http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13742214/
This Caught My eye
MSNBC.COM wrote:Kyle Snyder, 22, who served as a combat engineer in Iraq before deserting in protest admitted he was surprised by the change, and had entered Canada with an outdated view of its political position.
“The opposition was strange to me because I thought I was making the right decision under the Geneva Convention,” said Snyder, one of about two dozen deserters who are pursuing refugee claims.
Thats Bull @!#$. Thats not protesting, thats running away. If you want to protest the war and desert your post, be ready to face your punishment like a man. As far as im concerned he should be exiled.
This isnt about what Canada is doing or wether or not the war is right. Even if the war is wrong, I dont think people who leave there post and flee to another country should be let go. Its BS. You signed up, finish it out or pay up. Remember this is not Draft Dodging. Draft dodging, although IMHO BS, is not the same. Thats every day citizens leaveing the country to avoid fighting a war, whent hey neevr signed up for the military. And like i sai9d even though i dont agree with it, there not doing anything wrong. However, these people are leaving there posts, after they signed up. At least the last guy who did it, was man enough to try and take it to court, and some of us may not agree with that either but at least he didnt run like these bitches.
Damnit...can a mod move this to War...I didnt realize i was in off topic and we all know its gunna get moved anyways.
^^^ Was this posted already? Or are you talking about the other guy who tryed to use a loop hole to get out...
Deserting in protest? More likely deserting in cowardis. I can understand Vietam as the draft took you even if you didn't want to go. In Iraq its a 100% strictly volenteer Army so yes theres a HUGE difference !
I for one am glad Canada isn't allowing them to get refugee status and even better would be if Canada sent them back to face court martial for desertion.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Enlistees aren't seeking asylum for a choice put upon them. Draftees are a little different.
As far as a refugee claim, they get evaluated pretty thoroughly, If they're not here for real reasons (ie fear of execution upon return for political reasons), they usually get sent back.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Lowest level of pathetic you can achieve. If you are so against the war, goto 91W school and save lives while being a
*edit for spelling 
Concientious Objector. There is no excuse for dessertion.
*edited to add
Ohh, you can be a Concientious Objector and still be in the military. I know one myself. You just don't carry a weapon. There are a lot of Chaplins that are Concientious Objectors.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, July 11, 2006 2:08 PM
Team GREEN
Suspension Division - "Handling Before Horsepower"
Making the turns since 1999
1998 EK Civic Hatch - Yes, it's a Honda.
The courts here in Canada are not giving refugee status because first of all it would upset the US gov't and encourage more soldiers to desert. If you join the army you should take part in the missions and expect the worst. No excuses!! This is so much different than Vietnam and the soldiers think they can get away with it.
I was going to say, COS soldiers are usually put in med corps, Quakers etc usually take this route.
Also, the reason that we don't give enlisted deserters refugee status is because the Military has the UCMJ, which prevents individual soldiers from having to follow orders that contravene Geneva Conventions. The US was PLENTY upset about allowing Vietnam and WWII draft dodgers in the country, to the point that the US ambassador was basically making a weekly call to the PM's office every week (including the week between Christmas and New Year's) in 1970/71 for a bitch session.
IF things deteriorate to the point that a draft is instituted, Draftees and pre-draft enlistees both might get asylum status.
Who's to say though.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
The way I look at it is, I am not here for the political BS that is going on or for any other justification given to me by anyone else. I am here for the person to my left and right. I am here for the soldiers. You can't argue to me that that is against the Geneva Convention. Do it for your fellow soldier, you pathetic worm. Save lifes, don't take them.
I, myself, am not a CO. I would have no problem popping some bastard hiding behind a rock with a remote detonator in his hands. Again, soldier's don't fight wars for political reasons, politicians start wars for that. Soldiers fight wars for eachother, cause when the @!#$ hits the fan, that is all you have. What better reason than that?
Team GREEN
Suspension Division - "Handling Before Horsepower"
Making the turns since 1999
1998 EK Civic Hatch - Yes, it's a Honda.
RaiLS wrote:The way I look at it is, I am not here for the political BS that is going on or for any other justification given to me by anyone else. I am here for the person to my left and right. I am here for the soldiers. You can't argue to me that that is against the Geneva Convention. Do it for your fellow soldier, you pathetic worm. Save lifes, don't take them.
