Canada to deport U.S. army deserter

[Dilla]

Actually Dilla I assumed you were a shrill woman. So I guess I will remember afterall. What a shock that you are actually a man.

Questioning my manhood. Nice. That just what I would expect a shrill woman such as yourself to do.

 

[Dilla]

Perhaps you should read the platform of the Republican party. It's pretty disgusting the vendetta they have against us. They don't break the law (they make them) and prevent the equal application of the law.

While I disagree with the Republican party almost completely, you do realize they get voted in to do this. Many people in America support their hideous agenda, it's not just decisions made from on high.

 

[Mot]

While I disagree with the Republican party almost completely, you do realize they get voted in to do this. Many people in America support their hideous agenda, it's not just decisions made from on high.

See we do have common ground. You are right a majority of Americans do support the hideous anti gay agenda and it crosses party lines.

The US is in trouble because people have been voting based on God, Gays and Guns for far too long. Look at the mess it's caused down there.

When I see Harper acting like a Republican, ignoring the majority of Parliament voting to support the war resisters staying here, it makes me cringe. (I know it was non binding). Give politicans and inch and they will take a mile, I fear a Tory majority in Canada as I saw what Republicans and Democrats have done to my birth nation. No business regulation is all we hear from Harper and it's not looking like a smart position based on the economic crisis the US is causing the world this week.

 

[kEiThZ]

See we do have common ground. You are right a majority of Americans do support the hideous anti gay agenda and it crosses party lines.

The US is in trouble because people have been voting based on God, Gays and Guns for far too long. Look at the mess it's caused down there.

I would say that you are rather simplistic in your view of the US public and also in their right to advance their causes. If you as a gay man have the right to advance same-sex unions, surely the religious and conservative elements of the US public have the same right to advance their beliefs, even in opposition to your views. What's more, I highly doubt that they are running entirely on a platform of opposition to same sex unions, they likely have several ideas that the public finds appealing. I think its rather unfair to characterize their exercise of democracy, as behaviour befitting 'assholes'.

As to the trouble their in...what of it? They'll be back on their feet in a few years. It's not like wars and economic crises haven't happened before.

When I see Harper acting like a Republican, ignoring the majority of Parliament voting to support the war resisters staying here, it makes me cringe. (I know it was non binding). Give politicians and inch and they will take a mile, I fear a Tory majority in Canada as I saw what Republicans and Democrats have done to my birth nation. No business regulation is all we hear from Harper and it's not looking like a smart position based on the economic crisis the US is causing the world this week.

I don't see Harper acting as a Republican. That's your view. You would see any conservative as a US Republican. I'd be okay with a tory majority in Canada, after a decade and a half of Liberal rule, I think their party needs some time to rejuvenate. And I say that as someone who was a card carrying Liberal. I also think the Conservatives would be really good for the unity of this country as they seem to be drawing in voters from every region and cross-section of society. The Liberals haven't been able to pull that off in a while.

Actually Conservatives of both major parties prevent and outright fight against the equal rights of gay citizens. In my case gay families are denied the right to sponsor their spouses for immigration. Lucky for us we were able to come to Canada. Only after spending over $15,000 and six years in US Federal courts.

That still does not make them assholes. As elected officials it was part of their platform not to support gay rights. If the issue was important to the US electorate than I am fairly sure that one of the parties would have included in its platform. That's actually better than how it happened out here, where the Liberals just rammed a bill through parliament with no real debate. It was a whipped vote too. I was in Halifax at the time. I can assure you that outside of the three major cities, there was no real support for same sex marriage (more support for civil unions though) and that was a rather divisive move. It was tactics like that which saw them move to the opposition benches. You have to bring the electorate with you on issues. If you ram it down their throats, sooner or later they will rebel.

Thankfully, it's a settled issue in this country which can't really be reversed...owing to the legal implications of undoing hundreds of unions, etc. However, there remains tons of people who are more upset at the process than the end-result. And looking at the Liberals rhetoric of late, it does not seem like they have learned much from their time in opposition.

