Canada to deserters: Get lost

posted at 7:21 am on May 22, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

During the Vietnam War, Canada gave refuge to as many as 90,000 draft dodgers and thousands of deserters from the United States, treating them as immigrants and refusing extradition requests from the US government. When the Iraq War began, scores of deserters traveled across the border, expecting a similar reception. Yesterday, the Canadian government gave them a rude awakening:

Canada is set to deport in June the first of possibly hundreds of American soldiers who sought asylum to avoid military duty in Iraq, a group backing the US deserters said Wednesday.

Corey Glass, 25, came to Canada in August 2006 after serving in Iraq as a military intelligence sergeant.

Authorities told him on Wednesday that his application to stay in Canada was rejected and he would be deported in early June, a spokeswoman for the War Resisters Support Campaign told AFP.

According to the group, several hundred Iraq War resisters are currently in Canada, many of them living underground. Glass would be the first of them to be deported, it said.

“This goes against Canada’s tradition of welcoming Americans who disagree with policies like slavery and the Vietnam War,” said Lee Zaslofsky, a War Resisters Support Campaign coordinator.

As far as I recall, slaves didn’t enlist. Corey Glass didn’t just disagree with American policy, he broke the law in abandoning his voluntary military service. They must have figured that out in Ottawa, too, in reaching the decision to halt the deserter trade in Canada.

Deserters were much more controversial in Canada than draft dodgers, even during Vietnam. Canada didn’t recognize draft dodging as a civil crime, but desertion was another matter. The Canadian military bitterly opposed Canada’s decision to passively ignore deserters who crossed the border during the Vietnam War, and they certainly don’t want to see Canada become a haven for those who ran out after volunteering for service. The government agrees and will end the free ride for deserters forthwith.

When Glass returns, he can expect a court-martial and a five-year stay in a military prison, and he deserves it. If he didn’t like war, he shouldn’t have volunteered for the military. Maybe he can spend that time learning the difference between slavery and voluntary actions. (via QandO)

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Odd and out of character decision for Canada after all these years. There has to be some deeper reason why this is happening, certainly not because Canada has become more conservative or in sync with our military. Too much drain on their entitlement systems? just to name one.

jeanie

Yes, in last month’s throne speech, King Don Cherry mentioned to his loyal subjects that the few deserters we have were going to wreck our entire socialist enterprise with their burdensome ways.

After that, he climbed aboard dogsled one and sojourned to his spring palace in northern British Colombia.

Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 2:21 PM

blink on May 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Your logic clearly suggests that we should allow all soldiers to start wars (or attack) when they think it’s morally justified

Will you stand up for a soldier’s right to start a war that the CinC doesn’t want to wage?????

here’s what i actually said:

in such a case, the war would have to be specific, not just “a war”.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 2:22 PM

After that, he climbed aboard dogsled one and sojourned to his spring palace in northern British Colombia.

Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 2:21 PM

hahahahahahahahah!!!!! sweet.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 2:24 PM

LevStrauss on May 22, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Look, did you not feel somethign during 9/11? Or are you so hard of stone that you sit there and can mock anyone who felt something, including Patriotism for a devistating time.

Some people joined ot re-joined to do “The Right Thing”. Some people stopped and decided for a wait and see senerio. Don’t mock them because you have issues on how you feel concerning anything. The only thing that is mis-lead is yourself.

As for Clinton, who crapped out on ALL the military when he was in. You really have no clue about it do you. You didn’t have the right parts to make anything work, you didn’t get a raise, you at times didn’t have decent food (I remember getting a bad batch of MRE’s that were not sealed properly and ate jerky and ramen for a week), nothing was fixed. Explain to me and a few of the others who served under Clinton, who remember, was doing anything for the “Troops” other then screwing them over!

upinak on May 22, 2008 at 2:25 PM

HooRay for Harper

RobCon on May 22, 2008 at 2:26 PM

Those war “deserters” should not worry about returning to the States.

I’m sure that a President Obama would give them all a blanket amnesty, just like Jimmy Carter did many years ago for the draft dodgers of the Vietnam era.

