Campaign to give army deserters refuge persists

[Spazito]

NDP MP Bill Siksay is lending his support to a campaign aimed at allowing a growing number of American military deserters to find refuge in Canada.

According to the British Columbia MP, the issue resonates with a lot of Canadians.

For example, Siksay told CTV's Canada AM early Wednesday, Canadians are widely opposed to the prison abuse reported at the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons.

"They're (also) outraged at the failure to produce any weapons of mass destruction, since that was one of the main reasons for going into this war," he added.

more

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1119448188359_114857388/?hub=Canada

[SixStrings]

1. Bullshit!

I thought this was an 'all-volunteer' army? Did anybody point a gun to their head and force them to join the military? I've said it ad-nauseum, that I cannot and will not support any soldiers or contractors in this BS war for $$$$. Anybody who would 'volunteer' is either a sadistic, blood-hungry cretin or is too stupid or lazy to pick up a history book and see what this 'all-volunteer' army has been doing for the last few decades.
I just watched F911 again, and that soldier that objected, quite publicly at that, is a REAL hero. It took guts to do what he did. It's cowardly to blindly follow the masses and kill innocent people because that's 'your job', or just 'following orders'.

"They're (also) outraged at the failure to produce any weapons of mass destruction, since that was one of the main reasons for going into this war," he added.

Really? Ask a few Americans why they are still in Iraq. A lot of Americans believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11. That this 'revenge' is good and just.
Yes, I am outraged. Canadians are outraged. We are not the ones over there murdering people everyday, though. We may be upset about the pretenses of this war, but that should not cloud our judgement on harboring these 'volunteer' soldiers. Go back to your own country and fight for change. Don't come to ours with your sudden influx of morality and judgment. Save it - you had none of these qualities when you signed up.

[iverglas]

2. not catching the logic

I just watched F911 again, ...

First, if you did that, you must have caught the rather long segment devoted to the recruitment tactics of the US military. They are in fact targetting the population that you describe as:

too stupid or lazy to pick up a history book and see what this 'all-volunteer' army has been doing for the last few decades.

but that might be better described as too exploited and oppressed and manipulated to have had the opportunity to learn what they need to know in order to reach the conclusion that looks so obvious to the rest of us -- or to have much in the way of equally attractive alternatives available to them.

For that reason, I won't condemn those who enrolled at a time when the US military was not actively involved (in any way that members of that public in the US could be expected to know about) in atrocities. And frankly, I don't see much difference between them and anyone who voted Republican. Surely the people who elected the administration that is perpetrating the atrocities are at least as responsible as those who enrolled in the military before they began. I'd say more so, myself -- but in many cases, equally exploited and oppressed and manipulated.

However, I do find it difficult to look at those who enrol and then participate in the atrocities so sanguinely. It takes opportunity and maybe some effort to know what's going on before it's put in front of your face -- but once it's in front of your face, it doesn't take a genius or a PhD or a political progressive or even a devout Christian to see that it is wrong.

Your reasoning simply makes no sense.

They were too stupid or lazy to know what they were getting into -- so now they must be compelled to participate in it??

And that -- their participation in the atrocities of the US and its military forces -- is a good thing ... how?

We may be upset about the pretenses of this war, but that should not cloud our judgement on harboring these 'volunteer' soldiers. Go back to your own country and fight for change.

That can be a little difficult to do when you're in the stockade -- assuming that the US isn't just sending such people to Iraq whether they like it or not.

Protesting and suffering the consequences is a somewhat more viable option for an actual or potential draft resister, which is what the previous wave of objectors to military service mainly consisted of. Once you are actually in the military, it's a slightly different kettle of fish.

Don't come to ours with your sudden influx of morality and judgment. Save it - you had none of these qualities when you signed up.

I certainly don't think it's impossible to draw such conclusions about people from their actions; hypocrisy and self-interest are sometimes very obvious on the part of people claiming righteous motivation. I just don't think that you have sufficient basis for drawing such conclusions about any of these particular people.

And darn it all, if that isn't exactly why we have things like tribunals and courts -- to make sure that people have the opportunity to make their case: in this case, to establish that their motivation is righteous.

This is *not* properly a political issue, to be decided according to the prejudices and rushed judgments of people like you (or me, perhaps in the other direction). This is a legal issue, and the question is whether the people in question fall within the definition of the classes of people we have chosen to give our protection: people who are likely to be persecuted for reasons like political opinion if we send them home. WE are the ones who set up our refugee protection scheme, who voluntarily undertook international obligations to protect people who are in danger of persecution because of their political opinion etc. WE are the ones who agreed to operate that scheme in accordance with all of the principles of fundamental justice that we choose to adhere to.