So I relate to the deportation of the war resisters and their problems with the government of their birth country being hostile to them.

I don't see how they are related at all. I have no problem with same sex unions. However, I do have a problem with deserters from foreign countries using Canada as a pawn in their national politics. You on the other hand feel the need to oppose any and every issue that a conservative brings up. How is this any different than the hard right in the US who feel they have to oppose anything that's 'liberal'.

Perhaps you should read the platform of the Republican party. It's pretty disgusting the vendetta they have against us. They don't break the law (they make them) and prevent the equal application of the law.

While I disagree with the platform, I'd agree with their right to pursue its implementation. That's democracy. Perhaps, you should be working on building a constituency in the US that supports gay rights. Likewise, the US deserters should be working on translating that already strong anti-Iraq war vibe into a demand bye the public that the US withdraw and a demand for amnesty for all deserters. Hiding in Canada isn't exactly helping out all the buddies you abandoned in Iraq and the US.

 

[kEiThZ]

http://www.thestar.com/News/Columnist/article/502073

Never thought I'd see a Toronto Star columnist take this stand!

 

[Mot]

Keith, I can only assume your defense of right wing discrimination against treating all people equally under the law is something you think is appropriate in our society. Discrimination against gay familiies is directly in the Republican platform proudly displayed for all to see.
I find your stance very sad that a mob rule mentality be legislated. We can carry your argument to other topics, for example racial minorities, if the majority says people of different races do not deserve the same rights as others simply following your logic they should be denied those rights because the majority rules. Obviously you are still upset at gay equality in Canada. That's your problem not mine, I moved here because of it. A platform based on discrimination is still lipstick on a pig. I have never once in my life advocated for more rights and privileges for myself while denying Social Conservatives the same rights and privileges. They cannot say the same towards me.

I realize you keep trying to pretend you are not a Tory on this forum, yet you constantly defend every anti Tory post. I think you protest way too much. I said Harper acted like a Republican in a very specific issue. He's far more tame than most Republicans. I would liken him more as a Democrat with Republican social views.

One thing you might want to notice. I only comment on topics where I have some knoweldge, so you are wrong that I oppose every Tory issue. I read far more than I post so that I learn. You on the other hand seem to think you have knowledge on every topic at this website yet come across to me as an expert on nothing. A little information is a dangerous thing.

I do still work for change in the US. I would never leave my brothers and sisters there in the lurch. I also will not be apathetic here and allow social conservatives to turn back the clock on us. We simply ran out of time to legally remain in the US to fight, but we still fight today. Just like the brave and noble War Resisters are doing here. The resisters chose a just cause to fight rather than fighting to kill innocent Iraqi citizens.

 

[Hydrogen]

I realize you keep trying to pretend you are not a Tory on this forum, yet you constantly defend every anti Tory post.

Funny, I read Keith's posts because they are quite articulate and informed. He has certainly not defended against every anti-Tory post. He has acknowledged that there is a conservative point of view and that it is part of the political reality. People have a right to that conservative view, but need to defend it reasonably.

I only comment on topics where I have some knoweldge, so you are wrong that I oppose every Tory issue.

So, in other words, you support some Tory positions. Does that automatically make you a conservative, or are the political points of view of individuals allowed to be nuanced?


Also, did you switch to "Tory" from "conservative" in order not to deal with your own "asshole" comment?

We simply ran out of time to legally remain in the US to fight

You drop these little hints, but never explain them. You were about to be in the U.S. illegally?

 

[Mot]

Funny, I read Keith's posts because they are quite articulate and informed. He has certainly not defended against every anti-Tory post. He has acknowledged that there is a conservative point of view and that it is part of the political reality. People have a right to that conservative view, but need to defend it reasonably.



So, in other words, you support some Tory positions. Does that automatically make you a conservative, or are the political points of view of individuals allowed to be nuanced?


Also, did you switch to "Tory" from "conservative" in order not to deal with your own "asshole" comment?




You drop these little hints, but never explain them. You were about to be in the U.S. illegally?

