. It entitles him to a shorter jail sentence in Canada and a quicker deportation, and possibly some monetary compensation.
And don't forget, there is a real possibility that down the road, all these deserters could well get pardoned, thus restoring them to status quo ante. Given the unpopularity of this war, I'd guess that this would be possible within a decade or less. So the argument that he will suffer economically, etc. could be debated. Aside from that, how many Vietnam deserters really ended up in bad shape? I doubt many of them are scraping the bottom of the barrel. He'll struggle for a few years, but in time, he'll be fine.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
How do I know? Because that is the typical standard that is used in cases of determining deportation from Canada. As for mental anguish, the general purpose if incarceration in most Western nations can be described as the punishment of the mind and not the punishment of the body (as in physical torture). The mind is punished by denial of free movement, the reduction in mental stimulation and a high degree of individual regulation. This would be followed by rehabilitation by way of time to reflect on how the individual person found his or her way into prison, and some opportunities to improve oneself. Sure it isn't perfect, but whether you like the approach or not, that's what it is.
Mental anguish is quite subjective in many ways, and one need not be a refugee to experience it.
Mot
Active Member
Since you guys are all familiar with Refugees claims than you know mental anguish is taken into account. My point had been made. Mr. Long will be affected mentally through the mental anguish, and physically (see below) for refusing to fight an illegal and immoral war. I am sorry to tell you guys but you are supporting the continuation of this war by going against these resisting soldiers. The war will end when soldier refuse to serve in it and your stance on this makes soldiers refusing to engage in the conflict much more difficult. I am glad more Canadians and a majority of Parliament agree with me. Harper can flaunt his rejection of the will of Parliament and I hope he pays for it.
Statement of Gerry Condon, Project Safe Haven
on the occasion of the U.S. Army's court martial of Robin Long, August 22, 2008
My name is Gerry Condon. As director of Project Safe Haven, I have been working with U.S. war resisters in Canada for the last 4½ years. During this time, I have met many young men and women who were absent without leave from the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Marines, and the U.S. Air Force. I can truthfully testify that none of these young Americans were in Canada due to cowardice or because they were shirking their duty. Quite to the contrary, they uniformly impressed me as thoughtful young Americans who were struggling conscientiously to do the right thing by themselves, their families, their religious and ethical beliefs, their country, and even the military.
On Thursday, July 17, I had the pleasure of meeting Robin Long, though under difficult circumstances. Robin was being held in jail in Buckley, Washington, near Fort Lewis. Along with a lawyer friend, I was able to meet with him for one hour in a small, spare jail cell. Robin was led out to meet us wearing a bright orange prison jumpsuit, not unlike jail garb in many places perhaps, but reminiscent of the pictures of terrorism suspects being held in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo, Cuba.
Robin was wary at first, but was quite relieved when he realized we were there to offer him our friendship and our support. He was able to show some emotion for the first time since he had been arrested by Canadian police two weeks earlier on alleged immigration violations. Robin told us a harrowing tale of the abuse he had suffered as he was transported through three Canadian jails and three U.S. jails in two weeks. In one Canadian prison he had been twice attacked by a group of prisoners. In another, he was made to share a cell with a pathologically violent prisoner who threatened to kill him if he slept. He had been kept isolated from friends and family and did not know what was going to happen to him.
The circumstances of Robin's arrest seemed very political, as the fate of U.S. war resisters in Canada was coming to a head. After being rudely arrested and dragged away from his dear family and friends, being shuttled from one prison to another, and facing abuse and privation, Robin felt more like a victim of extraordinary rendition than someone who was being deported from Canada because of immigration technicalities.
Robin is small in stature, but he spoke proudly about having fought back against multiple attackers in prison. I knew I was talking to a man who had a lot of heart, and courage to spare. He was not feeling sorry for himself. And he seemed ready to accept whatever consequences might befall him. He was at peace with himself. His main concern was that he would be separated from his two-year-old son in Canada.
