Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWe all dream of peace. But what have we sacrificed to make peace a reality?
Some American men and women have risked everything to help end the Iraq War. And right now they need our help.
Hundreds of United States servicepeople have refused to participate in the US occupation of Iraq. Some of these war resisters, now "absent without leave," have gone to Canada, but Canada has not yet granted them asylum. In fact, deportation proceedings have begun against some resisters. If forced to return to the U.S., they face court martial, military prison and damaging criminal records.
We can't let this happen.
* * * *
Perhaps you wonder, as many people do, if these men and women didn't want to fight in Iraq, then why did they enlist?
Some joined the United States military because of "the poverty draft": they had no health insurance, no money for education, and very few options. Military recruiters were a permanent fixture in their high schools, peddling a seductive package of false hope and lies. For a view into the poverty draft, I highly recommend reading The Deserter's Tale, written by war resister Joshua Key and Canadian author Lawrence Hill.
Others volunteered after September 11, 2001, because they wanted to help prevent more terrorist attacks. Some resisters served in Afghanistan, but refused deployment to Iraq.
Most came from homes and communities where people didn't question the government. There were terrorists over there and we had to get them before they got us over here. That's what they were told, and they had no reason to doubt it.
Then they went to Iraq.
There, they saw for themselves that the entire pretence for the invasion and the occupation was a lie. And they saw - to their shock and horror - that in Iraq, the United States were the terrorists.
Some served out their contracts and were discharged, only to be "stop-lossed": involuntarily re-enlisted. Others came home on leave and refused to return. They didn't want to die for a lie. And they didn't want to kill.
Their actions, though moral, were illegal. In the US, they faced military prison and a "bad conduct discharge" - a felony offense - for refusing to deploy. So they left their families and friends, left their country, and went north, to Canada. Many have been ostracized from their families, who condemn them as cowards. One resister told me his mother said she'd rather he died in Iraq than shamed them by deserting.
With the help of the War Resisters Support Campaign, a coalition of activists (many of whom were Vietnam War resisters, now Canadian citizens), about 50 servicepeople have applied for refugee status to live legally in Canada. (It is thought that a few hundred additional resisters are living underground in Canada.)
Because of the current Conservative government, and the repressive post-9/11 political climate, every resister's request for asylum has been rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board. In November, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the cases of Brandon Hughey and Jeremy Hinzman, the first resisters to apply.
At that time, some US media implied that the resisters' cause had been defeated - but that is not true. It was a huge disappointment, but it was also a new beginning for the movement.
The War Resisters Support Campaign stepped up its political efforts. It determined to deploy the greatest weapon for peace that Canada possesses: the Canadian people.
Canada did not participate in the invasion of Iraq, and the huge majority of Canadians oppose the Iraq War. Unlike in the US, Canadian representatives actually listen and respond to their constituents! The Support Campaign has been urging Canadians to contact their Members of Parliament with one message: Let Them Stay.
The Conservative government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper is not sympathetic to the war resisters - but it is a minority government. This means the united opposition - the Liberals, the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Québécois - outnumber the Conservatives. The Campaign proposed that a resolution be passed in the House of Commons allowing US war resisters to remain legally in Canada.
The NDP quickly advanced the resolution and the Bloc added its support. But, although many Liberal Members of Parliament personally support the resisters, the Liberal Party has not officially supported the resolution.
In December - thanks to the Campaign's persistent lobbying efforts, and members of the three opposition parties working together - the Committee on Immigration recommended that the resolution be passed. It was a huge victory.
Now the resolution has been introduced in the House of Commons; a united opposition is needed to pass it. If the NDP, Bloc and Liberals all vote in favour of the resolution, the Conservative government is not actually obligated to implement it, but it would be an unprecedented breach of trust - not to mention democracy - if they did not.
Support campaign organizers believe they are very close to getting the resolution passed - but they don't have much time. Deportation proceedings have already begun against four resisters, including two families with young children. Will the House of Commons pass the resolution before any war resisters are deported?
* * * *
In discussing this issue with supposedly progressive Americans, I was shocked - and frankly disgusted - to learn that some people who oppose the war in Iraq do not support the war resisters' cause. Their argument: "If they didn't join in the first place, there wouldn't be a war!"
This strikes me as both extremely naíve and horribly selfish.
Many of us were fortunate to grow up in homes where questioning authority was encouraged, where dissent and protest were a way of life - not to mention in families that could afford higher education and health care. If you cannot imagine what kind of background might lead someone to enlist in the US military, I again recommend The Deserter's Tale.
But even if we never would have made such a choice, do we want to see people who have experienced such a radical change of mind punished for their beliefs? Isn't this the very change of heart that we wish to instill in others? And most importantly, should a person be imprisoned for refusing to kill?
Many of us always knew the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with stopping terrorism or spreading democracy. If the war resisters have come to this truth a little later, they have done so at a much greater price. If we are truly people of peace, it is our moral obligation to stand beside people who have risked everything to help end this war.
In the US, On Friday, January 25, Americans will demonstrate in front of Canadian consulates in six cities.
The effort is spearheaded by Courage To Resist and joined by Military Families Speak Out, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the thousands of local peace groups that belong to United for Peace and Justice. You can join demonstrations in Washington DC, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle and Minneapolis. (Details at http://couragetoresist.org.)