I, myself, am not a CO. I would have no problem popping some bastard hiding behind a rock with a remote detonator in his hands. Again, soldier's don't fight wars for political reasons, politicians start wars for that. Soldiers fight wars for eachother, cause when the @!#$ hits the fan, that is all you have. What better reason than that?
exactly 100% right on these deserters should be fully punished to the maximum extent of the UCMJ to set an example for others to not stab your buddies in the back and run like a coward
You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
Life's too short to be focused on insanity
I've seen the ways of God
I'll take the devil any day
Hail Satan
(slayer, skeleton christ, 2006)
per the UCMJ, desertion in a time of war is punishable by death.
Desert Tuners
“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”
Quote:
per the UCMJ, desertion in a time of war is punishable by death.
Damn, do you have a copy of AR 27-10?
You are right though, you can recieve the death penalty, although that was more used back in the day. You know what kind of press would happen if they executed a desserter? The liberals would have a hay day! I don't think it's worthy of the death penalty either.
I think they need to be dishonorably discharged and goto Levenworth for a while making big rocks into little rocks! Military prision ain't no joke! Where do you think all that pretty gravel on the shoulder of the road comes from.
Team GREEN
Suspension Division - "Handling Before Horsepower"
Making the turns since 1999
1998 EK Civic Hatch - Yes, it's a Honda.
I was in the Navy for 8 years.
and they don't deserve a dishonorable. rather, they should get a bad conduct discharge, slightly worse than just a dishonorable.
Desert Tuners
“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”
You still got that reg somewhere. I know you do!!!
Team GREEN
Suspension Division - "Handling Before Horsepower"
Making the turns since 1999
1998 EK Civic Hatch - Yes, it's a Honda.
eh... long story short, some guys I went to "A" school (think MOS school for you non-Navy types) decided to go UA. one of the guys' grandmothers owned a cabin up in north WI. they took a bunch of drugs (acid from what I heard, still not sure), and one guy pulled a .22 out and shot the other one in the face at point blank range. I was asked some questions because I knew both of them, and a lot of that stuff came out, especially since Congress had not officially declared the end of Desert Storm yet.
Desert Tuners
“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”
Z24 FReQ (Jarett) wrote:per the UCMJ, desertion in a time of war is punishable by death.
Ah yes, but is this conflict actually a "War" with a formal declaration?
I think not or we (canada) would accept the deserters as our policy has been to take in people who face torture or death if returned to their home government.
Vietnam was not a "war" either (on paper), but we took the draft dogers (not those who volenteered then changed their minds).
Economic hardship is not a reason to join an army. In my mind, if you sign up volentarily then I expect you to do your duty. I'm not sure how I feel about involentary extensions, afterall the soldier did have a contract with a termination date. Hmmm.
PAX
Hahahaha wrote:Z24 FReQ (Jarett) wrote:per the UCMJ, desertion in a time of war is punishable by death.
Ah yes, but is this conflict actually a "War" with a formal declaration?
I think not or we (canada) would accept the deserters as our policy has been to take in people who face torture or death if returned to their home government.
Vietnam was not a "war" either (on paper), but we took the draft dogers (not those who volenteered then changed their minds).
Economic hardship is not a reason to join an army. In my mind, if you sign up volentarily then I expect you to do your duty. I'm not sure how I feel about involentary extensions, afterall the soldier did have a contract with a termination date. Hmmm.
PAX
odds are, the termination date was simply a termination of his active duty, or EAOS (end of active obligated service). from there, he would most certainly go to inactive reserves, which can still be called up at any time. what will happen is when he is finished, they will subtract whatever time he spent in theater past his EAOS date from his inactive reserve time.
Desert Tuners
“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”
Hahahaha wrote:Z24 FReQ (Jarett) wrote:per the UCMJ, desertion in a time of war is punishable by death.
Ah yes, but is this conflict actually a "War" with a formal declaration?
That's a negative. The operation in Iraq is not a war, it's a UN enforcement action or some such. It gets a new designation everytime someone needs funds.
Quote:
I think not or we (canada) would accept the deserters as our policy has been to take in people who face torture or death if returned to their home government.