I used the term "Social Conservatives" when clarifying my point about them being assholes in my second post on the subject. People have a right to any point of view they wish to own, that does not mean they should be legally allowed to exclude others from the same rights they enjoy. You cannot outlaw thoughts because they are discriminatory.

If "Conservatives" actually stood for things conservatives are supposed to stand for like staying out of the bedrooms and bodies of citizens (less government intrustion into personal decisions), then yes, I do support that idealogy, but those kind of conservatives are the minority and you find them now to be Libertarians.

My husband was about to be in the US illegally. Gay people are not allowed to sponsor their partners for immigration in the US, when your foreign born partner loses the job that sponsors them, your only recourse is to seek asylum or move out of the US. I was born there but in order to keep my intact family we were forced to leave. Gladly I might add to Canada where we are much happier and now we have energy and time to help others like the brave war resisters.

 

[kEiThZ]

Keith, I can only assume your defense of right wing discrimination against treating all people equally under the law is something you think is appropriate in our society. Discrimination against gay familiies is directly in the Republican platform proudly displayed for all to see.
I find your stance very sad that a mob rule mentality be legislated.

I didn't say I support the stance. I said that it is within their right as an elected party to implement their platform.

This is an issue of significant social change. It is not like gay rights were really on the agenda in Canada or the US until the 1990s. Even the Canadian Charter of rights did not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It was a right that was 'read in' by various court decisions throughout the 1990s.

I am not opposed to gay rights at all. I have served with homosexual colleagues and I am proud of the fact that Canadian Forces does not have a "don't ask don't tell" policy. We have a 'we don't care' policy. As long as they are capable of the job, we include them in everything we do, including front line combat. As somebody who has participated on various diversity committees at squadron and wing level, I am very proud of this policy.

What I am opposed to, in the Canadian context, was the way the decision to legalize same sex unions was implemented. It was whipped Liberal vote. It would have been much better to have a broader debate, include society and eventually get the charter amended. Remember, right that are 'read in' can quite easily be 'read out' if they fall out of favour. In the manner, it was done, it has lead to a whole host of new issues. For example, should polygamy be legalized? Or where does gay rights stand up against other charter rights? There's a Knights of Columbus hall that is being taken to court in BC for refusing to host a gay wedding. I doubt most Canadians would support religious centres throughout the country getting sued for refusing to host weddings which they would not condone. Properly drafted legislation would have avoided this kind of turmoil. And real debate would have helped bring the public onside. Support for gay marriage was always weak outside of the major urban centres. Real discussion would have improved this situation.

Turning back to the US....I have said, that instead of simply typing on a blog and hiding in Canada, the better course for most Americans is to change public opinion to affect real change. Gay rights came about in Canada, because most Canadians recognized that LBGTs are our friends and neighbours, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters and deserve the same chance at happiness as the rest of us. There is no use having gay rights if society at large does not support it. Gays would then be persecuted regardless. American LBGTs should be pursuing a broad based campaign to create awareness of their issues in the US and improve public understanding of the need for legal protections. Criticizing the Republican party and characterizing them as 'assholes' is hardly going to achieve anything.

We can carry your argument to other topics, for example racial minorities, if the majority says people of different races do not deserve the same rights as others simply following your logic they should be denied those rights because the majority rules.

Last I checked this wasn't an issue. And the Charter has always explicitly forbidden discrimination on the basis of race. And prior to that our laws were fairly strong on this issue as well. Your straw man is going up in smoke rather quick.

Obviously you are still upset at gay equality in Canada. That's your problem not mine, I moved here because of it.

Well you're wrong....as a colleague of mine put it...'I have no problem with gay guys, that's less competition....now lesbians, they are the real threat..."

I realize you keep trying to pretend you are not a Tory on this forum, yet you constantly defend every anti Tory post. I think you protest way too much.

You can paint me, however, you want. People can read my posts and know where I stand on issues. Sometimes I agree with the Tories, sometimes I don't. I think you just get bugged that not everyone on here agrees with you automatically.