In Canada, Saturday, January 26, is a Pan-Canadian Day of Action in support of war resisters.
Events will be held in 12 cities, where Canadians will write letters demanding that the resolution be passed.
Everyone can write letters to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Stéphane Dion.
This is a crucial part of the campaign. See Courage To Resist's "Dear Canada" campaign (couragetoresist.org) or the War Resisters Support Campaign (resisters.ca).
By the time the Canadian Parliament resumes on January 29, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion will have received hundreds, maybe thousands, of letters, all demanding one thing: Let Them Stay.
During the Vietnam War, at least 50,000 - possibly as many as 80,000 - Americans went to Canada to escape the draft or because they did not want to live in a country that would perpetrate such an immoral, needless war. What many people don't know is that Canada did not immediately allow the Vietnam resisters to stay. The Canadian peace movement campaigned on behalf of the resisters and pressured their government to do the right thing. Finally, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said, "Canada should be a refuge from militarism."
Once again, Canadians are calling on Canada to be a refuge from militarism. You can help make this happen.
Laura Kaminker, a writer, moved from the United States to Canada for political reasons. She now works with the War Resisters Support Campaign in Toronto. She writes the blog we move to canada.
66 Comments so far
Show AllI'm not kidding. You must be reading me wrong. Anyway, over and out. Peace to you.
"I guess you have a need to believe that this is the first war in the history of warfare where atrocities are not committed."
!?!? This is what I would have thought of *you*. You have to be kidding?
I guess you have a need to believe that this is the first war in the history of warfare where atrocities are not committed. To me, the entire war is an atrocity, and every single act within it a gross violation of human rights.
That's fine for whether the war is right or wrong, but *not* for whether or not attrocities are commited.
Not according to "what they say". According to *their beliefs*. Beliefs do not need corroboration. "I believe this war is wrong, and I no longer want to participate in it" is not a statement that needs "specific corroborating evidence".
I understand you disagree. We disagree. Perhaps you can leave it at that.
"This discussion with jakenewton is utterly beside the point. "
That's true. If you hadn't smeared all the soldiers the way you did en masse, I wouldn't have posted anything, but you did.
"The point is that war resisters have made a moral choice, "
Only according to what some of them say. And without specific corraborating evidence, they could be simply cowards who are lying. But you don't entertain that idea, my guess, because it doesn't fit as well with your existing position on things. Please calrify if I am wrong on that.
This discussion with jakenewton is utterly beside the point.
The point is that war resisters have made a moral choice, and, under international law, a legal one as well. Canada did not participate in the war in Iraq, and Canada grants legal status to people from other countries under similar circumstances.
Therefore, granting the Iraq war resisters legal status in Canada is consistent with Canadian practice and values, and should happen.
" So this one act of refusing to serve out a responsibility that the soldier did not necessarily sign up for, in a war which is, let us be generous, of questionable legality, run by men and women whose motives, to say the least, are at least partially self-serving, is the betrayal we must focus on?"
The reduction in the ranks is an undeniable consequence of desertion. This is something a deserter presumably condiders, and something we may judge when deeming their desertion "honorable" or not.
"As for the veracity of the resisters' stories, it's not as though they are the only ones who are commenting on the viciousness and brutality of American soldiers against both insurgents and civilians. The only positive news I hear from Iraq comes from the administration and its dutiful stenographers. What is it that gives _them_ more credence, less interest in personal gain, than the resisters?"
It should be obvious that a small sample of deserters who are also seeking assylum would be a poor sample of the set of US soldiers as a whole, and we would have to consider the various likelihoods of their situation and how it would affect the stories they would tell. As for the veracity of the stories, specific corraborative evidence of a given incident would be key, and from what I can tell that is lacking.
"Even if it leaves their fellow soldiers who remain in a more dangerous situation because they leave?"
That's a curious spot to place all the blame. So this one act of refusing to serve out a responsibility that the soldier did not necessarily sign up for, in a war which is, let us be generous, of questionable legality, run by men and women whose motives, to say the least, are at least partially self-serving, is the betrayal we must focus on?
You might want to give your moral compass a nudge. The needle seems to be stuck.
As for the veracity of the resisters' stories, it's not as though they are the only ones who are commenting on the viciousness and brutality of American soldiers against both insurgents and civilians. The only positive news I hear from Iraq comes from the administration and its dutiful stenographers. What is it that gives _them_ more credence, less interest in personal gain, than the resisters?
"I feel the men and women leaving the war in Iraq through whatever means they can are making the most honourable and moral choice possible."
Even if it leaves their fellow soldiers who remain in a more dangerous situation because they leave?
"In my opinion, anyone who claims to be against the war but does not support the war resisters is a hypocrite of a magnitude too huge for expression with mere words. The very idea sickens me."
"Whether that leaves us in agreement or no is your call. It is of absolutely no concern to me."
