Is this getting play in US media?

[claude]

Deserter: Iraq war is 'illegal'

Says U.S. military guilty of war crimes

By COLIN PERKEL

TORONTO (CP) - An American war dodger said Tuesday he fled the U.S. military because he believed the invasion of Iraq was criminal and any violent acts he committed there would be an atrocity.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...768430-cp.html

[Darryl G. Thomas]

First time I've heard of the guy.

My major problem with him is that he says he doesn't condone violence yet he enlisted in the military. He never should've enlisted for the obvious reason.

[claude]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

First time I've heard of the guy.

My major problem with him is that he says he doesn't condone violence yet he enlisted in the military. He never should've enlisted for the obvious reason.

I had the same thought while reading the story. It would be one thing if he was being drafted, but he voluntarily enlisted.

A deserter who bad mouths the military.

This is what passes as news up north?

[A. Kingstone]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

A deserter who bad mouths the military.

This is what passes as news up north?

We get more on the war than just "rah rah rah"

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I know the USA isn't that popular up north, but you guys are wasting your time on this dude. Personally, I have no dog in this fight. Whether he stays in Canada or not doesn't matter to me. Like Claude said, if he'd been drafted I could sympathize with the guy. But what did he sign on for? What was he thining? The military isn't the Peace Corps.

Back in '74 I enlisted for the exact same reason, the GI Bill to help pay for college. Vietnam was over, but in the back of my mind I knew there was a chance I'd have to go to war.

The only way I could feel sorry for the guy was if he'd been "stop-lossed", held past his term of enlistment. Even with that, there's a paragraph in the contract you sign saying you can be prevented from leaving the military under certain circumstances.

I have serious problems with this war. But I alos have a hard time dealing with cats (including their families) who signed on but want to book at the first sign of combat. The military is more than PX and Commissary access. People need to realize that.

Originally Posted by A. Kingstone

We get more on the war than just "rah rah rah"

Do you come here often?

[Gary Sisco]

I'm more interested in why the deserter who's president doesn't get much airplay.

[Uli]

I don't know about this Dude.

However, I think the question this case poses is really interesting. No matter that he signed up and was not drafted because it is both international and domestic practice that a soldier does not have to follow illegal orders. And I don't know how to get around the fact that this war is illegal. I'd really like the Supremes take on it.

[Gary Sisco]

Ha ha. This court? Alfred E. Strasser could shoot heroin in the Rose Garden in front of the world media and they'd find that he'd acted entirely legally throughout his high and his nod as well. Indeed, they'd encourage all Americans to follow suit (so to speak).

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Uli

I don't know about this Dude.

However, I think the question this case poses is really interesting. No matter that he signed up and was not drafted because it is both international and domestic practice that a soldier does not have to follow illegal orders. And I don't know how to get around the fact that this war is illegal. I'd really like the Supremes take on it.

After the appointment, in 2000 of your President, do you still have faith in your Supreme Court to adjudicate major cases??

As for the responsibility of the average young soldier to disobey illegal orders, that sounds fine, in theory. The real situation is that a soldier who is faced with carrying out an illegal order on the battlefield, or in a guard situation with captured enemy would be in danger of being disciplined, or even killed by the other soldiers, or more likely his/her commanding officer, who don't have the same sensibilities. Some even relish the opportunity to carry out the most heinous acts, while being protected by the fact that they were "only obeying orders", rather than reporting the commander, whoever he/she is, to the authorities.
Although it's true that, once home, a court may rule in favour of the conscience of the soldier in question, he has to get home first. That, IMO, may be the biggest hurdle.
The Abu Ghraib situation is a case in point. How many of the low-level soldiers disagreed with the orders which they seem to have been given and carried them out, regardless of their personal abhorrance to the dehumanization that was documented as having taken place??

[Gary Sisco]

An officer in the field has the legal power to execute, on the spot, anyone who disobeys an order.

How many of our moralists here would disobey?







I didn't think so.

It's easy to be Ghandi behind a keyboard. Try it with a cocked 9mm aimed at your face and it become another deal, entirely.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

An officer in the field has the legal power to execute, on the spot, anyone who disobeys an order.

How many of our moralists here would disobey?







I didn't think so.

It's easy to be Ghandi behind a keyboard. Try it with a cocked 9mm aimed at your face and it become another deal, entirely.

Exactly my point, Gary. Thank you.

[Gary Sisco]

By the way, soldiers often do put an end to things when they get out of hand. The massacre at My Lai, for example, was stopped by an American chopper pilot and his crew, who put his chopper down between marauding soldiers (of Americal, the most fucked up, ill-led and ill-disciplined unit in Vietnam) and fleeing civilians, after having given his crew orders to shoot to kill any American soldier who didn't stop his butchery. And his crew drew down on them.

