''Peace Mom'' Sheehan supports deserters in Canada

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

By CAROLYN THOMPSON
Associated Press Writer

June 17, 2006, 5:25 PM EDT

FORT ERIE, Ontario -- A group of American military deserters Saturday publicly embraced their new lives in Canada with the support of "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan, who said she wished the son she lost in Iraq was among them.

"I begged him not to go to Iraq," the anti-war activist said through tears at a rally in support of the former soldiers, who wore black T-shirts emblazoned with "AWOL." "And I wish he was standing up here with these people because he didn't want to go."

Sheehan was making her second visit to Canada in support of sanctuary for those fleeing the U.S. military. The Canadian government has so far denied political asylum to U.S. soldiers who have sought it. Appeals are pending.

"They're trying to deport me," said Darrell Anderson of Lexington, Ky., who arrived in Canada by way of Niagara Falls in January 2005. He spent seven months in Iraq with the Army's 1st Armored Division and received a purple heart following a roadside bomb attack before deciding during a leave he would not go back.

More: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--peacemom-deserter0617jun17,0,32363.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

[Terran1212]

1. They should stay underground

So as not to be deported.

[MrPrax]

2. Right said...

The more publicity they seek, the more likely the Canadian government will be forced to deport them and when they are, it's likely they will get extra special attention from the various military folks state-side. They don't have a case and they will eventually be turned over.

These poor guys are being used basically for political fundraising purposes in Canada IMHO by people who don't care about their personal well-being. --their supporters should have been thoroughly honest with them from day one...you have no hope in hell of getting political asylum.

I met one of them at a demo here in Vancouver with his wife--really decent kids but naive, scared, poor, inarticulate and way way out of their league. It was quite sad actually--hardly rousing political theatre.

[nhdb]

3. Sheehan supports deserters in Canada

This is not as clear-cut as the draft dodgers of the 60's and 70's.
Each of these people voluntarily enlisted knowing that the mission of the military
is to fight wars.

I have a bit of a problem with them accepting the paycheck and wanting to decide
which missions are worthy and which are not.

FYI: I spend 20 years on active duty is the US Army.

[KingFlorez]

4. They have a right not to fight an illegal war

Morality comes first

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KingFlorez]

7. Iraq never attacked or was plotting to attack us

Bush launched action without premise and lied about reasoning because he had none, that's not legal and it's not moral. If you are here to defend the President, go right ahead but there are plenty of facts that say he was wrong.

[VegasWolf]

9. Simple, we'll try the chimpanzee in the Hague for war crimes, Abu

Gharib, Gitmo and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians over a lie that has been proved to be a lie just to control oil in the middle east. We'll let the Hague decide if it is illegal. Just because banana-eater is the leader of a single country doesn't mean he is innocent. Hitler was a leader of a country too.

[blackhorse]

11. Hey Dale

Tell us again what rank you held? (Unfortunately the mods deleted your post)

Every senior NCO I've ever known knew damned well how to spell the word "Sergeant".

BH

[saigon68]

14. Dale just drifted over from rimjobs

[saigon68]

36. au revoir

[INDIA]

28. Not really

Their military contracts are VERY binding. These kids shouldn't have enlisted in the first place if they didn't want to go to the ME.

Most military enlistments are 4-6 years, this war is 3 years old, 9-11 was almost 5 years ago. Do the math, it doesn't add up. I would have more compassion for someone who enlisted in 1999 and deserted in 2003.

[saskatoon]

32. "they have a right to not fight etc."

Yes and especially when they have seen what those boys have, like this for instance and I beg you please to get on the site in question. there are dozens of photos just like the one id here. i hope it works and I am quite confident it will so please try it. Grace in Tallahassee.
http://www.shianews.com/hi/middle_east/news_id/0000758.php

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

8. They didn't think they were going to enlist in the Wehrmacht

They had no clue that our Beloved Commander-in-Chief was going to join Hitler and Tojo and launch a war of aggression against a country that had nothing to do with 9-11.

And considering how Bush has placed himself above the Constitution, the military should be deposing his tyrannical ass in order to restore the Republic instead of embracing an imperial campaign.

[saigon68]

13. The troop jock-sniffers are out in force today

[Pavulon]

22. The US Military

does not participate in coups. That should be left to the 3rd world. If there is a problem the judicial branch is responsible for enforcing laws.

I do not agree with the war or the methods used to fight it, however that does not give the military the right to overthrow the government.

[Terran1212]

10. I am damn proud of them for deciding this mission is unworthy

[saskatoon]

33. I am damn proud of them for deciding this mission is unworthy

Thank you terren for your post and your wisdom---those boys had no idea that this war was not an honorable one and was not declared because we were attacked by Iraq, that it was simply for OIL and for Profit for Cheney and Co. and their stooge George, who of course will also profit handsomely.