I may not have been very clear: The actions of soldiers in Iraq, that is, the truth of whether they are heroic or barbaric, have nothing to with our beleifs about whether we should be there or not. Isn't that true? You had made broad accusations about the behaviours hundreds of thousands of soldiers, apparently based only on what you heard a relatively small amount of deserters say. You shouldn't beleive them based on your belief that the war is illegal and immoral. You should instead be more interested in evidence, perhaps additional evidence outside of these testimonies. Wouldn't you do so for certain other situations?
"Our personal opinions on the war have nothing to do with what troops there are or are not doing. Can we agree on that at least?"
I strongly believe that the invasion (and continued occupation) of Iraq by the US was a blatant act of aggression - illegal, unjustified and immoral. Any resistance to the war is, in my opinion, moral and honourable.
I feel the men and women leaving the war in Iraq through whatever means they can are making the most honourable and moral choice possible.
In my opinion, anyone who claims to be against the war but does not support the war resisters is a hypocrite of a magnitude too huge for expression with mere words. The very idea sickens me.
Whether that leaves us in agreement or no is your call. It is of absolutely no concern to me.
"I wonder why you don't believe this evidence, or why you won't."
I beleive things when there is sufficient reason to.
"Is it a need to believe the US is fighting a just war?"
I had severe doubts about going into Iraq and still do.
"Best of luck to you. Peace."
Thanks, same to you.
"How would everyone make up such similar stories, even though they had served at different times, in different divisions, didn't know each other, and the earlier stories were not yet made public?"
Easily. The generic stories of attrocities aren't that numerous. You say you saw people raped, innocents shot, rough interogations, etc., what else is there?
"The New York Times just finished a long series about the extremely high rates of violence among Iraq War vets."
Not true, they don't mention *rates* at all in that article, merely the fact that only 121 capital crimes were comitted. Here is an article that crunches the numbers a bit:
http://aptap.forumco.com/topic~TOPIC_ID~4052.asp
It suggests a rate 5 times *less* by vets in the same age group as in the US general population.
"If you want to believe that it's all made up, that's your choice."
It would be more believable if you (or someone else if you aren't willing) could back it up. Are any of the alleged crimes verifiably corraborated by anybody else? It looks like Joshua Key admits in his book he committed credit fraud. That usually means you lie about your identity so you can gain monetarily. Should we then beleive him in a book he is selling when none of his specific assertions are corraborated either?
"Is it a need to believe the US is fighting a just war?"
I forgot: Our personal opinions on the war have nothing to do with what troops there are or are not doing. Can we agree on that at least?
"Can you supply evidence regarding murder in particular? I heard the exact opposite."
The opposite? That murder rates are lower among Iraq War vets than among the general public?
The New York Times just finished a long series about the extremely high rates of violence among Iraq War vets. The series starts here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us/13vets.html
I have read many, many similar accounts. You are welcome to do the Google research.
I don't feel it's my job to convince people that what the resisters say is true. I seek to move people who are already opposed to the war, and who already believe in war resistance, to take action to support the resisters.
If you want to believe that it's all made up, that's your choice. Maybe you still believe there are WMDs over there. Maybe you believe the people being held in Gitmo were part of the 9/11 attacks. Who knows. People believe all sorts of stuff.
Best of luck to you. Peace.
How would everyone make up such similar stories, even though they had served at different times, in different divisions, didn't know each other, and the earlier stories were not yet made public?
"They didn't have to make up stories to "run away". "
How do you know? The fact is they *did* run away and see a need to get assylum.
"The incredibly high rates of ,,, murder,"
Can you supply evidence regarding murder in particular? I heard the exact opposite.
"And would this show that the described behaviour was the "norm" across all of Iraq to the exclusion of other behaviour as "L-girl" strongly implied?"
It would show these reports are not aberrations.
I wonder why you don't believe this evidence, or why you won't. Is it a need to believe the US is fighting a just war?
"You could also ready the hundreds and hundreds of pages of testimony released by the US government from the investigation into the Abu Ghraib torture charges. "
And would this show that the described behaviour was the "norm" across all of Iraq to the exclusion of other behaviour as "L-girl" strongly implied?
"I forgot to ask, if you don't think that a US soldier in Canada running away from the US military may have reason to just make up stories of atrocities."
They each served for varying lengths of time, from 6 months to several years. They each started out as very gung-ho military, but were disgusted by what they saw.
They suffer from PTSD, as well as guilt for whatever complicity they have. They didn't have to make up stories to "run away". Their experiences drove them away.
If you want to believe all these men and women are liars, that's your choice. I've read and heard enough about war - any war, all war - to believe these first-hand accounts.
The incredibly high rates of suicide, suicide attempts, murder, domestic violence, alcoholism and other similar issues among Iraq War vets also attests to what the US troops are witnessing.
I am more inclined to believe the soldiers who don't tell these stories cannot face what they've seen, cannot admit their own complicity, even to themselves, than what you are suggesting.
You could also ready the hundreds and hundreds of pages of testimony released by the US government from the investigation into the Abu Ghraib torture charges. At least two very large books have been published.
Also, "Torture Central: E-mails From Abu Ghraib" by Michael Keller (a soldier stationed in Abu Ghraib) reveals that torture, rape and murder continued at the prison for more than a year after the original photos were published.
I forgot to ask, if you don't think that a US soldier in Canada running away from the US military may have reason to just make up stories of atrocities.