Which means, my friends, you can be sure they will pray for a President Obama.

newton on May 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM

OT: GI Bill passed Senate.. Now onto the President! YAY!

upinak on May 22, 2008 at 2:30 PM

upinak on May 22, 2008 at 2:25 PM

You make no sense. Did you read what I wrote. I wrote that those who perpetuate the current policy of pre-emption, agreed with Clinton on his nation building exercises and that I disagree with them. To scrutinize the CinC is the responsiblity of every citizen because it supports the troops by keeping them out of unnecessary theatres.

I did not mock anyone.

LevStrauss on May 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM

LevStrauss on May 22, 2008 at 2:17 PM

So what you are saying is that we need to disregard all personal responsibility and obligation because you disagree with a government action. When we start forcing people to serve through a draft and our leaders start ignoring our own laws in an attempt to rule the world get back to me. Otherwise your point is nothing but a logical sham designed to prop up your own political view.

At the risk of repeating myself and what many others have said, we have an all voluntary military and when you sign on the dotted line you agree to serve in whatever theatre our government dictates. I hate paying taxes and what most of my taxes go to, should I have an opt out? And don’t forget that taxes are involuntary.

NotCoach on May 22, 2008 at 2:32 PM

You should buy our beer anyway. I have yet to find a good American brew.

Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 8:47 AM

Sam Adams.

Spirit of 1776 on May 22, 2008 at 10:08 AM

After cutting grass all day in the hot Virginia sun, nothing beats an ice cold Budweiser. There, I said it. I like Bud!

bernzright777 on May 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 1:27 PM
We don’t have a military of obedient slaves, we have a military of Patriotic Americans. and Americans at times do dissent, the American service member has the right to refuse an order.

Wrong, again. We do have a military of obedient slaves to the Constitution (I clear stated Constitution above). Patriotic Americans should not dissent against the Constitution. Do you disagree????

blink on May 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM

I dissent from the 16th Amendment, and the 18th amendment was repealed. So Americans have the GOD-GIVEN RIGHT, enumerated by the 1st Amendment to dissent, THUS IS LIBERTY.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM

LevStrauss on May 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM

No I don’t think I minced your arguement at all. You say one thing, I take it as another.

You don’t think American Marines and Soldiers should do anything except sit on their butts at home.

upinak on May 22, 2008 at 2:39 PM

NotCoach on May 22, 2008 at 2:32 PM

No I am just saying that all who joined before we became pre-emptive warfighters should have a chance to void their contract. Most that went in after 9/11 and before Iraq knew that they were going to war, I spoke to numerous ones at various transportation centers but if we’re going to change from National Defense to National Offense I just think they should have a choice.

LevStrauss on May 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM

upinak on May 22, 2008 at 2:39 PM

You’re rather useless to speak to, too emotional and irrational. If you want to actually argue points fine, but if you are just going to spout ridiculous nonsense we will just have to put you at the kiddies table. I have been advocating Afghanistan the whole time, I think we should fight Al Qaeda and I’d wish we’d concentrate our resources to fighting them, not anyone but.

LevStrauss on May 22, 2008 at 2:46 PM

LevStrauss on May 22, 2008 at 2:46 PM

You are the defeatist, not I! You think it is just in Afgahnistan… good Lord man, get your head up and out of the soil!

Emotional or not, at least I can say I am doing something other then sitting being a keyboard commando from my chair in a comfy enviroment. Even if I am a woman, I still think you are nothing but carbon spewing at this moment in time and your arguement is nothing but a “Oh geez, Why are our Troops not Home defending the Home front” tactic. Ugh so damn typical of someone who thinks they are right… and everyone else is wrong!

upinak on May 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM

in such a case, the war would have to be specific, not just “a war”.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 2:22 PM

OK. Give me the specifics which would warrant you supporting a soldier staring a war on his own.

blink on May 22, 2008 at 2:29 PM

easy enough,

the situation you gave me, was one in which the Commander in Chief won’t declare war,

Will you stand up for a soldier’s right to start a war that the CinC doesn’t want to wage?????