I said Harper acted like a Republican in a very specific issue. He's far more tame than most Republicans. I would liken him more as a Democrat with Republican social views.

First off, how exactly does one act Republican? Next, if you liken him to being a Democrat with Republican social views, does that not make him at base a democrat? Personally, I think using the 2-party US system as a template is inappropriate to the Canadian political landscape. Canadian conservatives have never been as right wing as the GOP. And they never will be. They have moved to the centre so much since being elected, it's easy to forget that this party includes former Reform party members. Incidentally, it is this move to the centre that has made them popular. With these poll numbers, its quite obvious that many centrist voters are supporting them. Do you really think its only card carrying CPC members that get them elected? It's obvious quite a few Liberals intend to vote for them too....I suspect that's what really grinds your gears.

One thing you might want to notice. I only comment on topics where I have some knowledge, so you are wrong that I oppose every Tory issue. I read far more than I post so that I learn. You on the other hand seem to think you have knowledge on every topic at this website yet come across to me as an expert on nothing. A little information is a dangerous thing.

Last I checked UT was a public forum not one requiring technical expertise. I am entitled to air my opinions just as much as you or anyone else. And where they are wrong, I expect they will be disputed and I will stand corrected. I have learned a lot from participating in these debates and some have modified my previous positions. That's what forums should do. I have never claimed to be an expert on any issue other than a few military topics (that fall within the purview of my employment) or some community topics (that fall within the purview of my life experience in these neighbourhoods).

You on the other hand, having been in Canada for only a few years (and that too not during the eras of serious debates) claim to know what's best for Canada. You routinely comment outside your areas of expertise as well. Last I checked you were not an expert on immigration law. And reading a few books penned by US deserters does not make you an expert on the laws and morality of armed conflict either. You claim to know the right course of action for an entire nation (Canada) based on your experience in a third country (the US), of being discriminated by some random political opponents (a legally organized political party) who did not actually seek to do anything illegal to you. On that count, you then advise us that we should pursue policies that would have major ramifications for our nation's trade, legal and foreign policies. Do you have expertise in any of those fields?

Who's more fair here? People can read both our posts and decide. I am confident I will come out on top.

I do still work for change in the US. I would never leave my brothers and sisters there in the lurch.

Good. And if it were me, I would do it by staying in my homeland. You don't achieve change by typing on a keyboard from hundreds of miles away.

I also will not be apathetic here and allow social conservatives to turn back the clock on us.

Did it ever occur to you that people for vote for a party for more than one reason. Just because somebody votes Conservative does not mean they buy into 100% of the platform. For years many people 'held their nose' and voted Liberal. And people actually called it that in conversation. By your rational, the Liberals would have been morally wrong then, for implementing same sex unions since not everyone supported that issue in Canada. How dare they construe support for the fiscal agenda as support for their social agenda? You, sir, apparently have a rather rudimentary understanding of how democracy works and the motivations of different voters.

We simply ran out of time to legally remain in the US to fight, but we still fight today.

I am curious to know what you were doing that had a statute of limitations on it. And how you managed to qualify for residency here if you did something illegal in another country.

Just like the brave and noble War Resisters are doing here. The resisters chose a just cause to fight rather than fighting to kill innocent Iraqi citizens.

I think the Toronto Star (the most liberal newspaper in the country) article I linked captured the sentiment quite well. It's easy to be 'brave and noble' sitting in a first world refuge while your buddies are dying in Iraq. Serving in the military is like marriage, its for better or for worse. As a soldier you don't get to make political decisions, you follow orders unless they are absolutely morally deficient. None of the deserters has yet to produce one shred of evidence showing that they were personally ordered to commit war crimes. Thankfully, shrill political rhetoric regarding the war in Iraq does not count as evidence in a court of law.

 

[digi]

The resisters chose a just cause to fight rather than fighting to kill innocent Iraqi citizens.

They also chose to join the military, and these 'brave and noble resisters' chickened out of actually fighting. They are hypocrites, not refugees.