Several resisters have mentioned being ordered to shoot and kill anyone in a car at a checkpoint if the driver did not obey strict orders. Naturally, not being able to understand English, many drivers could not do EXACTLY what was yelled at them.
One resister told of seeing a family with several kids in a car and refusing to shoot to kill. His commanding officer was furious and told him in no uncertain terms that he better be shooting next time.
In his book, Key mentions a couple of times witnessing US troops using Iraqis citizens (including one young girl he had befriended) as target practice.
"My best and only reliable evidence is the eyewitness accounts of servicepeople who have been there."
There have been many hundreds of thousands of servicepeople there. What makes you think these stories you have heard are the only side of the story? I too have talked to some Iraq vets, and they had no such stories.
"Do you really think this is a perfectly fair assessment of what is going on there?"
Yes, I do. I cannot think of any other way to describe what is going on in Iraq.
"I am particularly interested in your opinion thet the US "kill anyone who objects to the invasion of their own country." What is your very best evidence of that?"
My best and only reliable evidence is the eyewitness accounts of servicepeople who have been there.
Many of them have given sworn testimony to the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board, in Canadian Court and some in US military courts. Despite serving in different units at different times and having no knowledge of what other people had testified, their stories are all very similar. I trust their accounts.
In 18 months in Iraq, Joshua Key never faced one armed Iraqi combatant. His division spent all its time breaking into people's homes (by blowing the doors off with explosives) and rounding up all males over 5 feet tall. Any Iraqi who resisted would be severely beaten. The men were taken away, and never seen again.
Other resisters tell many similar stories. Many have witnessed gang rapes, or mass civilian massacres.
Phil McDowell, a former sergeant, when driving a Humvee, was ordered to run any civilian car off the road. When he refused, he was punished. McDowell also witnessed blatant (and stomach-turning) human rights abuses that I will not detail here.
The stories of the men and women who served in Iraq, who are now part of the peace movement, through Iraq Veterans Against the War (http://ivaw.org) or other groups, all tell stories of rape, torture, and murder against civilians.
I'm not sure what you and others think is going on over there. But I listen to and read the stories of people who have been there - people who started out believing in the war, until they saw it for themselves - and I believe them.
Once again, I recommend reading The Deserter's Tale. You may find it very eye-opening.
"They do not take an oath to commit torture, rape and kill civilians, destroy civilian property, and kill anyone who objects to the invasion of their own country. And that is all the US is doing over there. "
Do you really think this is a perfectly fair assessment of what is going on there? I am particularly interested in your opinion thet the US "kill anyone who objects to the invasion of their own country." What is your very best evidence of that?
"I think it's already too late for Canada. They have been usurped by the same evil bunch that is running this place."
Only someone who doesn't know Canada could say this.
Harper has a minority govt and very little power to do anything, and it's doubtful he'll get re-elected. He's nowhere near what Bush is. That's a common fallacy, but it's not reflective of reality.
Canada is much more democratic, and much further to the left, than the US.
Anyway, I just came back from the resisters' event, thousands of people came out all across Canada. We will get this thing done.
"His point was that US independent media has ignored this. He is correct."
I agreed with him. I did yesterday and I do today. You seem to be a little confused. Maybe take a deep breath and read more carefully.
"RE" is from James06. "This is the internet! . . ." is from you."
Wrong. Check the comments from top to bottom. You will see I did not say that. I don't listen to Democracy Now and wouldn't know what is on it or not. I did not say either of the comments you quoted. Sorry.
Yelling or not, you were addressing the wrong person. The comment you were responding to was not mine. Check more carefully and you will see that.
"The soldiers took an oath", Yeah, and so did our dummy President, Vice Pres., HOuse Speaker, etc. and every damn Congressman who is now residing in Washington, while our young soldiers didn't have any choice in order to make their life bearable and they didn't have a father and connections like Bush did to get out of Vietman. Most of the REpublicans now in Congress were draft dodgers in the 60's and 70's and here they are receiving the best medical care, a whopping salary and all kinds of perks for being the cowards they are. Cheney alone gets the best treatment for his ticker but if anyone his age in this country has a similar problem, they will die. Let the kids get off scott free and instead look to the real criminals who have forsaken their oath to the American people, our sad Executive and Legislative Branch and the right wing Supreme Court.
That was me making the snide comment about checking rabble more often.
Concede that one doesn't get all that much information watching American TV.
Hey Lorax and lizard-
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"
Do you know what domestic means? It's not just beer.
The Geneva Convention was signed by the US. Therefore it is the highest law in the nation.
Having met resisters, deserters, conscienscious objectors from this war/occupation, Gulf I and Vietnam, I respect those who chose to fight the entire US military to retain their souls and by doing so fight for the soul of this country.
The ones I've met are conscious human beings, who have the courage of their convictions which are based on self-examination. In religions, there is the concept of enlightenment and then the concept of being involved in the world to act upon that enlightenment. Funny how ifg a soldier takes on a platoon they'd be called a hero and awarded medals; If they take on the entire military because of morality and/or legality, these same brave mena nd women are called cowards.
They've done more for real democracy and humanity than those who ignore their humanity or do lots of talk but not a lot of walk.