If the Homeland United States, hell, even my home state, were invaded and occupied by a foreign nation, or by another state, i would have to say: “brothers, sisters, it is time to defend our home, and restore the soveriegnty of our state/country”. in this case i give the ability to civilians as well as militery members.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 2:50 PM

We don’t have a military of obedient slaves, we have a military of Patriotic Americans. and Americans at times do dissent, the American service member has the right to refuse an order.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Though not a JAG officer either, I served in the USMC and swore the same oath and studied the same UCMJ that you and the soldier in question did, and your final clause is wrong. The American service member has the right and responsibility to refuse an unlawful order. As the congress authorized action in Iraq, and the chain of command issued the orders, the orders to deploy in Iraq are lawful.

You asked why the soldier should risk punishment for a cause that goes against his morals, by refusing deployment? I propose that a service member who swears the oath, signs the contract, accepts training and pay, then runs or hides when called on to fulfill his sworn and signed promises has no morals. He is a coward and a thief.

Cowboy is a compliment on May 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM

upinak on May 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM

I said:

“I think we should fight Al Qaeda and I’d wish we’d concentrate our resources to fighting them, not anyone but.”

Where did I say fighting Al Qaeda only meant Afghanistan? If you wanted to fight Al Qaeda, Iraq wasn’t the place to go.

Repeat after me…Secular Sunni Dictator…Sunni Wahabbi Fundamentalists…then grab a dictionary and figure it out yourself.

LevStrauss on May 22, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Cowboy is a compliment on May 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Being that you are a former Marine, the army does not have as intense (or when I was in last) at BCT as Marines, and didn’t at one time learn about it as did the Marines going to Boot. Which includes UCMJ, History and other things. Though they are changing it as I have noticed.

upinak on May 22, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Being that you are a former Marine, the army does not have as intense (or when I was in last) at BCT as Marines, and didn’t at one time learn about it as did the Marines going to Boot. Which includes UCMJ, History and other things. Though they are changing it as I have noticed.

upinak on May 22, 2008 at 2:58 PM

I wasn’t aware of that, point taken. I would think that the requirement to follow lawful orders is taught even outside UCMJ classes, though.

One nit-pick, though. There aren’t any former Marines. (well, maybe Murtha).

Cowboy is a compliment on May 22, 2008 at 3:05 PM

Cowboy is a compliment on May 22, 2008 at 3:05 PM

I know I know! My Boyfriend would kick my butt if he knew I said that, being that he is also one and teases me endlessly about the Army. Excuse me… Marine! :)

upinak on May 22, 2008 at 3:08 PM

I know I know! My Boyfriend would kick my butt if he knew I said that, being that he is also one and teases me endlessly about the Army. Excuse me… Marine! :)

upinak on May 22, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Semper Fi to the bf!

Cowboy is a compliment on May 22, 2008 at 3:17 PM

Also, the headline should be “Canada to Deserters: take off, eh? Hosers.”

Spirit of 1776

Will have to try Sam Adams. I hear that there are plenty of good microbrews down south, they never make it up here.

bernzright777,

For whatever reason, when my parents emigrated south, my dad chose Bud as his beer of choice. I could sit for hours, under the hot Las Vegas sun, and drink them like there is no tomorrow. Kinda weak beer. I drink for effect, man.

Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Cowboy is a compliment on May 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM

The American service member has the right and responsibility to refuse an unlawful order.

agreed in entirely.

You asked why the soldier should risk punishment for a cause that goes against his morals, by refusing deployment? I propose that a service member who swears the oath, signs the contract, accepts training and pay, then runs or hides when called on to fulfill his sworn and signed promises has no morals. He is a coward and a thief.

The particular Soldier in question, SGT. Corey Glass, had aready been called upon and served a tour in Iraq, so he has already proven that he can and would serve if called. Now, his desision to not return, for whatever reason he decided, was his alone to make. And as an American, he reserves the moral right, as we all do as Americans, to tell the Government “No”.

He broke contract and is legally in the wrong, he commited a crime punishable by imprisionment, and fine, and that i cannot and do not argue against. However, I acting as the Devil’s Advocate, must seek a legitiment argument, and in this case it is that: while what SGT. Glass did was illegal, it was not immoral, not from the perspective of American individual Liberty. you may find it cowardly, that Soldier 1 refused service on a signed contract, i make the case that he has exercised his Right as an American to refuse the government.

