[RoyalHighlander]

OTTAWA -- Canada should welcome American war deserters as refugees even if it draws the ire of the George Bush administration, according to a lawyer representing two U.S. soldiers. Jeffry House is representing Brandon Hughey and Jeremy Hinzman, both military deserters claiming refugee status because they oppose the Iraq war.

Hinzman took his wife and 18-month-old son from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to Toronto in January, while Hughey fled his base in Fort Hood last month - the day his unit was scheduled to leave for the Middle East.

Both face court martial and several years in military prison for deserting the military during wartime.

Acknowledging the case has sensitive political undertones, House hopes Prime Minister Paul Martin's attempt to smooth relations with the U.S. won't have an influence on the hearings. "I'd hope the case wouldn't be decided on the basis that the Americans will get mad if we do this," he said.

Basing his legal argument on the fact no one should be forced to fight an "illegal" war, House hopes for a positive outcome because Canada took the position that the war was not legal without UN sanction.

While hundreds of American civilians have claimed refugee status in Canada in past years, only one in 1997 was accepted.

NDP MP Alexa McDonough called it "heartbreaking" that American soldiers would be so dismayed by what their country is doing that they would renounce their citizenship. She hopes Martin won't "pander" to the Bush administration and intervene in the case.

"There needs to be an open hand, not a closed door," she said.

House said sagging morale and mounting casualties could lead to more American military deserters in the future.


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonS ... 20299.html

[Rev_Blair]

House is right. The war is illegal. Those soldiers have every right to refuse to take part in it. Canada cannot legally, under Canadian and international law, send them back to the US where they will be persecuted for refusing to commit war crimes.

[Rosco]

Kick them back.

They *volunteered* to serve in a military capacity and broke their obligation and I for one don't want to be paying the price for their stupidity.

[Tweeter]

Get those cowardly sons of bitches out of my country. They signed up, took advantage of the training and benefits provided by the American military and when it was time to do something in return, they ran to Canada. To hell with them. Maybe their families should be allowed to stay. You know, give them a name change and such....sort of a Scared Witless Protection Program. After all, if these 'men' are willing to jump the border at the first sign of trouble, what are they willing to do next?

[Rev_Blair]

It takes balls to stand up to a government as repressive and crooked as the Bush regime, Rosco and Tweeter.

The war in Iraq is illegal. The occupation of Iraq is illegal. Targeting or failing to protect the civilian population is illegal. These men have every right to refuse to fight. "I was just following orders" is not considered a defense when it comes to war crimes. It is against the law to follow illegal orders. They were given orders to participate in illegalities and refused.

Trying to make them out to be cowards is ridiculous. They are taking on the most powerful government in the world and risking serious jail time to do it. They aren't hiding, they are going to court. There is nothing cowardly in that.

[karra]

Try and stay with me here;

A person walks into a recruiting office and signs on the dotted line for a five year period.

In year two of that five year period the country goes to war.

This person decides for whatever reason this is not their cup of tea and walks away without permission - this is commonly known as desertion.

Still there? Good, the operative word being 'desertion.'

It is of no consequence as to why deserter deserts for he will indeed receive his just desserts, which has not been known to include stake on a steak.

Hopefully this will be of assistance,

$1:

\De*ser"tion\, n. [L. desertio: cf. F. d['e]sertion.] 1. The act of deserting or forsaking; abandonment of a service, a cause, a party, a friend, or any post of duty; the quitting of one's duties wilfully and without right; esp., an absconding from military or naval service.

Your posts about illegal war and illegal occupation are in fact illegal, furthermore it is the decision of this writer that you are illegal. Consider this your first illegal warning to immediately cease and desist all illegal postings that have been deemed illegal by this illegal writer of illegal postings including but not limited to illegal threads as well. Failure to heed this illegal cautionary warning may lead to a charge of moprey with illegal intent to illegally gawk.

Still there? Carry on.

[Robair]

Speaking of legalities, that little five-year contract they signed? Was with the US army. This is Canada. US law has no jurisdiction here.
Furthermore, Canada disagrees with George's decision to go to war. Connect the dots...

[karra]

$1:

n : the surrender of an accused or convicted person by one state or country to another (usually under the provisions of a statute or treaty)

[Rosco]

I don't buy that angle Rev, there were those who similarily deserted before Iraq was a going concern. The problem is that you had a lot of folks basically enlisting for the generous U.S. military benefits and then along came 9-11 and they felt betrayed somehow when they were called apon to do the jobs that armed forces are tasked with.

[figfarmer]

Canada received a lot of good people in the Viet Nam era and I say we should welcome the new influx with open arms.

[Rev_Blair]

You don't have to buy that angle, Rosco...just like you don't have to buy that shoplifting is a crime. It is a legal fact and as long the Canadian government does not exert political interference, that is the only jusdgement possible under the circumstances. Iraq is an illegal war.

There is no arguing that under Canadian law. The UN opposed it on those grounds, Canada refused to participate on those grounds, the US has failed to make a legal case for their war and is presently in violation of so many international laws that Bush and company will be tried, once again in absentia, for their crimes.

Under those circumstances, the Canadian judiciary has no choice and the government should not interfere. These men are not deserters, they are people refusing to commit a crime. Even if that's just a loop hole, it is still a legal fact. Their lawyer chooses to take advantage of that fact and will argue their case on those grounds.

Iraq also has nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11 except in the lies of George W. Bush and those who believe his deluded, self-serving ramblings.

Karra, this is so simple that even you should be able to follow it. It is illegal, under international law, to follow an illegal order. Anyone doing so may be held responsible for their actions. The war in Iraq is illegal, so participating in it is also illegal. Under international law these men have an obligation not to participate.

And why the fuck should they honour their contracts anyway? The little war-monger giving them the illegal orders wwalks away from treaties and obligations all the time, has for over three years. A contract with the US government, as long as Georgie is in charge, has no merit because Georgie is a known liar and con artist.

[RoyalHighlander]

we allowed the Kahadirs to come here... then we can let the "I will not fight" guys here too...

[Doug_McKenzie]

If two Canadians commited a crime in Canada and then fled to the US, the US would be obligated to return the two to Canada, even if the US didn't think what they had done was illegal. The two soldiers are US citizens, and military personel, therefor they belong to us, and Canada has no grounds to keep them. If you can't do the time...don't do the crime. And if you aren't willing to do EVERYTHING you are ordered to do...then don't join the US military.

I'll bet these two were looking for an education, money for college, etc and then they have to actually go fight and they showed just how pussy they really are.

[Rev_Blair]

Actually our extradition agreement allows us, not the US, to decide who gets extradited and why, Doug. There are matters of Canadian and international law to consider. As Robair pointed out, US law, especially US military law, has no jurisdiction here.

[karra]

Let me repeat myself repeat myself repeat . . . . .

$1:

karra Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:31 pm Post subject:
[align=center]Extradition[/align]

Quote:
n : the surrender of an accused or convicted person by one state or country to another (usually under the provisions of a statute or treaty)

Try to stop posting the obvious in your vain attempt to obfuscate,

$1:

As Robair pointed out, US law, especially US military law, has no jurisdiction here.

or the big bad wolf may come along and huff and puff and blow your strawman straw house down.