All hat no cattle, gentlemen, or should I say cowpokes?
.
L-Girl/Laura, I didn't "yell" at anyone. And I was complaining about your comment.
You included in this in the X-number of comment you've left on a piece you wrote:
RE: - Didn't hear a word about it all week on Democracy Now, didn't read about it in The Nation, find a US outlet that bothered to note it.
This is the internet! You go to where the information is. Now you know to check out rabble more often.
"RE" is from James06. "This is the internet! . . ." is from you. I was commenting on your snide little reply which demonstrated that you had little grasp of the power of media. James06 is correct that independent media didn't get the word out. How you could read my comments and not understand them, unless you are trying to distort them, I have no idea. But James06 was correct. I have no idea why you continue to post comments as "LGirl" (your name at your blog) to an article you wrote to begin with. It seems less than honest.
You have now written: "You are quoting (and yelling at) the wrong person. The commenter "James06″ posted the comment you are quoting. Your entire post is mis-directed at me." No, I am not yelling at James06, I am saying James06 is 100% correct and your remark back to him was both snide and ignorant of the power of the media.
His point was that US independent media has ignored this. He is correct. You are wrong.
In the US itself, the number of illegal immigrants may number in the millions. These people live, work, and raise families below the grid in multiple ways.
So it would seem unnecessary to leave the US as a war resistor. This may be the easiest industrialized country in the world to live "below the grid"?
Of course, it would come at severe costs: no retirement benefits, work for cash-only, etc.
I think it's already too late for Canada. They have been usurped by the same evil bunch that is running this place. They [the evil ones] want to make sure there is no safe haven from their reach. They've got us boxed in and are now ratcheting up the spying of citizen's under the guise of "war on terror".
Just enjoy what's left of your middle class life style while it still exist's.
The CBC, a few hours ago, mentioned that there are rallies in support of the war resisters today.
Just found out that "Canadian" is slang for a Black person in the Southern United States. I consider it a compliment since anyone should be proud to be called Canadian. Probably Frank Stronach (founder of Canadaville) would consider it a compliment too.
L-girl thanks.
Lizard, it was the Netherlands, rather than Canada, which first allowed gay marriage.
The first Gay marriage to take place in a Church took place in the Anglican church but was not legally recognized at the time - though was recognised retrospectively years later. Soon after gay marriage became legal in Canada, the main church in England forbade Anglican clergy in Canada from performing further gay marriages and there hasn't been any since.
The first official gay marriage in Canada was between a Catholic and a Jew and was a civil ceremony.
The first gay military marriage was arranged by an Anglican Minister but the actual ceremony was performed by a United Church Minister.
The first gay marriage involving a sitting MP (ie Congressperson) was going to take place overlooking the Atlantic Ocean but took place in the United Church because it was raining.
As far as I know, there is only one MP in the world who lists her former late common-law husband and present common-law wife on her webpage - she is proud of them both!
Salaam, Lizard, salaam
http://www.salaamcanada.org/intro.html
(the strange things you find out while looking at candidate bios)
RE: - You have a right and a duty to refuse to obey illegal orders according to International treaties and the UCMJ.
That is my understanding of it.
"L-girl (Laura who wrote this column) posted in the comments:
RE: - Didn't hear a word about it all week on Democracy Now, didn't read about it in The Nation, find a US outlet that bothered to note it."
HeatherM, I did not post that comment.
You are quoting (and yelling at) the wrong person. The commenter "James06" posted the comment you are quoting. Your entire post is mis-directed at me.
Perhaps next time you will read more carefully. Thank you.
military, cops, politicians, spooks, half our population has probably sworn an oath to defend the constitution.Where did it get us. In an illegal war all orders from the coup regime are illegal.
______________________________________________________________
Under military law, service members are morally and legally obligated to obey orders — unless those orders are unlawful, (UCMJ)
You have a right and a duty to refuse to obey illegal orders according to International treaties and the UCMJ. "Following orders" is not excuse for violations. Unfortunately, GI's are being court-martialed both for obeying orders that turned out to be illegal and for disobeying orders that they saw as illegal but now the military won't admit to that. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you have to make such a fateful decision, listen to your conscience, so that you can live with yourself later.
http://www.vvaw.org/mc/girights.php
where are Fallujah's Lt. Calleys?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm
http://www.rememberfallujah.org/
My goodness, what is going on tonight, oh it is 1:20 AM. Everyone is re: this and re; that, man I am scrolling as fast a I am able. It's as if you have to PROVE they said this ergo you state this is not so because.....Damn, who feels like reading what you've just read! What should I call it, rereaderating. Stop it, takes up time, way too valuable and wastes space.
This too shall pass, This too shall pass, This too...........
Lizard, quit making up your BS.
After a human rights ruling here in canada it became ILLegal to offer anything but the same type of marriage to all couples gay and straight.
Here is a website with some info on gay marriage in BC - if you can handle the cooties that come with it, it's a "gay" website.
http://www.gayvancouver.net/marriage.htm
which provides a link to the bc gov't site here:
http://www.vs.gov.bc.ca/marriage/howto.html
You will note there is no special section for "gay" marriages.!!
Check YOUR facts before you going telling other people to.