If Canada sends him back to the U.S., and the military prosectutes him and jails him, they are legally in thier right to do so. It is my opinion that he has commited an act of civil disobedience.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 3:39 PM

upinak on May 22, 2008 at 3:08 PM

A Marine making fun of the Army?, well, i’ve never heard of such a thing.

/sarc/

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 3:42 PM

However, I acting as the Devil’s Advocate, must seek a legitiment argument, and in this case it is that: while what SGT. Glass did was illegal, it was not immoral,

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 3:39 PM

And there is where we will continue to disagree. It was both illegal and immoral to violate his oath, his written contract, and to try to flee the consequences. If he refused deployment due to his beliefs without fleeing, it would still be illegal, and to me wrong, but I would be willing to accept that it was not immoral by his beliefs.

Cowboy is a compliment on May 22, 2008 at 3:48 PM

And there is where we will continue to disagree. It was both illegal and immoral to violate his oath, his written contract, and to try to flee the consequences. If he refused deployment due to his beliefs without fleeing, it would still be illegal, and to me wrong, but I would be willing to accept that it was not immoral by his beliefs.

Cowboy is a compliment on May 22, 2008 at 3:48 PM

here i feel it necessary to state that i did not come here with the intent of persuading anybody, i was bugged by that everybody was saying the same thing. Good sir, it is wonderful that we disagree, if we didn’t, we’d have nothing to talk about in this thread.

while it would have demonstrated bigger stones if he had stayed, if he had taken his stand with the UCMJ, he’d already be in jail, he’d have his pride but not his freedom. That, I can’t fault him for.

I agree that breaking his contract was illegal, but i am hard pressed to find any hostile feeling toward him, we don’t have slaves in America and he refused to further honor the contract, and i thought breaking a contract was a civil matter, not a criminal.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 4:04 PM

RMC1618,
If everyone had your view, it would be anarchy not a democracy. I’ll obey the laws I want to and not the others is a bad idea. If a soldier has to start worrying if the guy next to him is going to bolt, you have an army that’s going to lose. That’s part of the immorality of his actions. Where in the Constitution does it read citizens have the right to refuse the governemnt?

gitarfan on May 22, 2008 at 4:06 PM

So, outside of a homeland occupation (which would in all likelihood threaten the Constitution itself), you don’t support a soldier starting a war on his own….right???

blink on May 22, 2008 at 4:02 PM

if you mean if SSG. Covel went to Russia and assassinated Putin, or commited some other act of war, if i would condone that? No.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Wrong, wrong, wrong. He doesn’t have the right to refuse to fight in a war any more than he has the right to START a war based on what he considers immoral.

blink on May 22, 2008 at 4:06 PM

starting a war and refusing to fight in one are two different things. when an American dosen’t have the right to refuse the government, he isn’t in America anymore. and That’s called tyranny.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 4:15 PM

That’s called breaking the law, enacted by a representative government which also allows redress through its judiciary. As I asked earlier, where does the Constitution address this? Tyranny would be….tyrannical.

gitarfan on May 22, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Where in the Constitution does it read citizens have the right to refuse the governemnt?

gitarfan on May 22, 2008 at 4:06 PM

In case you missed your history classes, refusing authority is what this country was born from. The entire Constitution is based on a system of government where the people are the source from which the “government” gets it’s powers from. In America, the people control the government, not the other way around.

but since i’m in a good mood, i’ll regale you with a piece from the Decleration of Independence:

“goverments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying it’s foundation on such Principles, and organizing it’s Powers in such forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

It is a founding principle that we have the right to change the government, or even abolish it, and if we have those rights, we sure as hell can tell it “NO”.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 4:29 PM

gitarfan on May 22, 2008 at 4:26 PM

I’m not saying he didn’t break the law, he did. i’m putting forth the case that what he did was illegal, but not wrong.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 4:32 PM

We don’t have a military of obedient slaves, we have a military of Patriotic Americans. and Americans at times do dissent, the American service member has the right to refuse an order.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 1:27 PM

I seen a lot of people dissenting my argument and predictively so. I never have taken this position prior to Iraq, but that was before pre-emption. If we are not going to defend our own country and have wars of choice then troops who signed up previous to pre-emption should have a choice as well to rescind their contract with no sanctions, though they would lose benefits. Once we went from National Defense to National Offense I think the rules of the game should change, because the rules of the game have changed. Anyone who enlisted a year or two after Iraq is another thing, because they understand what they are getting into or at least should understand, but those men who joined to get Bin Laden I think were mislead and I believe the other side of the contract, government, wronged them.