This *could* be a political issue as long as the legal rights in question were not disregarded. We *could* simply decide to admit all US military deserters as a matter of policy, to demonstrate our opposition to the US's foreign policy and conduct and to undermine US efforts in that regard -- which we very definitely ought to try to do.

Even if we wanted to do that (and it would be an impossible sell for any political party, obviously), we'd have to balance our actual ability to do it against the adverse domestic effects that doing it would have (economic, demographic). Sort of like how we don't spend 50% of our GDP on foreign aid, even though we ought to try to relieve poverty and disease. Unfortunately, we'd also have to consider the adverse effects on the international scene -- like what would happen to Canada-US trade. Sort of like how marijuana possession should (as a matter of constitutional rights) be decriminalized here, but isn't because of what the US response would be ...

I am willing to place considerable responsibility, and high expectations, on the shoulders of members of the US military being asked to participate in the atrocities of US activities in Iraq. I most definitely do not "support the troops" who are the instrument of that invasion and occupation, or anything they do in the course of it.

I don't think I can have those expectations of others if I don't accept some responsibility myself. What the US is doing in Iraq isn't really my fault, but if I have an opportunity to do something to stop it, I think it is my responsibility, simply as a human being, to do it. Admitting resisters to Canada, and accepting my share of whatever that costs Canada, is one of the few tangible things I could actually do, and I don't know why I should try to shirk.

[SixStrings]

4. Very good points...

I disagree in a few areas.

1) "too stupid or lazy to pick up a history book and see what this 'all-volunteer' army has been doing for the last few decades.

but that might be better described as too exploited and oppressed and manipulated to have had the opportunity to learn what they need to know in order to reach the conclusion that looks so obvious to the rest of us -- or to have much in the way of equally attractive alternatives available to them."

Wow - the soldiers are the victims? That's an interesting spin. Go ahead and tell the Iraqi's that Americans don't "have much in the way of equally attractive alternatives available to them." - see what kind of response you get.


2) "Your reasoning simply makes no sense.

They were too stupid or lazy to know what they were getting into -- so now they must be compelled to participate in it??"

My reasoning makes perfect sense. They were all gung-ho to sign up for the military - that was a CHOICE. They still have the CHOICE to throw down their arms and object to their actions. I can honestly say that I would 'do time' before I participated in such an atrocity. It's called 'honour' and respect for innocent life. Just fucking say 'NO!'.

3) "And that -- their participation in the atrocities of the US and its military forces -- is a good thing ... how?"

I'm confused here. Are you implying that I said this? or meant this? Please explain.

4) "I certainly don't think it's impossible to draw such conclusions about people from their actions; hypocrisy and self-interest are sometimes very obvious on the part of people claiming righteous motivation. I just don't think that you have sufficient basis for drawing such conclusions about any of these particular people"

Hmmm, I think judging people by their actions is the ONLY way to draw conclusions. How do you suppose to 'draw conclusions'? Other people's actions?
I believe the heart of our disagreement is based on "INTENT". What intetntions does an American have when they sign up for the military? What intentions does a soldier have, when upon seeing how unjust and cruel this war is, still continue to support and contribute to it? On the latter, it is purely selfishness. They are judging their potential negative repercussions (to dissent) against the slaughter of innocent humans. Looks like innocent life is coming out on the wrong end of that decision, far too often.

[iverglas]

5. okay

Easy ones first.

I certainly don't think it's impossible to draw such conclusions about people from their actions; ...
Hmmm, I think judging people by their actions is the ONLY way to draw conclusions. How do you suppose to 'draw conclusions'? Other people's actions?

Well, that's cute, but ...

Perhaps my style was obscure. I didn't say that I don't think it's possible to draw conclusions about people from their actions -- I said that I don't think it's impossible to draw such conclusions about people from their actions.

I was talking about the specific conclusions that you drew. I cited them. You made a specific allegation about the people in question:

Don't come to ours with your sudden influx of morality and judgment. Save it - you had none of these qualities when you signed up.

I did not say that it is impossible to draw such conclusions from people's actions. I simply do not think that *you* have sufficient factual foundation to make that allegation about *all these* individuals. Individuals' "morality" is to a large extent conditioned by their environment; an individual who is subjected from dawn to dusk to the right-wing USAmerican version of reality and of virtue, and who is not exposed to critical analysis of that version, doesn't have the necessary foundation for rejecting the "morality" inculcated into him/her.

You quite likely really do not have a good grasp of what it is like to be of average intelligence even, and be poor in the US in a small community where the fundamentalists and right wing run the show. You really just don't stand much of a chance. And if you're intelligent or thoughtful enough to see the lies and evil, but still poor and stuck in that environment, you're no better off and possibly just more miserable.