And, as L-girl pointed out to the people who don't support the war resister. The invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression, and clearly illegal. It's not a moral question (I mean it is of course but..) it's a legal one.
danielnolan January 25th, 2008 1:40 pm
"In exchange for this, we would receive the poorest, least-educated citizens you have to offer, whose only marketable skill may well be killing people."
If that's what it takes to recognize war crimes, if that's what it takes to refuse taking part in aggression, killing and maiming, then we should welcome them with open arms. No country ever has enough citizens with a strong moral fibre and the courage to stand for true human decency. If in learning to kill, they have learned also that killing is not the way, then they may well have more to contribute to society than any armchair critic, whatever his level of skill or education may be.
They may have sworn to defend the American Constitution. In doing so, they have also sworn to defend it against enemies from within, and the Nuremberg Principles do not permit them to 'park' their conscience and blindly follow illegal orders.
I know that we're already a de-facto extension of the US, a sovereign country in name only, but I say "Let them come here while they still can!" Pretty soon, it won't make any difference where one lives.
L-girl (Laura who wrote this column) posted in the comments:
RE: - Didn't hear a word about it all week on Democracy Now, didn't read about it in The Nation, find a US outlet that bothered to note it.
This is the internet! You go to where the information is. Now you know to check out rabble more often.
I can even show you a webpage from Germany where they talk about the sub-prime fiasco and the only thing that keeps it from being accessible is the lack of our ability to speak German.
------------
I don't know what Germany's supposed to have to do with anything. I got the points James06 was making and it's frightening that someone working to raise awareness on war resisters didn't.
L-Girl/Laura's column went up an hour before actions started taking place in the US.
There was no advance on this from the independent media.
For L-Girl/Laura not to grasp that it is the job of Democracy Now, The Nation, The Progressive and other independent media to cover this is just a huge blind spot on her part.
Common Dreams is one website.
The whole point about the media is that it amplifies. Again, Laura/L-Girl's column did no good in the US in terms of actions because it posted so late today.
Independent media is supposed to cover things.
Democracy Now doesn't cover war resisters these days, it went through all of 2007 without covering them. The Nation ignored war resisters since at least 2005 except to run a tiny article on Ehren Watada where he's called a "coward."
That's pathetic.
I don't need a lecture from L-Girl/Laura about what sites to go to. James06's point seems to be that independent media has let us down. I would agree. I would argue they have failed us.
If L-Girl/Laura doesn't think it's important that war resisters get support why she is writing her column?
If she does think it's important, she needs to lose the attitude because James06 made a very valid critique of our independent media in the US and I'm guessing that someone who moved to Canada following one of Bush's elections really doesn't know enough to respond to what US independent media is like today in the United States.
Vaudree: Check your facts. The rest of canada and the world have a legal union other than marriage for gays.
"RE: - Likewise Canada has many skeletons in it's closet past and present.
But, unlike the US, we include these things in our telling of history."
Yeah baby! That's one of the many things I love about Canada.
We know we're not perfect, we know there's always room for improvement, and everyone wants to make it better. We may not all agree on how best to do that, but we discuss it openly all the time. In the US, it's We're the TGNOTFOTE* or get the hell out.
Nellemason, that's how I got here too - just a bit later.
I wonder why this lizard dude thinks same-sex marriage is only "real" in Quebec? It's real all over Canada, and in five other countries on the planet, and one bright day it will be legal in the US, too.
*The Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth
Hmmmm ... not quite, lizard, but Americans fleeing to Canada goes all the way back to the Rev War when about 100,000 of 'em settled here. That's how I got here . . .
RE: - Quebec is the only place in the world that gives gays the right to a REAL marriage!
That is BS. You and yours can get married all over Canada and we weren't the first country to allow gay marriage. Secondly, we not only allow gays to serve openly in our military, some of our gay soldiers are married to other gays soldiers.
RE: - Even the CBC is starting to sound more like CNN.
Sadly true. I think they are trying to avoid a further cut in funding.
RE: - Likewise Canada has many skeletons in it's closet past and present.
But, unlike the US, we include these things in our telling of history.
RE: - In many ways Canada is America light, with many jobs tied into the war economy and big oil.
How many Canadian jobs outside of Alberta are tied to big oil?
RE: - Didn't hear a word about it all week on Democracy Now, didn't read about it in The Nation, find a US outlet that bothered to note it.
This is the internet! You go to where the information is. Now you know to check out rabble more often.
I can even show you a webpage from Germany where they talk about the sub-prime fiasco and the only thing that keeps it from being accessible is the lack of our ability to speak German.
RE: - GET AHOLD OF ME COOL HIPPY CANADIAN CHICK, 24 year old bachelor wants to GET OUT ALIVE!!! HELP!
I don't think that my 26 year old son would approve of the marriage. I also don't think that you can spend 3 years living in the same house with someone who is allergic to even a trace of air freshioner. It would be pure torture for you. Other than that, I have a small room upstairs you could probably have to yourself and the 15 year old has a wii.
I agree with danielnolan . I supported War Regisres'Support Campaign and would shelter a deserter as a last resort but if there isn't enough American citizens especially parents who would be willing to publicly condone or better yet , advocate for desertion and then support , financially , the deserters like Ehren Watada , the entire Out-Of-Iraq movement is sham and the troops will be there forever.