And frankly none of this would be necessary if we the citizens actually did our job and researched the bums who perpetuate this policy. Not only would you guys realize how little they think of you. Of course you could leave the old books alone and just go to the 90s when they wanted Clinton to up his troop levels and widen his engagements with regards to his policing the world and nation building. They were on the wrong side then and still are.

LevStrauss on May 22, 2008 at 2:17 PM

There is a way to dissent from your country’s policies and still serve your country, even when you find that your morals, or its morals, have changed. (I can link many others. Those are just on B5s website).

As for whether it should be legal or moral to allow those before “pre-emption” to opt out of service after “pre-emption”, the contract states no such distinction. Your oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, and to bear True faith and allegiance to the same. You agree to OBEY THE ORDERS of the President and the officers appointed over you. So Help You God. At no time does the Constitution say you may refuse to follow the orders of your officers if you disagree with them. At no time does the Oath you have sworn allow you to say, I refuse said order because I disagree with it.

The UCMJ allows you to make distinctions for Lawful and Unlawful orders. Fighting for your country, under the orders of your officers pre- and post “pre-emption” changes not one iota since pre-emption is not an illegal use of military force, and therefore, any order issued on the basis of “pre-emptive” warfare, is just as valid and lawful as one issued based on “defensive” warfare. Congress authorized the use of military force. Legality defined. End of story.

If you didn’t want the US military used in such a way, then your beef is with your Congresscritter, if you can find one who is not so Cowardly as to deny their votes in hindsight. Those who still have a pair, still accept responsibility for their votes without so much as a ….”but”… escaping their lips.

Bottom Line: You signed up knowing the job was dangerous when you took it. Everyone in the military today has signed up since 9-11 at least once, knowing they were going to war. Failure to consider that fact, and marking yourself as a conscientious objector way before now, just makes you a goldbricker. And your comrades deserve better than to have to pick up the load from a deserter.

Subsunk out.

Subsunk on May 22, 2008 at 4:43 PM

RMC1618,
If everyone had your view, it would be anarchy not a democracy. I’ll obey the laws I want to and not the others is a bad idea. If a soldier has to start worrying if the guy next to him is going to bolt, you have an army that’s going to lose. That’s part of the immorality of his actions. Where in the Constitution does it read citizens have the right to refuse the governemnt?

gitarfan on May 22, 2008 at 4:06 PM

i’m not saying to just start disobeying the laws, but one must accept that just because something is legal, dosen’t make it moral, and just because something is illegal, dosen’t make it immoral. and service members are not worried wheather or not the guy next to them is going to bolt, those types generally don’t join the service, or we understand that if a guy dosen’t want to serve anymore, we respect his decision.

and even we don’t live in a democracy, we have democratic practices, but our system of government is a Constitutional Republic.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 4:49 PM

It WAS wrong. He pledged to obey lawful orders REGARDLESS of his personal beliefs and then bailed when he changed his mind. He broke his word to those who trusted him. That’s about as wrong as you can get.

gitarfan on May 22, 2008 at 4:57 PM

“goverments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying it’s foundation on such

Principles, and organizing it’s Powers in such forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

It is a founding principle that we have the right to change the government, or even abolish it, and if we have those rights, we sure as hell can tell it “NO”.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 4:29 PM

Let me quote you something you specifically swore to yourself:

I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same….. That I will OBEY THE ORDERS of the President and the officers appointed over me…. That I take this obligation freely, without hesitation or mental reservation. So. Help. Me. God.

No where in there does it say anything about reserving the right to not obey if “pre-emptive” warfare was ordered or not. Congress authorized the use of military force in this war, including in Iraq. If you have a problem following your oath, boy, then perhaps you should take it up with your Congresscritter. Otherwise, there are plenty of ways to serve out your term, without deserting. Only two are linked here. I counted at least 10 on our Blackfive website and there are many others on other websites, some of whom won the Medal of Honor.