[saigon68]

12. Enjoy your stay

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

15. He's gone....

Bless his heart.

[saigon68]

34. Wow 7 whole posts

[Milspec]

16. I too have a problem with deserters

I have never supported this war. I think the deserters would better serve the anti-war effort by simply refusing to go in theater. Yes there would be consequences for them, but it would make a stronger point to resist than to run.
And no never served in the military (medical out of the first draft lottery)

[IndianaGreen]

17. Deserters from the Wehrmacht were hailed as heroes during WWII

and we should do no less with those that take the very courageous step of dropping out of Bush's war machine.

[Milspec]

19. Oh really

By who? Wehrmacht soldiers that actively aided the allied effort were, thats obvious. However by yourlogic the troops should be...well some place other than Canada

[Pavulon]

20. I am sorry

but any person not drafted knows the requirements when entering the service.

I, ___, 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.

The military is not the boy scouts you can not quit because you do not like the new scoutmaster.

[noamnety]

21. let me quote your words back at you

"according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

They haven't sworn to obey illegal orders. They're required NOT to obey illegal orders.

[Pavulon]

23. No illegal orders

have been issues to or by centcom. The war is funded by congress, its orders signed by civilians and carried out by the military. The dislike of an order does not make it illegal. If the civilian control of the military has issued illegal orders they could be prosecuted. If a soldier is issued an illegal order he does not have to carry it out.

There is no provision of the UCMJ, that i am aware of (most of my awareness was centered around drunkenness and theft), that makes the current orders illegal.

That does not make the morally correct. Political concerns are not justification to refuse orders

[noamnety]

24. If it violates international law

it's illegal.

[INDIA]

29. That's all of our opinions

Not a fact. Doesn't exactly hold up.

[Tom Joad]

27. Congress is acting illegally by funding this war.

That should be obvious.
It is a war of aggression, illegal under international law, which we are obligated to obey, each and every one of us.

[IndianaGreen]

25. "support and defend the Constitution of the United States"

I took that oath too, and Bush is an enemy of the Constitution by assuming dictatorial powers for himself, and by proclaiming himself as the supreme arbiter of any law passed by Congress.

One would have to treat Bush as an enemy of the United States if one is to fulfill that oath.

[Pavulon]

30. That

is a dangerous assumption. I was in in the clinton pres. Lots of people hated him. But his orders were executed. Bosnia could have been labeled a war of aggression.

However Clinton's orders were carried out. The military is not in the business of picking and choosing orders. If there is a legal problem it should be handles by the judicial branch.

[IndianaGreen]

31. Do yourself a favor and rent out "Judgment at Nuremberg"

If there is a legal problem it should be handles by the judicial branch.

Let's not kid ourselves, we don't have an independent judiciary when you have people on the Supreme Court that think that Bush has absolute powers under the Commander-in-Chief clause.

Clinton never made such assertions about his Presidential powers as Bush has!

Burt Lancaster plays a judge that is being tried for crimes against humanity. Consider him the Scalia or Alito of his time:

Judges Judging Judges—Judgment at Nuremberg

By Michael Asimow, UCLA Law School (August 1998)

Stanley Kramer’s masterpiece Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) stands alone as the finest film about judges ever made. In the film, four Nazi judges are placed on trial at Nuremberg before a panel of three American judges. Three of the German judges are Nazi thugs but one of them, Ernst Janning (played by Burt Lancaster), was quite different. Janning had been a famous and aristocratic legal scholar, a drafter of the Weimar constitution, and a man who detested Hitler and the Nazis. Yet he remained on the bench under the Third Reich. All defendants are convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The chief American judge, Dan Haywood (played memorably by Spencer Tracy), brushes aside the various excuses offered by defense counsel Rolfe (a role for which Maximilian Schell won an Oscar).

The Nuremberg war crime trials presented many thorny jurisprudential issues, such as the problem of ex post facto criminal law and the issue of how the court obtained jurisdiction over the defendants. In particular, what justification is there for an international (rather than a German) tribunal to try a case in which the offenses were committed by Germans against other Germans?

But the trial of the Nazi judges presented additional dilemmas. What of Rolfe’s argument that Janning remained on the bench in order to make the system of justice more merciful than it otherwise would have been? Certainly if Janning had resigned he would have been replaced by a more brutal official. Should this be a defense against charges that in some cases Janning had acted in a brutal and lawless manner? And what of positivism—is it not the responsibility of the judge to carry out the laws of his country adopted by competent authorities, even if he disagrees with them? And what of independence—can a person serve as a judge when he is subject to the control or influence of non-judicial officials? And how about selective prosecution—there were thousands of German judges. Why are these four being picked on?

