In 2004 when Jeremy Hinzmen applied
for refugee status in Canada the Conservative government stepped in at his
Refugee Hearing and said that evidence challenging the legality of the war in
Iraq can't be used in this case. The U.N. Handbook for Refugees and the
Nuremburg Principals say:
A soldier of an army that is involved in an
illegal war of aggression has
a higher international duty to refuse service. They also have the right
to seek refugee protection in any country that is signatory to the
Geneva Convention.
By refusing to allow him, and by
precedent all other claimants, the right to use the argument that the war was
illegal, the decision closed the door on that legal avenue for refugee
protection.
The invasion of Iraq was clearly an
illegal act of aggression. The
U.S. was not under attack or the imminent threat of attack from the nation of
Iraq. The action was also not approved by the U.N. Security Council. By taking this stance, the Conservative
government is condoning the invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq. Is this what Canadians want? A majority
of Americans want it to end and have also realized it to be a mistake.
Canadians have long known it to be wrong. Why is the minority Conservative
government still holding onto the idea and still deporting war resisters? Why are they separating families and
being complicit in the incarceration of morally strong young men and
women? What message is this sending?
Parliament voted to let war resisters remain
In June of 2007 Canada's Parliament
voted on a non-binding resolution to allow war resisters and their families
permanent resident status. The vote passed. In agreement with the vote, a poll
of Canadian opinion showed overwhelming support for the resolution. But in defiance of Parliament and the
will of the people, the Conservative minority government, led by Prime Minister
Stephen Harper and Immigration Minister Diane Finley, ignored the bill. The government stated that all refugee
claimants are given a fair chance to plead their case at the Refugee Board, and
special treatment to these Iraq resisters wasn't fair to the other claimants.
The government has also stated in the past that we are not legitimate claimants
because we are from the U.S. which they say has a fair and transparent justice
system and we wouldn't be singled out for being political.
On July 14th, 2008 in my
final attempt to stay in Canada, where my son and community are, Federal Judge
Ann Mactavish stated that I didn't prove I would be treated harshly by the U.S.
military for being a politically outspoken opponent to the war in Iraq and the
Bush administration policy. She
predicted that my punishment would be minimal and I'd serve at most 30 days in
the brig. (This is probably because less than 10% of AWOL cases are brought to
court martial.) She then cleared the way for my deportation.
Convicted of a felony
Less than a month later I was tried
in a court martial presided over by a judge who is a colonel in the Army, a
person who has the President in her chain of command. (A person late appointed
by Bush to Guantanamo Bay no doubt because of her credentials and political
position.) The only aggravating evidence the prosecution presented was a 6
minute long video of me stating among other things that "I feel my president
lied to me." (A political statement.) The fact that this was found admissible
in court for the crime of desertion is beyond me. There were no character witnesses brought against me. The only factor the prosecution wanted
shown in determining a sentence was the fact that I was political and
exercising my freedom of speech in criticizing the Commander in Chief. It seems
like a conflict of interest to have a judge determine my fate when she has to
ultimately answer to the President, while I was claiming the President was a
domestic enemy. While I was openly
saying in my defense that the Bush administration created reasons to go to
Iraq, she had superiors to answer to who answer to the President.
The judge came back with a 30 month
sentence; that's two and a half years for not showing up for work I thought to
be morally objectionable, by far the harshest sentence given to a deserter from
the Iraq war. The only thing that saved me was a plea bargain for 15 months. I
still received a dishonorable discharge. A dishonorable discharge will keep me
from ever having a government job and be at a disadvantage in the civilian
sector as well. I will have a hard time ever getting a loan for a house or a
car. This conviction is also a felony! A felony will make it hard for me to
return to Canada to be with my young family. Then again, Judge Ann Mactavish had already made sure I wouldn't
be allowed in for ten years.
People who committed far worse
crimes have been getting off with lighter sentences than mine. I refused to participate in killing and
got 15 months, but a First Infantry Division soldier, Spc. Belmor Ramos, was
sentenced to only seven months after being convicted of conspiracy to commit
murder in the case of four Iraqi men. In 2007, he stood guard while others
blindfolded and shot in the head four unidentified Iraqi men, afterwards dumping their bodies in a
Baghdad canal. During his court
martial, Ramos admitted his guilt, stating, "I wanted them dead. I had no legal justification to do
this"
Where is the justice? The system is not fair and
impartial. Can it really be
transparent when you don't know who is influencing the judge from up the chain
of command? See how the military
justice system works? It gives light sentences for killing, but God forbid
someone should call the president a liar and war-monger. In a court martial, a person's words
and political opinions - if they are anti-war and critical of the president -
seem be far more damaging to his case than someone's illegal actions in an
occupied foreign nation.