Reread your oath, do your duty, and stop thinking its OK to pick and choose which lawful orders you will follow. Because YOU don’t get to make that distinction. No doesn’t mean “I refuse to follow your orders.” it means file your request for Conscientious Objector status, and then do your Duty until your time is up. Go where the Army sends you.

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 22, 2008 at 5:09 PM

(imagine still, the southern twang)

gitarfan on May 22, 2008 at 4:57 PM

sir, that is the toughest argument anyone has made before me all day, and for the sake of argument i’ll concede to you the he may be a cowardly, dirtbag, piece of scum, but, what if it were you? I know if i went to Canada to hide, i’d feel lower than a worm’s belly, but at least I woulden’t be in a foreign country, fighting for a cause i don’t believe in, at least I woulden’t be rotting in some hole in a military prision. Though i have to big a testicles to be a deserter, if i can afford myself the ability to say: “I may be a coward, but i’m a free man” then i must afford the same to SGT. Glass.

And should he find himself in a hole in some military prision, well, then, he shoulden’t have deserted his contract.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 5:24 PM

And RMC1618, I do recognize you are not claiming to be the person deserting or even thinking of deserting, but your argument, as the Devil’s Advocate, still makes us think you might sympathize with these deserters. If this isn’t the case, then you get what the Devil’s Advocate gets. Flak. If not, save your breath for a better argument somewhere down the road.

And remember to always do your Duty. America expects no more, but demands no less.

Subsunk out.

Subsunk on May 22, 2008 at 5:38 PM

save your breath for a better argument somewhere down the road.

Subsunk on May 22, 2008 at 5:38 PM

I agree with Subsunk, RMC1618. You’ve bitten off a rotten piece of meat playing DA with this one.

blink on May 22, 2008 at 5:51 PM

since no one else would, i decided to swollow the hard pill on this one.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 6:03 PM

as the Devil’s Advocate, still makes us think you might sympathize with these deserters
Subsunk on May 22, 2008 at 5:38 PM

Sir, the role of Devil’s advocate does not require me to sympathize with the position I argue.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 6:28 PM

No, no, no. These are not two different things. If you allow a soldier to disobey by not fighting then you must allow him to disobey by fighting.

blink on May 22, 2008 at 5:49 PM

well, the former is an example of a form of protest by refusing to serve in a conflict against his will. The latter, is a violent act. wheather or not that violent act is rightous or not is a seperate matter.

and i didn’t say he should be “allowed”, as to imply a “legal freedom”, he broke the law, and deserves to be punished.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 6:36 PM

And remember to always do your Duty. America expects no more, but demands no less.

Subsunk out.

Subsunk on May 22, 2008 at 5:38 PM

i know my duty, i know why i serve, I am an American Soldier, i am first and foremost an American, that means i put being an American before my duties as a Soldier. and in good conscience, i cannot adopt the motto of: “just be a good quiet soldier and follow orders”. I am not my Commanders slave, nor the Slave of the President of the United States, to just follow orders like a mindless drone, more is expected of me. I serve to uphold, and further Liberty, and act as Guardian for my people, that is why i personally serve.

I’m a Soldier second, I’m an American first.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 6:51 PM

(imagine still, the southern twang)

Right-honorable Ladies and Gentlemen of Hot Air, it has been a long day on this thread, and it seems that no further progress is available to the members of this conversation. I thank you for your time, and I choose to retire for the night. I hope you all have a wonderfull evening.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Awwwww booo hoooo, Ehren Watada cant run now to avoid prosecution.

Grrrrr…..

Can we please just shoot them when we come back…oh wait we need a declared war…

crap

Squid Shark on May 22, 2008 at 7:21 PM

We don’t want them back.

SuperCool on May 22, 2008 at 11:08 PM

i know my duty, i know why i serve, I am an American Soldier, i am first and foremost an American, that means i put being an American before my duties as a Soldier. and in good conscience, i cannot adopt the motto of: “just be a good quiet soldier and follow orders”. I am not my Commanders slave, nor the Slave of the President of the United States, to just follow orders like a mindless drone, more is expected of me. I serve to uphold, and further Liberty, and act as Guardian for my people, that is why i personally serve.

I’m a Soldier second, I’m an American first.