Judicial independence was an issue for the American judges at Nuremberg as well. By the time of the trial, Haywood was under intense pressure to go easy on the defendants since the Cold War had begun. The Berlin Blockade was underway and higher concerns of foreign policy suggested that the Germans were now allies rather than enemies. In the film, Haywood resists these pressures and finds the defendants guilty based on a few cases they had judged. A judge’s responsibility, he declares, is to stand for justice hen standing for something is most difficult. At a recent talk I gave to a roomful of judges, the audience burst into spontaneous applause after hearing Haywood’s judgment.

http://www.usfca.edu/pj/articles/Nuremberg.htm

[saigon68]

35. The military should also check out what happened to Gen. Yamashita

Who swung by the neck until dead.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Interesting the reasoning given by General MacArthur for hanging Yamashita

General Yamashita did not order any massacres in the Philippines, in fact, he had punished his own soldiers for crimes that they had committed. MacArthur's rationale for prosecuting Yamashita is that as commander of all the Japanese forces in the Philippines, Yamashita had command responsibility for any crimes committed by troops under his command.

Applying the MacArthur principle to Iraq, we would have to try every general in the chain of command for any crimes committed by their troops, and hang them after a proper trial.

[saigon68]

40. That would shake up the Repuke Sheep

[noamnety]

18. It's not my place to tell them they need to go to jail

I appreciate and respect any actions they take, whether they take them on this side of the border or the other. Nobody's requiring them to take a public stand at all, yet these resisters have. I'm not going to get into the business of telling them they haven't done enough for the cause unless they've spent a year in jail.

Most of us haven't spent a year in prison for our beliefs. Heck, if everyone was up to their standard of resisting, we'd already be out of Iraq.

[Megahurtz]

37. Better "Deserter" than Dead! n/t

[Buzz Clik]

42. I share your hesitation.

Enlisting in the military and then backing away from the prime duty is not right.

[Tom Joad]

26. Yes, support the resisters! Like LT Watada!

Go here to find out more.
http://www.thankyoult.org

And for a list of public military resisters, go here
http://tomjoad.org/WarHeroes.htm

Just for the record, and to clear up any confusion, Tom Yossarian Joad, and me Tom Joad, are two different people. We just both support military resisters.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

39. Wow. This thread really brought out the lurkers and people

that I would consider... uh, pro-war?

[Buzz Clik]

43. Not pro-war.

I am highly anti-war. I am highly anti-Bush. BUT, I cannot accept volunteering for a specific job and then bailing when it comes time to do that job.

Our military has a clear and definite function, and every soldier is part of that. When certain soldiers suddenly get a fit of conscious when it's time to put the boots to the ground, I won't be there to applaud them.

Don't wanna be a soldier? Don't join.

[coalition_unwilling]

44. They volunteered for a "specific job" (defending the U.S. in

full accordance with domestic and international laws) and then were ordered to perform another "specific job" (violating domestic and internatonal laws).

Daniel Ellsburg once wrote (or said, can't remember) that we would never truly be healed from Vietnam until a memorial to anti-war movement was also erected on the National spot where the Vietnam War memorial is. To my knowlege, that anti-war memorial hasn't yet been erected.

[Buzz Clik]

45. Soldiers are given the right of refusal to fight based on legalities?

Has it truly been shown and proven in a legal sense that Iraq is an illegal war? As much as I despise that war and as much as I believe (as you do) that it's probably illegal, it's not up to the individual soldier to make that decision.

[coalition_unwilling]

46. Read your U.N. charter (and refresh your memory with

a review of the Bill of Particulars from Nuremburg tribunals).

Nurermburg called "wars of aggression" the supreme intenratational war crime.

U.N. charter provides that only the U.N. Security Council can authorize international aggression, unless and only if a member state is in "immediate risk of imminent attack."

U.S. is signatory to the U.N. charter.

U.S. Consitution says international treaties (like the U.N.) have the full force of law.

Long and short: we violated international law in the invasion of Iraq, which only the U.N. Security Council could authorize and render legal. All subsequent actions thereby rendered illegal, b/c of the initial war crime. Hence, U.S. is currently in massive violation of international law. U.S. soldiers under no obligation to participate in massive violation of international law. and indeed, under certain readings of Nuremburg, have a positive duty to resist said violations.

[goodhue]

48. yes, indeed

For a lot of material on illegality of iraq war and occupation, check out this site . . .

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

[Buzz Clik]

49. This is NOT a debate about the legality of the war.

Soldiers have absolutely no right nor obligation to walk away from their duty because the conflict may be in violation of a UN treaty.

[goodhue]

41. Good for Cindy

These folks need our support, not ridicule

[Zhade]

47. So do I.

NT!