Flight from the fight

[JoFerret]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1190714,00.html

Two American soldiers have deserted, claiming asylum in Canada rather than serve in Iraq. They argue that the war is illegal under international law

Brandon Hughey is a teenager living among strangers, thousands of miles from his friends, family and home in San Angelo, Texas. The 18-year-old is one of two American servicemen who recently deserted their units and fled to Canada to claim asylum as refugees. "We plan to argue that the war in Iraq is illegal under international law and that I have a right not to choose to participate," he says.
Hughey, who has been taken in by a Quaker couple in the Ontario city of St Catharines, spends his days preparing his legal case. For breaks, he takes solitary walks downtown. He seems mature, composed, and hopeful that he will be able to build a new life for himself in Canada.

Hughey signed up for the army when he was 17, during his final year in high school. "I joined because it was the only way I was going to get a college education," he says. He went through basic training, and in his spare time began learning about the campaign in Iraq on the internet. He says he became increasingly uncomfortable about the mission, then so disturbed that he considered killing himself. He brought his questions to a commanding officer, who told him to stop thinking so much.
<more>

[saigon68]

1. GOLD STAR MOTHER

Emma Roberts is comforted by her daughter, Angela Roberts-Burton, second from right, after receiving the U.S. flag that draped the coffin of her son, Marine Lance Cpl. Anthony P. Roberts, during a cermony inside the pavilion at the Delaware Veterans Memorial Cemetery, Wednesday, April 14, 2004, in Bear, Del. The 18-year-old Delaware native was killed April 6 in combat in Iraq (news - web sites). (AP Photo/Dee Marvin)

[DarkPhenyx]

2. Just my opinion.

These two men are cowards. They ran instead of standing their ground and fighting back.

[Capt_Nemo]

3. Those that "stand their ground and fight" in this aggression

are war criminals, period.

[DarkPhenyx]

5. So someone who stays int he US and stands their ground...

...fighting agains the Bush adminsitration and the war are "war criminals"? Wow. I learned something. :roll:

Do you even know what it takes to be a war criminal?

[Capt_Nemo]

11. sorry I didn't understand what you were saying

anyway, do you think they coud ever get real justice in th bushies'
america?

[DarkPhenyx]

18. They have a fairly even shot.

Even if they didn't it dosen't change the nature of their action.

[SquireJons]

15. You are way too harsh

I think I understand your point: that they should have stayed here and become conscientious objectors. Perhaps. But to label them cowards is in itself a cowardly act.

What brave things have you done to stand up to the misuse of the American military? If you're so damned cocksure of what these boys should do, why don't you sign up, then become a conscientious objector? Your moment in the national spotlight will not even exist.

This guy was just a boy when he signed up. I have an 18 year old nephew who signed up with the Marines while in high school because his football coach told him it was his patriotic duty. Now, as soon as he graduates, he will be forced to go to another country in an army of occupation, and possibly die or be maimed for what might be a painful life. Even if he is not wounded (1 in 10 chance) or killed (1 in 2000 chance) there is a very high chance of it affecting him psychologically for the rest of his life. I have a cousin who went to Vietnam and he was never right again when he got back. This is what these kids are up against. It's a tough choice to make for someone so young.

Now, let's look at the possibility of conscientious objector. Has the current administration shown any reluctance in manipulating the judicial system? No. Has this administration trumped up charges against anyone who has stood up to their policies? Yes. Once these kids sign on the dotted line, do they lose all rights, particularly the right to personal safety normally assigned to an American citizen? Yes. Are they likely to be imprisoned for their status as conscientious objector? Yes. Will they be beaten and abused while imprisoned? Yes (read accounts of other c.o.'s). Will they have any effect on the current war policy? No. Will the public be made aware of their concerns? No. Will their lives be ruined if they stay in the U.S. Yes. Do they stand a chance of having a livable life in Canada? Yes.

Do they worry about whether you think they are a coward? Probably not.

Maybe this is just an intelligence test.

[DarkPhenyx]

17. Instead of standing by their convictions they ran.

Not exactly a brave action, no? You are right, they probably don't care. Never said they did.

He may only be 18, but you do have to learn integrity some time.

[Vladimir]

24. Integrity???

If they had any more of it, they would be statues. These boys face the very real prospect of never seeing their families again, spending their lives in jail or worse, because they refused to participate in illegality. Frankly, I wish I had their courage.