How many times did MLK go to jail for speaking out against the Vietnam War and he was a civilian , not a soldier ? Would he have been willing to go to jail if he had been a soldier ?
I've repeated this message so many times ; the longevity of the occupation of Iraq is in the mouths of ordinary Americans both military and civilian if they can only get their tongues affirmatively around that swear-word , desertion
I am extremely opposed to GWB's war and against everything this administration has done, as my many posts to Common Dreams will verify. That said, as a US Ar Force veteran, I cannot condone AWOL. I'm hoping the military grants them a pardon and they don't have to worry about jail time, but still, if we enlist for whatever reason, we do have a certain code and honor.
Thomas J. Comer
In many ways Canada is America light, with many jobs tied into the war economy and big oil.
Likewise Canada has many skeletons in it's closet past and present.
Canadian First Nation reserves provided a model for South African apartheid.
Even the CBC is starting to sound more like CNN.
The Canadian economy though is in a much stronger position and would certainly benefit from an influx of war resisters skilled and unskilled.
PEACEFUL HIPPY CHICK FROM CANADA, MARRY ME SO I CAN CROSS THE BORDER WITHOUT WAITING, nowadays ANY criminal conviction will bar you from entering, and the info sharing between the two basically makes any Canadian Customs a bonafide US OFFICAL. US has set policy making it harder and harder to leave, to Canada mostly, because they know there would be a mass exodus of US citizens leaving to flee the oppressive taxation and military system (draft) here in the US. (and many other reasons) USA has become a prison nation, IF YOU ARE NOT OF THE TOP 10% AND IN PARTICULAR THE TOP 1%, THEN YOU ARE DOOMED TO $LAVERY THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!!! when i get the paycheck, 23% is taken out right off the top. the corporations here in america pay 6% of the total tax burden, HOW IS THAT FAIR??? not to mention the corporations that do pay taxes get to keep that money in the bank till the end of the tax year, therefore making interest on all that money before they pay. GET AHOLD OF ME COOL HIPPY CANADIAN CHICK, 24 year old bachelor wants to GET OUT ALIVE!!! HELP!
Nuremberg Principles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Exactly.
They do not take an oath to commit torture, rape and kill civilians, destroy civilian property, and kill anyone who objects to the invasion of their own country. And that is all the US is doing over there.
The Nuremberg Principles make it clear that international law takes precedence over any command that can be given by any nation.
The invasion and continued occupation of Iraq is in violation of international law. Therefore, the soldiers are correctly upholding international law by refusing to fight.
If you believe it's up to civilians to bring the troops home, then you should support the troops who refuse to fight. To do otherwise is grossly hypocritical - and immoral.
The fascists in Washington have a simple solution for the future - mercenary armies. Mercenaries are free from the conscience baggage. They kill for money, plain and simple. They know going in. No problems whatsoever.
I don't want to make enemies here or lead anyone to think that I'm some sort of neocon warmonger or that I support any of bush's policies. I'm not and I don't. I will celebrate his imprisonment. But the soldiers in our military take an Oath of Enlistment -
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
This Oath does not promise to "do what's right". It fails to allow any morality or ethics on the part of the soldier. They swore to obey the president and military officers. If these deserters were unwilling to do that or morally unable to do that then they should not have taken the oath.
I know the war is a sham. I know there are atrocities going on. I cannot support these deserters though. It is up to us as citizens to do the protesting and get these troops home. It's not up to the soldier to desert his post.
"This will pass unless the Liberal chicken out again. It is the Liberals you have to convince. The NDP and Bloc already support this."
Yes. That's exactly what this essay says.
Rabble.ca is covering it in Canada, but not the CBC, the Globe & Mail, or any major newspaper from any major city. The story has been completely ignored.
But we will carry the day anyway.
vaudree, yeah Rabble's covering it in Canada. But I'm talking about the US hence "campaign junkies." The Common Ills has covered it all week. Who else? I'm in the US. US actions take place (or in some cases, already took place) today. And this is the first thing many are seeing on it, today. That was my point. Didn't hear a word about it all week on Democracy Now, didn't read about it in The Nation, find a US outlet that bothered to note it.
This will pass unless the Liberal chicken out again. It is the Liberals you have to convince. The NDP and Bloc already support this.
Motion Submitted to House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee recommends that the government immediately implement an in-Canada program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members, in particular those from the United States of America, who have refused or left military service related to the war in Iraq, to apply to remain and work in Canada and be eligible for permanent resident status; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals.
http://oliviachow.ca/page/275
RE: - This story should be on every website online.
rabble.ca is covering it.
RE: - Claiming refugee status is part of the problem. there is no way that Canada will ever grant refugee status to any US citizen because it is a political statment, and diplomatically problematic.
What can Harper do? If the Liberals vote with the Bloc and NDP on this, it will pass.
Remember that Question Period starts on Monday, so put some pressure to be sure that this is brought up in the next few days. It will have to compete with questions as to where Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is keeping its prisoners and probably renewed calls for gun control.