I've known people in both categories. During Vietnam, I gave direct assistance to one in particular -- someone who had voluntarily joined the army, then had his eyes opened. He did refuse to do what he was told to do, he was convicted of desertion and imprisoned. He escaped and came here, and I helped him. Some years later, I was involved with someone of extremely high intelligence, who had grown up trapped in a dysfunctional fundamentalist family in a small Texas town. His life was simply a shambles; he had had no way out, no options -- no access to decent education, no role models, no wider world of information and opportunities open to him. I do know a bit of the people we're talking about.

So because *you* are lacking a factual foundation to justify your judgments, I could well say that *you* should be judged by your actions and found to be wilfully blind to reality and wholly responsible for the consequences of your wilful blindness. I'd prefer to say that you're inadequately informed and not entirely to blame for that fact.

Wow - the soldiers are the victims? That's an interesting spin. Go ahead and tell the Iraqi's that Americans don't "have much in the way of equally attractive alternatives available to them." - see what kind of response you get.

You do seem to be missing what I'm saying. Like this part:

However, I do find it difficult to look at those who enrol and then participate in the atrocities so sanguinely.

and this part:

I am willing to place considerable responsibility, and high expectations, on the shoulders of members of the US military being asked to participate in the atrocities of US activities in Iraq. I most definitely do not "support the troops" who are the instrument of that invasion and occupation, or anything they do in the course of it.

The statement of mine that you quoted --

but that might be better described as too exploited and oppressed and manipulated to have had the opportunity to learn what they need to know in order to reach the conclusion that looks so obvious to the rest of us -- or to have much in the way of equally attractive alternatives available to them

-- plainly applied to people who enrolled in the military at a time when they really had no way of knowing what they would be required to do, e.g. in Iraq, NOT to people who participate in the invasion/occupation of Iraq once it cannot help but be plain to them what is being done.

Can people be both victims and oppressors, both exploited and exploiter? Of course they can. Where do we imagine that most child abusers come from? "White trash" are oppressed and exploited by the bosses, and some are racist victimizers themselves (which they likely would not have been were they not oppressed and exploited themselves). Men who are oppressed and exploited victimize their wives. And so on.

Even the US troops who *are* participating in the atrocity of Iraq are commonly victims themselves. That doesn't mean that they cannot be held accountable for the victimizing they engage in, any more than the child abuser or violent racist or wife-beater cannot be held accountable. For some of us, the personal responsibility line is difficult to draw, but regardless, the fact is that it is possible to be both victimizer and victimized.

And that -- their participation in the atrocities of the US and its military forces -- is a good thing ... how?
I'm confused here. Are you implying that I said this? or meant this? Please explain.

I'm not at all certain that it is possible to avoid service in Iraq, if one is enrolled in the US military.

You say:

They still have the CHOICE to throw down their arms and object to their actions. I can honestly say that I would 'do time' before I participated in such an atrocity. It's called 'honour' and respect for innocent life. Just fucking say 'NO!'.

Yes, that might be the option once someone was in Iraq. I'm sure that refusal to follow an order in the face of the enemy, or however that goes, is going to carry a pretty hefty penalty. Why should I demand that someone pay that penalty, when what I want is for them not to participate in the atrocity?? That's what I don't get. What right do I have to do that?

In purely practical terms, if what I want is for the atrocity to end, why not encourage people to refuse to participate in it, by offering the "easy way out"?? Why make it as hard as possible for them to exercise the option that I want them to exercise? Why demand that they accept the penalty for doing what is right?

Makes no sense to me at all.

What intetntions does an American have when they sign up for the military? What intentions does a soldier have, when upon seeing how unjust and cruel this war is, still continue to support and contribute to it? On the latter, it is purely selfishness. They are judging their potential negative repercussions (to dissent) against the slaughter of innocent humans.

So again -- if what we want them to do is refuse to participate in the slaughter, what earthly sense does it make for us to refuse to assist them in that undertaking, and offer them no option but to expose themselves to harsh penalties for doing the right thing?

I'm seeing a USAmerican-style blame-and-punish mentality. You made your bed, now you lie in it. Suffer the consequences of your actions. Jerry Springer writ large.

What *I* am looking for is the best solution to a problem. And I'm damned if I can figure out how refusing to admit people to Canada who refuse to participate in the atrocity in Iraq is going to solve the problem of that atrocity.

[Spazito]

3. I support it

Those who signed up before Iraq didn't sign up for the illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign country. I hope the pressure on our government continues and, indeed, increases.