What about the contract I signed?
Often, people have argued that I
signed a contract I'd like to
quote from a letter one of the Founding Fathers wrote to George Washington on
his thoughts about contracts:
When performance, for instance, becomes impossible,
non- performance
is not immoral. So if performance
becomes self-destructive
to the party, the law of self preservation overrules
the laws of obligations to others.
For the reality of these
principles I appeal to the true fountains of evidence, the head and
heart of every rational man. --Thomas
Jefferson, April 1793
For me to continue in my military
contract would have been destructive to me as a person with my views, morals,
and ideals. The contract I signed
was to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all
enemies foreign and domestic, and to obey the lawful orders of the President and those officers appointed over
me. I did not sign to be the
strong arm for corporate interests of oil. The so-called "liberation" of Iraq has turned into nothing
more than a constant and protracted struggle for the people, against the forces
that are trying to impose their will upon them for power and profit. True freedom is the ultimate
expression and condition of a people to control their own destiny, not the
manufactured, force-fed variety being offered to the people of Iraq. True democracy is not found at the end
of the end of a gun barrel. It rises up from within the masses.
The government manufactured pretenses for the war
The invasion of Iraq wasn't about
WMDs, or else we would have found some.
It wasn't about regime change, or else we would be in Darfur, or
Indonesia. (Besides, regime change
is not a legitimate reason to go to war.) It wasn't about 9/11 terrorists
because most of those were from Saudi Arabia. It didn't say anywhere in my contract that I'd be going to
foreign soil halfway around the world, to invade a country that was no threat
to the U.S. It didn't say in my
contract that I would be called upon to risk my life, not defending the people
or the Constitution of the United States, but creating more enemies for our
country by being an occupier. The
invasion of Iraq has made the world a much more dangerous place.
Iraq was never a real threat. And now the destabilized nation of Iraq
has become a breeding ground, an awesome recruiting center, for al Qaeda. And it has exacted a great price from
the American people. I'm not
talking about the huge monetary price, but the human cost of war, the deaths of
so many of our brave youth, the missing limbs, the PTSD, the suicides.
The order for me to go to Iraq was
not a lawful one. It violated the
Constitution. Article VI of the
Constitution states that any treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory shall be
the supreme law of the land. The
last time I checked, the U.S. was a signing party to the Geneva
Conventions. There are certain
rules in that treaty for declaring war, and the last time I checked, regime
change was not one of them. A
country must be under attack or be under threat of imminent attack. Neither was true in the case of
Iraq. Former President Bush had no
right to interpret the Constitution or the Geneva Conventions simply as he saw
fit, and the 107th Congress had no right to pass H.J. Res. 114 which
"allowed" the president to invade Iraq.
The Constitution was being ignored by the whole lot of them and they
were derelict in their duty to uphold it.
The stand that the Conservative
government of Canada has taken has separated a family - an act totally
un-Canadian. I have a young son, a
Canadian citizen. My partner, also
a Canadian citizen, has multiple sclerosis and has been left to raise our son
alone while I'm locked in the brig for refusing to participate in a war that
Canada itself wouldn't even send troops to. In 2003 the then Liberal government saw the holes in Bush's
intelligence and refused to participate in the invasion. The Canadian government not only
deported me, but barred me from entering Canada again for ten years! My
flesh and blood is there!
Uphold Canada's humanitarian tradition
The Conservatives are destroying
Canada's tradition of being a refuge from militarism and an asylum for those
escaping injustice - a tradition that goes back to the times of slavery. Are they truly representing the people? Who are they working for really? The days of Bush have ended. This new Obama administration has a
different view and different policies.
It's time for Mr. Stephen Harper to change his view. He should listen to
what his Parliament and a majority of Canadians are saying.
Please support the movement to
allow war resisters to stay in Canada and to pardon those in the U.S. Please
help me to return to Canada to be with my son. I want only to live in peace and be in this life. Stop the war!
Robin Long
Prisoner L4830R35
NAVCON Brig Miramar