RE: - If we were to allow US military deserters to claim refugee status, it would be a terrible blow to Canada-US relations. We have already paid a heavy financial price through prolonged trade disputes (softwood lumber, cattle) that many Canadians feel were partly US protectionism, partly punishment for foregoing the adventure in Iraq.
Kissing up doesn't with with the US either. Think of Softwood Lumber, it was not about paying us back for being uppity, it was the American Lumber lobby buying American Government officials and Harper caving in just before we were about to win the last battle. Actually, America's actions concerning Softwood Lumber was in breach of NAFTA so Canada should of used the opportunity to get out of NAFTA because we could have done so without any financial consequence if we did so then.
The US is in a recession, so we will be punished whether we piss off Bush or not.
Any ways, I don't think a President John Edwards will hold this against us.
RE: - Besides military war resisters, there are thousands of Americans who are ready to leave the United States because of the terrible direction that things are going in USA.
Those are economic refugees - which means that if you are a nurse or a doctor you have more of a chance than if the only skill you have is knowing how to fly an airplane or dig a well. If you are a resister, you may not have skills of which there is a shortage in Canada.
I gave the incorrect link in my previous posting above for the "Skilled Worker" test. My bad. Here is the correct link:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/assess/index.asp
Sorry for any inconvenience :)
Ms. Kaminker is asking a lot from Canada.
If we were to allow US military deserters to claim refugee status, it would be a terrible blow to Canada-US relations. We have already paid a heavy financial price through prolonged trade disputes (softwood lumber, cattle) that many Canadians feel were partly US protectionism, partly punishment for foregoing the adventure in Iraq.
In exchange for this, we would receive the poorest, least-educated citizens you have to offer, whose only marketable skill may well be killing people.
Other than annoying the bejeebers out of the current administration, how much pressure would such a move actually put against the war?
It would seem to me that there are laws on the books in the US that one could use to fight a deployment to an illegal war, and that is the avenue to take to fight for this cause.
I'd personally shelter a war resister. I'd personally be willing to suffer the economic fallout of recognizing US deserters as refugees. I could even stomach the savaging we Canadians would take in the US media.
I'm just not convinced I am in the majority. I think a lot of Canadians will take the attitude: "You made this mess. You can clean it up."
Besides military war resisters, there are thousands of Americans who are ready to leave the United States because of the terrible direction that things are going in USA. If you are interested in leaving the USA for Canada, here is a test you can take to see your chances of getting in legally-
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/cit-test.asp
It's fun to take the test and see if you have a realistic chance of immigrating to Canada. It will save you valuable time and money taking the test to get a clear idea of your chances.
There are several different ways of applying to come to Canada: federal skilled worker, Provincial nominee, self-employed person, etc. Visit the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website for further information at-
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.asp
Don't give up hope! It is very possible to immigrate to Canada, you just have to be willing to jump through the bureaucratic hurdles and do a great deal of paperwork. Currently there is an historic peak in U.S. citizens immigrating to Canada. Ironically, Canadians call this new wave of immigrants from the united states "Bush refugees". There are thousands and thousands of Americans who are moving north to Canada right now.
L-girl,
you are absolutely correct about the current rules. However they can be waived at the discretion of the Minister on a case-by-case basis, or be permanently ammended by an Order-in-Council by the Cabinet.
The key thing to do is to get the rules changed so that these kids can just go up to the boarder and fill out a form and walk across.
we are currently flying in "temorary foreign workers" to fill many un-skilled positions, 22,000 per year in Alberta alone. There is no sound economic reason (jobs, etc) to not let them immigrate. it is purely political.
"they should just come up here and fade into the background until we get rid of Harper et al. Hopefully the new Government will then just grant residency (landed imigrant status) to them.
This is how it worked in the 60's and 70's and why I'm a Canadian."
It did work that way in the 60s and 70s, but it doesn't anymore. Immigration rules have changed drastically. If you "fade into the background" you will never be eligible for work, health care, residency or citizenship.
You can no longer apply for residency from within Canada. You have to be outside the country to apply, and it takes 1.5 to 2 years to complete the process. (I know this, because I did it.)
Also, it takes quite a bit of money, formal education and work experience. Very few of the resisters could meet the qualifications.
Refugee status was the only option at the time. Status is given to war resisters from other countries - especially if they are refusing to take part in war crimes - but the Harper government doesn't want to challenge the US.
The resolution in front of the House of Commons is not folly. It is likely to happen - and soon.
Claiming refugee status is part of the problem. there is no way that Canada will ever grant refugee status to any US citizen because it is a political statment, and diplomatically problematic.
they should just come up here and fade into the background until we get rid of Harper et al. Hopefully the new Government will then just grant residency (landed imigrant status) to them.
This is how it worked in the 60's and 70's and why I'm a Canadian.
having these kids claim Refugee Status is folly.
Yea for Laura! This is probably the only thing we'll see on it which is a real shame. This story should be on every website online. Instead we're campaign junkies rushing off to the horse races.
US war resistors are unamerican. Americans like war. Our history proves it. These resistors SHOULD go to Canada, they are all gay over there. You think I kid? Quebec is the only place in the world that gives gays the right to a REAL marriage! Is that a great place for a war resistor or what? Head for Canada and make sure you pack lots of skirts and blouses.