V

[Dhalgren]

25. I agree with you 100%

We should be looking for ways to help these boys and any others who want to try and do the right thing - not make it harder on them by castigation. It's time we set up an "underground railroad" to help get these kids (male and female) out of this hellish nightmare. I no longer wish to discuss these issues with mindless chest-thumpers.

[DarkPhenyx]

26. It isn't courage, it's cowardice.

Yes, those are very real prospects. What was your point?

[Vladimir]

28. That it takes balls to face them?

tell you what, think back to when you were an 18 year old bloke. Now imagine taking a decision, purely on grounds of principle, to do something which:

1. In the short term means you can't see your family, your friends, your relatives and have to live in a foreign contry.

2. In the medium term means you face a lawsuit against the US government with all the odds stacked against you.

3. In the long term means you may spend the rest of your life in jail or worse

I put the last bit in bold because you don't seem to understand the gravity of this. How are these the actions of a coward? The logical conclusion of your reasoning is that all asylum seekers are cowards because they do not stay to fight dictatorship within their own country. Wanna sign up to that?

V

on edit: general inarticulacy

[Chicago Democrat]

87. I nominate this guy for a Nobel Peace Prize!

[Dhalgren]

31. In your opinion it may be cowardice.

But in my opinion you are wrong and showing a startlingly shallow perspective. You do not know these boys, you do not know their situation, you cannot possibly know whether their actions were cowardly or not. All you can do is give a tiny but clear window into your own soul - and it isn't worth the look.

[DarkPhenyx]

36. Are they here in the US fighting the good fight?

Are they with their units, or in a military prison, standing in protest to this war? nope. They ran away. It's pretty simple really.

[Dhalgren]

37. To denigrate someone who is unwilling to be martyred

for a cause is not only harsh, it is stupid or disingenuous. How many years in prison are you willing to serve "for the cause"? How come you're not already in orange there fella? I think that your harsh, insensitive, brutish, and unwarranted slurs on these young men are beneath you. You should take a long, hard look in the mirror before you call someone who is taking possitive action, and with great personal risk, a "coward".

[DarkPhenyx]

48. Funny thing about that.

I'm willing to die for the right cause. As far as jail time? Why is the length of time you serve important? Does it really make a difference? I don't think so.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion on my opinion. Their actions aren't positive. Unless you consider oathbreaking to be a laudable virtue.

[Dhalgren]

57. Breaking oaths with sleeze-balls

and murders is a positive move. And if you are so brave and fearless and without concern for your own and others well being - fine. It is just too bad that you have no ounce of compassion to go with that immence bravery

[DarkPhenyx]

62. So the oath he took to the United States...

...which is you and I BTW, was taken to a bunch of sleezeballs? Fascinating. Please! Tell me more about this new information.

[Dhalgren]

71. Oh, didn't you know?

The US is currently in an illegal occupation (by force) of a foreign country. Yes, that's right! And the US military is currently killing hundreds (if not thousands) of Iraqi civilians - yes! Many of them women and children, and the elderly, too. The US Military is systematically oppressing an entire population and destroying homes and whole families and cities with bombs, high velosity shells, and bulldosers. The US has also hired thousands of mercs - thugs for hire, killers, war-profiteers - to suppliment the US Army and Marines (evidently the US military just isn't quite "up" to the task, if you know what I mean.) So, to recap, the US military (but all of us, really) are currently the worst military criminals on the planet - of course there are some of those who are just like us who are giving us a good run for our money, murder-wise. There, I think that about catches you up.

[DarkPhenyx]

74. Nice sarcasm. Very cute.

Oh well, so much for anything even remotely resembling discussion.

[Dhalgren]

79. Oh, I see...When you have no valid defence of your

position, then you just say '"Oh sarcasm" I can't work with this!' Cut the bullshit! You have made numerous statements that you simply can't defend, so now you want to take some kind of "stance" that we won't discuss things the way you want! Go ahead. Run on home. That's a brave lad.

[DarkPhenyx]

80. Point out a statement I can't defend.

Thank you. :)

[Dhalgren]

82. O.k. I probably won't have the quotation right

(and, of course, that will mean that you can't address it), but - you seem to argue that it is somehow "better" to go and kill people for George Bush rather than leave the country as a deserter or, on the other hand, to go to prison for what is clearly an unjust reason. If so, you are going to hold all of these young people to an agreement that their leaders have openly breeched. How is that "right"?