 

[Admiral Beez]

They also chose to join the military, and these 'brave and noble resisters' chickened out of actually fighting. They are hypocrites, not refugees.

Not all of them are chickens. Here's another brave young man who has returned to stand up for his beliefs and accept the consequences, in this case nine months in prison.

http://www.thestar.com/article/461887

Resister sought refuge in Ottawa but returned to U.S. earlier this year

An American army deserter who took refuge in Canada before returning to the U.S. voluntarily was given a dishonourable discharge yesterday and sentenced to nine months in jail, a close supporter said.

James Burmeister, 22, was sentenced by a military judge in Fort Knox, Ky., after a four-hour court martial hearing, said Carol Rawert-Trainer, of the American non-profit group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

"It's quite a shock to everybody," said Rawert-Trainer from Louisville, Ky. "We all thought they were going to take it easy on him because he turned himself in, but it doesn't look that way."

Originally from Eugene, Ore., Burmeister went to Ottawa in May 2007 after he was injured in Iraq when he was thrown from his military vehicle by the force of a roadside bomb earlier that year.

While living in Ottawa, Burmeister suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, and had other continuing medical problems that stemmed from the attack, said Lee Zaslofsky of the War Resisters Support Campaign.

Burmeister returned to the U.S. in March to be closer to his family, Zaslofsky added.

After returning home, Burmeister turned himself in to the army to face charges of desertion and was taken to the military prison in Fort Knox, where he has remained since.

Yesterday's ruling will likely stand up as a felony conviction, meaning Burmeister won't be allowed back into Canada, and will likely lose his right to veterans' benefits, Zaslofsky told the Star last night.

"In that case, his post-traumatic stress disorder and some of the other problems that he has won't be dealt with properly," he noted. "I just hope this isn't an ill omen for some of the other (resisters)."

One of those other resisters is 25-year-old Robin Long.

Long became the first American war resister deported from Canada Tuesday, and could also potentially face a court martial.

Yesterday, Long was transferred from Whatcom County Jail in Bellingham, Wash., to the nearby Fort Lewis military base.

 

[Admiral Beez]

ROSIE DIMANNO gets it spot on right with this editorial...

http://www.thestar.com/article/502073

As of yesterday, 4,160 American troops had been killed in Iraq.

Jeremy Hinzman has broken faith with all of them.

He is a deserter.

Not a war resister, not a draft dodger as thousands before him who sought refuge in Canada from conscription during the Vietnam era, but a bolter, an abandoner of fellow soldiers – those who went, avidly or reluctantly, hawkish or dreading combat to the bone.

 

[theman23]

http://www.thestar.com/News/Columnist/article/502073

Never thought I'd see a Toronto Star columnist take this stand!

I don't know why. Dimanno has been with the Star for ages now, and shes always been their right-of centre columnist.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't know why. Dimanno has been with the Star for ages now, and shes always been their right-of centre columnist.

I would suspect a lot of her opinion on this was formed by having spent time with Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. She understands what impact it would have where one individual from 'a band of brothers' were to desert. It really is akin to leaving one's family behind.

That being said, while I don't approve of their decision to desert, it is not why I oppose the granting of refuge for them. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the decision has grave ramifications for Canada. Granting even a few of these so-called 'war resisters' (I am hard pressed to see what they are resisting from the comfort of a couch in a first world country), could well result in dozens or hundreds more applications. When that happens, the United States would perceive Canadian government policy to be an effort to directly undermine the US. Is this what we as Canadians want? To be in direct conflict with our largest neighbour, trade partner, and military ally?

Even if Obama wins in the fall, such an action would be taken as a slap to the face, particularly in light of the announcement that as the US draws down in Iraq, more troops will be redeploying to Afghanistan....one of their first rotations in, will be....Kandahar.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Bloody hell, just when I thought we'd be shod of another of these self-serving cowards the courts give one a stay of deportation...

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5N2Lv3Iy4WhzuEbIBYnIB9lfebQ