Robin says that he joined the Army despite being opposed to the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq. In fact, he says that an Army recruiter promised him he would not have to go to Iraq. Should he have believed this recruiter? Probably not. But Robin's account rings true. I have heard this same story many times from other GIs. And it is now well documented that many Army recruiters, under great pressure to meet their quotas, have resorted to fraudulent tactics, including deception and intimidation.
It has been suggested that soldiers who refuse to deploy to Iraq and/or speak out against the U.S. occupation of Iraq are undermining the morale of their fellow troops. I do not believe this is the case. Instead, they are the ones who are brave enough to point out that the king has no clothes. They are expressing out loud what many in the Army know to be true.
When Robin Long joined the Army, he raised his right hand and swore to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. He didn't sign up to fight a war that many experts believe is neither legal nor winnable. The deceit and incompetence of the politicians who sent the Army to war in Iraq has been exposed for the whole world to see. These politicians have done grievous injury to the fighting forces of the United States of America. Over 4,000 of our troops have been killed. Tens of thousands are wounded. And hundreds of thousands of Iraq veterans, according to a study by the Rand Corporation, are now suffering from brain injuries and Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Is it any wonder the recruiters are having trouble?
Despite this terrible misuse and abuse of our military, the generals and the officer corps have not protested, at least not publicly. So this horrible war that has already destroyed a nation, including perhaps one million Iraqi dead, continues today in its sixth year. It has been left to low-ranking military personnel such as Robin Long to tell the truth and to suffer the consequences. This is not fair to Robin Long. And it is not fair to the U.S. Army. They both deserve a lot better.
It is not hard to argue that the U.S. went to war against Iraq without a legal basis for doing so. It was not a war waged in self-defense. There was no imminent threat to the United States. There was no UN Security Council resolution. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and no ties to terrorism. The lies of those who, for their own reasons, led us into this tragic war, are being exposed on a regular basis. Even now, there are those in the Congress who are considering the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, two men who managed to dodge the Vietnam draft, and yet carelessly ordered our military into mission impossible.
Robin Long is no coward. There can be little doubt that he has acted from deeply held beliefs. Unflinching obedience to military orders is not what is called for by the Nuremberg Principles. Nor the Geneva Conventions on War. Nor U.S. law, which embodies these international treaties. Not even the Uniform Code of Military Justice calls for blind obedience.
Whether or not you believe that Robin Long did the right thing, please keep an open mind to the possibility that he has acted bravely and honorably, and that he has already paid a high price for doing so. This court martial will not be serving justice or strengthening military discipline by treating Robin Long as a criminal and sending him off to languish in prison. Rather, justice and even the honor of the U.S. Army would be better served by showing leniency in this case.
There are those who should be imprisoned for a long time because of the role they played in unleashing the dogs of war. But Robin Long is not one of those. In every society, there are times when regular citizens, even citizen soldiers, must stand up for what they believe is right. This is the spirit in which Robin Long has acted. And this is the spirit that should guide those who sit in judgment of him.
By being lenient with Robin Long, you will not be sending the wrong message to the troops. Rather, you will be sending the right message to politicians who think they can treat the military as if it is their own little toy. Robin Long is giving you the opportunity to do the right thing. I pray that you will be able to seize this golden opportunity. Thank you.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
100% correct. Unlike the other deserters hiding in Canada, Robin returned to the US to face the consequences, however unfair, of his action. Pfc Long is a hero to his cause, that of soldiers refusing to follow what they consider immoral orders.
Now what would really make an impression is if all 200 of the other deserters in Canada crossed the border and surrendered en masse in protest to the war, of course with media present. Instead of running to save their skin, they would would be bringing the issue they feel strongest about to the forefront of national debate. Perhaps after these 200 surrendered, you might have another 1,000 or more refuse to deploy, and from there it snowballs. There is precedent for this, during the naval mutiny of 1797, the Royal Navy's crews refused to set sail, protesting in this case not immoral orders, but cruel and inhuman treatment. From its small tipping point, the mutiny grew and grew until thousands of sailors stood down and the fleet was complete disabled. At this point, the government and admiralty gave into their demands and no one was punished, and the Royal Navy continued to rule the waves.