Correct.
Quote:
Vietnam was not a "war" either (on paper), but we took the draft dogers (not those who volenteered then changed their minds).
Vietnam was a "Police Action," and we did accept enlistees but IIRC it was only those that were told to return for a second tour.
Vietnam was a little more clear cut:
The French Gov't and Vietnamese Gov't had asked for US help in keeping out Chinese communism, but after the mid-60's popular opinion was seated with the communists anyhow, and from there it was a war to suppress Communism per Truman-era doctrines.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Hahahaha wrote:Z24 FReQ (Jarett) wrote:per the UCMJ, desertion in a time of war is punishable by death.
Ah yes, but is this conflict actually a "War" with a formal declaration?
That's a negative. The operation in Iraq is not a war, it's a UN enforcement action or some such. It gets a new designation everytime someone needs funds.
in March of 2003, the President sent a letter of justification for war with Iraq. IIRC, Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq.
from a "world" standpoint, this may be a UN enforcement action. from a US government standpoint, this is a war.
Quote:
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
ART. 85. DESERTION
(a) Any member of the armed forces who--
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States;
is guilty of desertion.
(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
Desert Tuners
“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”
Z24 FReQ (Jarett) wrote:I was in the Navy for 8 years.
and they don't deserve a dishonorable. rather, they should get a bad conduct discharge, slightly worse than just a dishonorable.
Actually, dishonorable is worse
Quote:
Punitive separations occur after conviction of a crime by a court martial, and then only if the Uniform Code of Military Justice specifies discharge as part of the allowable punishment for that offense. A bad conduct discharge, or BCD, is the less severe type of punitive discharge. It may be handed down by a special or general court martial. A dishonorable discharge, on the other hand, may only be handed down by a General Court-Martial. A conviction at a General Court-Martial is often considered by civilians to be a felony conviction, although the UCMJ does not make such a distinction.
There's no excuse for not following your orders unless the orders are unlawful. It's part of the oath every military member takes when you join. Nowhere in that oath does it give the option of not following orders because you don't want to, don't feel it's right, against your religion or any other excuse.
It shames me to think these people are in the same military that I was. I hope they're prosecuted under the UCMJ, serve time and get a dishonorable discharge that follows them for the rest of their lives.
GIs Killed For Rape-Murders
Associated Press | July 11, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - An al-Qaida-linked group claims it killed three U.S. Soldiers last month and mutilated two of their bodies to avenge the rape-slaying of a young Iraqi woman by troops of the same unit, an institute which monitors extremists Web sites said Tuesday.
The Mujahedeen Shura Council made the claim in a 4:39 minute video posted on the Internet which included the mutilated bodies of two of the Soldiers attacked June 16 near Youssifiyah southwest of Baghdad, according to a statement by the SITE Institute. Their remains were found three days later.
The institute released still pictures from the video showing two of the American dead, one of whom had been decapitated.
According to the institute, the statement by the insurgent group said the video was released as "revenge for our sister who was dishonored by a Soldier of the same brigade."
Two sergeants are among five American Soldiers charged in the March 12 alleged rape-murder and the killing her parents and a younger sister. The U.S. military released the identities of the suspects Monday.
A previously discharged Soldier had been arrested in the case last month and charged with rape and murder.
According to the SITE Institute, the statement by the insurgents said that as soon as fighters heard of the rape-slaying, "they kept their anger to themselves and didn't spread the news."
"They decided to take revenge for their sister's honor," the statement said. "With Allah's help, they captured two Soldiers of the same brigade as this dirty crusader."
The Mujahedeen Shura Council is an umbrella organization of several Islamic extremist groups, including al-Qaida in Iraq. It claimed responsibility for shooting down a U.S. Apache helicopter in the Youssifiyah area in April.
U.S. investigators had said there was no evidence linking the deaths of the three Soldiers last month to the alleged rape-slaying.
Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, Spc. James P. Barker, Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman and Pfc. Bryan L. Howard are accused of rape and murder and several other charges as alleged participants. They could face the death penalty if convicted.
A fifth, Sgt. Anthony W. Yribe, is charged with failing to report the attack but is not alleged to have been a direct participant.