Now that man was a real hero, and he and his crew had bigger and more moral balls than anyone here will ever imagine for themselves, myself very much included.

Until you're there, you don't know what you're going to do or how you're going to behave.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Now that man was a real hero, and he and his crew had bigger and more moral balls than anyone here will ever imagine for themselves, myself very much included.

Until you're there, you don't know what you're going to do or how you're going to behave.

The term "hero" is used so often, that the true heroes, those who actually put their lives on the line for a principle are lost in the muddle.
Yes, Gary, the pilot and his crew at Mai Lai were indeed heroes. They put their lives on the line when they could have just shuffled on by.
I believe that Seymour Hersh gave them full credit for their heroism in his historic reporting of the atrocities committed by the men on the ground.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by patricia

After the appointment, in 2000 of your President, do you still have faith in your Supreme Court to adjudicate major cases??

It's not that much a matter of faith, Patricia as a matter of prinicipal, political and to some extent an ex-professional interest to see how they'd support their decision, how ever the outcome.

[frankiepop]

the news story has played on the radio...npr

[A. Kingstone]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Do you come here often?

Since Jazz Central Station. You?

Daily.


You may have noticed.


Which is why your "rah-rah" comment was a wee bit confusing.

[patricia]

Why confusing? What Kingstone was saying was that in Canada there wasn't the unconditional support after the Bush Administration's decision to launch an attack on Iraq, just because it was a done deal.
Our opposition to the illegality of the war stands today, as evidenced by our Prime Minister's not acquiessing to Mr Bush's request, during his recent official visit, for military support in Iraq. Aside from the fact that our military is stretched to the limit now, our opposition to the invasion of Iraq remains.

Although nobody doubts that the Iraqis will not be able to dig themselves out of the rubble, after this invasion is over, we still refuse to send troops to Iraq, in keeping with our original opposition to the war there.
Of course, the American people should support their troops. They are simply carrying out their duty, as outlined by their voluntary enlistment in the military. They go where they are sent and no-one should confuse the soldiers with the debacle in which they are involved.
Nevertheless, that does not mean that this war has magically become legal, simply because it's underway. It remains an ill-advised exercise in which soldiers, carrying out their duty, must participate until they are brought home.
More's the pity. This is a mess, a mess not easily resolved. What's worse is that it will continue for a long time, since withdrawing seems to indicate that those who launched it and prolong it are reluctant to lose face, even if the death toll on all sides escalates and escalates.

Originally Posted by Particia

Why confusing? What Keystone was saying was that in Canada there wasn't the unconditional support after the Bush Administration's decision to launch an attack on Iraq

My goodness. Do all you Canadiens look the same as well?



A closer review of this site(not like it's really hidden very well)will clearly show that this nation was quite divided on the war. And one look at Chris A's cut and paste fiesta will clearly show that there was plenty-o-media coverage for the opposition.

Nice try? I guess? Whatever you folks were trying.........

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

My goodness. Do all you Canadiens look the same as well?



A closer review of this site(not like it's really hidden very well)will clearly show that this nation was quite divided on the war. And one look at Chris A's cut and paste fiesta will clearly show that there was plenty-o-media coverage for the opposition.

Nice try? I guess? Whatever you folks were trying.........

What I [who wear a hat and shades, in order to stand out from other CanadiAns, who indeed do all look the same ] was trying to say was that opposition to the Iraq debacle here has been as high as 90%, all along and never has changed.
We don't feel obligated to support the invasion and occupation of Iraq, simply because it is now ongoing. It's still wrong.

Originally Posted by PartIcia

CanadiAns, who indeed do all look the same

I KNEW it!!!

[A. Kingstone]

[QUOTE=Scott Dolan]My goodness. Do all you Canadians look the same as well?QUOTE]


Like Claudes avatar.




Patricia, thank you for your eloquence.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by patricia

What I [who wear a hat and shades, in order to stand out from other CanadiAns, who indeed do all look the same ] was trying to say was. . .

Pat, this one's for you:

This land is your land,
This land is my land,
From Bonavista
To Vancouver Island,
From the Arctic Circle
To the Great Lake waters,
All the folks here look the same.



--Rita, who as a teenager spent two happy summers in Ontario, 90 miles north of Toronto

[patricia]

Thanks Rita. Yes, it is quite beautiful in that area of Ontario. If you liked that, you should see British Columbia and, where I live, Alberta.
The whole country has beautiful scenary and is bigger than the continental U.S. with a population of only thirty-two million people!!

Kingstone, you're welcome. We're a small but close-knit contigeant, we Canadians on JC.

[Coda]

What defines a legal war vs. an illegal war?

[A. Kingstone]

You were on the coast were you not Patricia?

How are the prairies?

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Coda

What defines a legal war vs. an illegal war?

International law and agreements that the US or other parties involved have signed.

[Coda]

Can you be more specific? I don't understand.