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 6:51 PM

Now I get it. You don’t really understand your duty. I suggest you ask for clarification from your Executive Officer or Commanding Officer, or even your Chaplain. Issues of conscience can be addressed by those folks.

Because if you think being a good American means disobeying a lawful order from your immediate Commanding Officer (who is so far removed from the President that you may not use the Pres as your reason for disobeying said order), if you think being Guardian of your people means you can disregard the orders of your CO, then you really don’t understand your oath, and consequently, cannot be acting as a “good American”. Sorry, son. You need to seek some guidance. I suggest the Chaplain if you wish to remain covert. But seek guidance, you should.

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 23, 2008 at 12:02 AM

RMC1618: (I know it’s late in the game)

That said, if a man, a soldier for the sake of argument, refuses to to serve in a war he views as immoral or illegal, or whatever reason he deems, why, should he stay, and accept going to prision for it?

If the afore mentioned Soldier decided to desert his contract for reasons of moral limitations, than what sense does it make for that same Soldier of moral standing, to accept his loss of liberty fot it?

I’m not saying he should have gone to Canada, or any other nation, had he the resources, he could have been able to hide here in the U.S.. But my guess being that he did not, why, oh why, would he agree to stay in a country that would put him in jail for multiple years, for refusing orders he believed to be immoral and/or illegal?

It’s a bad cause of ‘buyer’s remorse’.. he joined for all the perks, looks like advanced fairly well, and when his country asks him for his service in return, he leaves.

I am not sure about when he joined but surely he has seen a war movie or two in his life or played ‘GI Joe’.. what part about being a soldier did he not understand about going somewhere, shooting someone, blowing something up and standing on a piece of ground? especially if he joined after 9/11..

childhood friend of mine is now in law enforcement.. he understood that at some point, he might have to take someone’s life. He understood what was being asked of him when he joined to be a cop..

Glass joined the army.. he should of had some inkling of understanding that the government would ask him to fulfill his duty.

but it was his choice to run away and now he’s coming back and will have to pay the price for his desertion..

Turn and run away, that’s easy.. stand and face an authority figure and say ‘no’.. that is the road less traveled..

DaveC on May 23, 2008 at 12:06 AM

Plenty of VA Hospital toilets need cleaning.

With toothbrushes.

For about 4 years.

profitsbeard on May 23, 2008 at 2:53 AM

George Washington hung deserters…Sgt Glass is going to learn the hard way that he took an oath to support and defend the constitution. His actions are particularly egregious given that he is an NCO. NCOs are the backbone of our armed forces…I look forward to one-day hearing of his court martial and sentence.

Nozzle on May 23, 2008 at 9:26 AM

RMC1618 on May 22, 2008 at 6:57 PM

I am quite disappointed with you.

I have read everything you have said, and being that you want to be DA shows one thing…. you are going or already down a path that is not good, for you, what ever Military field you are in, the Military or the people who serve around you.

You sound like a Nutroot. Which I advised you to not sound the “Troll”. Yet you kept pushing.

I hope you are not like this while you are on Duty, the Flight Line, Humping a Ruck or anything else. If you were I would have to say I would “Drop Kick” your butt to the ground… constitutionalist, nationalist or not.

You need to know when to stop…. or someone will stop you.

upinak on May 23, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Islam is changing.

No, it really isn’t. Its believed by Muslims to be the literal, unchangeable Word of Allah.

But hey – waitaminute – no Germans and Italians were interned.

Some were. This documentary covers the events. Its on the History Channel from time to time if you have cable.

aengus on May 24, 2008 at 2:19 PM

There is a reason for the severe punishments for desertion. One of them being to discourage any such future behavior. Why then have we not heard of a coward, a deserter, been either thrown in prison for life or shot? The military is too serious a line of work to renege on your commitment to your fellow Soldier by running away when things get hard or inconvenient.
For those hiding behind the excuse of jus ad bellum arguments, they should remember that the Soldier’s focus is solely related to jus in bello.

Send_Me on May 24, 2008 at 4:23 PM

There is a reason are reasons…

Send_Me on May 24, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Nice. I’m glad Canaduh is showing some ballsack. It’s about time. Only took what…..200 years?

tx2654 on May 25, 2008 at 6:24 AM