The five will face an Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding, to determine if they should stand trial.
They are charged with conspiring with former Soldier Steven D. Green, who was arrested in the case last month in North Carolina. Green has pleaded not guilty to one count of rape and four counts of murder and is being held without bond.
The U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, declined to comment further on details about the attack, saying the investigation continues.
"But they obviously had enough information in the initial investigation to go ahead and charge those four Soldiers all with alleged rape, rape, obstruction of justice, housebreaking, arson and the other offenses," he told reporters in Baghdad.
Spielman, of Chambersburg, Pa., is a 2002 graduate of Chambersburg Area Senior High School.
His mother, Nancy Hess, told WGAL-TV in Lancaster, Pa., on Monday: "I don't believe the charges and I'm still proud of him." She said her son always wanted to be a Soldier.
According to an FBI affidavit filed in Green's case, he and at least two others targeted the young woman and her family for a week before the attack, which was not revealed until witnesses came forward in late June.
The Soldiers drank alcohol, abandoned their checkpoint, changed clothes to avoid detection and headed to the victims' house, about 200 meters (yards) from a U.S. checkpoint in the "Triangle of Death," a Sunni Arab area south of Baghdad known for its violence, the affidavit said.
The affidavit estimated the rape victim was about 25. But a doctor at the Mahmoudiya hospital gave her age as 14. He refused to be identified for fear of reprisals.
Green is accused of raping the woman and killing her and the three other family members, including a girl estimated to be 5 years old. An official familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press that Green set fire to the rape victim's body in an apparent cover-up attempt.
Iraqi authorities identified the rape victim as Abeer Qassim Hamza. The other victims were her father, Qassim Hamza; her mother, Fikhriya Taha; and her sister, Hadeel Qassim Hamza.
The March 12 attack was among the worst in a series of cases of U.S. troops accused of killing and abusing Iraqi civilians.
U.S. officials are concerned the case will strain relations with Iraq's new government and increase calls for changes in an agreement that exempts American Soldiers from prosecution in Iraqi courts.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has demanded an independent investigation into the case, which comes after a series of allegations that U.S. troops killed and mistreated Iraqi civilians.
Team GREEN
Suspension Division - "Handling Before Horsepower"
Making the turns since 1999
1998 EK Civic Hatch - Yes, it's a Honda.
Z24 FReQ (Jarett) wrote:GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Hahahaha wrote:Z24 FReQ (Jarett) wrote:per the UCMJ, desertion in a time of war is punishable by death.
Ah yes, but is this conflict actually a "War" with a formal declaration?
That's a negative. The operation in Iraq is not a war, it's a UN enforcement action or some such. It gets a new designation everytime someone needs funds.
in March of 2003, the President sent a letter of justification for war with Iraq. IIRC, Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq.
from a "world" standpoint, this may be a UN enforcement action. from a US government standpoint, this is a war.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, doesn't the power to declare war reside within the legislative branch, and unless there is a formal declaration: the military action is not a formal war?
I'm interested (not aiming to disturb sh!t, even though I'm pretty sure it'll happen
) because I do remember hearing about the "justification" for invasion and occupation of Iraq, and other than the humanitarian saltings in the letter, I do remember that the chief reasons given were destruction of the CBRN weaponry and aparatus per UN res. 1441, and removing terrorism conspirators. I don't however, remember a formal declaration of war being issued by congress. Casus belli/jus ad bellum aside, I seem to see nothing about
WAR specifically, but authorizing use of military force (I seem to remember there was a difference, but what it is, I'm not certain) is in the plain wording.
RaiLS: I think that'd be worth posting in the other thread about the alleged rapists/murders (I'm going to reserve calling them soldiers unless their names are cleared)... This thread may be a bit off topic.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
The was an authorization for the use of force in Vietnam as well, but it was never a war.
Without a formal declaration of war, it is not a war (technically). Same deal with Afganastan, that's why the US was able to go 5 years without giving the "enemy combatants" their rights under the Geneva convention. Those rights were just applied last week. That still does make them "POWs" though.
If I'm right, I don't think any NATO nation has made a declaration of war since WWII and that's why participation is volentary within NATO. If war was declared all NATO nations would automatically be obligated to participate.
PAX