Pfc Long could have continued running, could have snuck back into the USA, or fled overseas or simply disappeared as many somehow do in Canada. Instead, he's taking a stand for his beliefs, and I say good for him, he makes his country proud.
detroitbootybass
Active Member
Let's see:
The gentleman signs, of his own free will, a contract to join the Army National Guard... then, after going to Iraq, says that he thought it was a 'humanitarian organization' and goes AWOL?
Get the fuck out of here!
Now, if he was dodging a draft, i'd feel differently... but he SIGNED A CONTRACT of his own accord.
Reminds me of the saying, "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (ignorance of the law is no excuse).
The gentleman signs, of his own free will, a contract to join the Army National Guard... then, after going to Iraq, says that he thought it was a 'humanitarian organization' and goes AWOL?
Get the fuck out of here!
Now, if he was dodging a draft, i'd feel differently... but he SIGNED A CONTRACT of his own accord.
Reminds me of the saying, "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (ignorance of the law is no excuse).
Dilla
Senior Member
Caveat emptor could work just as well. Free college ain't free.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
I think that you are failing to make distinctions between different issues.
As American citizens, individuals like Mr. Long have opportunities to challenge the legitimacy of the war in the United States. They have a right not to go to war simply by refusing to do so and stating their conscientious objection to that conflict. There are certainly consequences for such a stance, but the negative expression of these individuals would carry much more weight in the United States if they both refused to go to war and refused to leave their country. If they really believe that the war is immoral, and really believed in taking a political stance that would bring life to their objection, the force of their protest would take on considerably more power as jails fill with free citizens who would, in effect, choose to become prisoners of conscience.
Those who fled to Canada simply do not want to acknowledge the consequences of refusing to serve in positions they freely entered into. Nor do they want to acknowledge that the price of actively expressing opposition to the authority of the government can exact a personal toll. In effect, they want a free pass from the responsibilities of their military contract and their responsibilities as free citizens - all the while that other soldiers adhere to what they agreed to do when signing up - even if these individuals don't like or accept the rationale for this war.
Canada did not enter into this war. It made its views of that conflict quite clear in the process. At the same time, it should not be drawn into an internal affair of a country that did enter into (created) this war. To that end, the most effective opposition will come from the citizens of the United States, and within the United States. Political inaction and the negation of personal responsibility is the biggest threat to a democracy, and that is what Mr. Long et al were engaging in when they walked away from their responsibilities as soldiers and citizens.
First and foremost, as soldiers, these people were supposed to be defending the freedom of the United States - which is very serious business. Refusing to go to a war that they consider immoral and standing up to their own government in their own country is expressing just that very sentiment.
This is the point you miss.
Mot
Active Member
You guys certainly dodged a bullet Hydrogen. Had Harper been elected two years earlier Canada would very likely be fighting in Iraq, and now Harper is defying the will of Parliament in the case of these men and women. This is the point you continue to miss.
Iraq never had anything to do with securing American freedom and to continue to use that rhetoric is continuing the death and destruction of the war. Why are so many cons so aghast at soldiers refusing to kill innocent human beings? it's beyond me. I guess if cons signed contracts to kill innocents civilians they would blindly do so.
Iraq never had anything to do with securing American freedom and to continue to use that rhetoric is continuing the death and destruction of the war. Why are so many cons so aghast at soldiers refusing to kill innocent human beings? it's beyond me. I guess if cons signed contracts to kill innocents civilians they would blindly do so.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Mot, why do you post here? Every time you post here on this topic several of us present detailed and thorough replies to your post, which you always throw back at us. It's fine to disagree, but why do you post here if you're not interested in engaging in true discussion?