[DarkPhenyx]

83. You are right.

You have the quote wrong. I have never said it was better to go and fight in Iraq. I have not, in any of my posts, said these two individuals should have stayed with their units, deployed to Iraq, and killed anyone.

[Dhalgren]

84. That's it?

You're just going to say "those aren't my exact words? Have you not been implying that these young men should have gone to prison rather than save their lves by leaving? What about the second part of my question? If this nations leaders have breeched their contracts, then these young men have no more abligation. This nation's judiciary is corrupt, and its military judiciary even more so, so leaving the country is the only realistic move for them.

[DarkPhenyx]

85. That's a different subject.

I did indeed say that they should have stayed here and risked jail. That is wholely different than saying that they should have gone to serve in Iraq.

As to the second part, you are wrong about the corruption, nad they are still obligated to remain here and stand up against the "unlawful orders", since they do have that right under UCMJ. Simply running away is a violation of that same UCMJ. The same UCMJ we all want to see Bush prosecuted under for his AWOL.

[Dhalgren]

88. I really don't care about his AWOL

except for the hypocracy factor. I want him impeached for his breech of contract and his numerous malfeasiance. That aside, your holier-than-thou attitude towards these young men seems rather "unfelt" to me. I think that you have other "issues" that you need to work out. These soul-tossed young men seem to be odd targets for your venom. We should be trying to help them, just like the underground railroad helped runaway slaves in the early ninteenth century. These are young people caught in the maw of a murder machine; we shouldn't be trying to throw them into prison, but trying to help them start their lives anew. You can be the BIG BAD MACHO WARRIOR IN THE ARMCHAIR - that's fine, if it helps you keep it stiff. But I'm through arguing with chest-thumpers - you are arguing for you, I just want to help get us out of this damned, illegal war. And if one young person can say "fuck this, I'm outta' here!" then that is one George won't get. And if George is deprived of enough of these youngsters then maybe, just maybe the war will end. Sure it's a dream, but one soul at a time...one soul at a time...

[DarkPhenyx]

89. So you don't feel that people...

...should face the consequences for the decisions they make? No personal responsibility needed? No integrity or anything like that eh? Damn, if I ever need to go in front of a jury I want you on it. I'll get off and proably get a reward in the process.

[SquireJons]

100. He's a conservative (republican?)

you can't argue with a sick mind...

[DarkPhenyx]

119. Who's a conservative?

Moi? Oh you really haven't been paying attention have you?

[SquireJons]

142. You are a conservative, DarkPhenyx

At least on this issue.

1)You are absolute in your pronouncements (an obvious trait of a conservative)

2)You are mean spirited, and display no empathy (an obvious trait of a conservative)

3)You don't question military justice (an obvious trait of a conservative)

4)You don't seem to care about the lives of these teenagers (an obvious trait of a conservative)

5)You believe that they will be treated fairly by the press (a new sign of a conservative)

6)You have so far avoided answering direct questions (see post 15).

You may have advocated a progressive stance on other topic, but in this thread, you have posted something like 60 times and never once considered what's best for these tow individuals. Also, out of 9 points I made about C.O. status, the only one you chose to answer was whether those boys cared if you thought they were cowards. So I know you read the post. Let's talk facts and avoid the slogans and name calling. Coward is a pugnacious label to throw around.

If not for your 1000+ posts, I might mistake you for a republican saboteur.

[SquireJons]

98. Uh, you've only made one... over and over

"They are cowards!!!! COWARDS - COWARDS - COWARDS I say..."

That about sums it up, from where I sit. You won't win any debates with logic like that. . If you want to discuss the merits of your argument, you could start with the multiple points I made earlier in the thread.

Your welcome.

[SquireJons]

97. I don't see your responses as a discussion

You just keep repeating the same one liners. Add something to your argument please. As far as I'm concerned, the whole damned army should desert over this monstrosity. They did not sign up for this, They signed up to protect the U.S., not to be mercenaries for Halliburton.

[DarkPhenyx]

112. Add something?

Like what? It's pretty straight forward really.

[Zhade]

101. Do you even understand the oath of service?

Non-officers swear to follow the orders of the president - in this case, a traitor to the Constitution and this county.

These men didn't break their oath - the traitors in the White House did, and these two brave souls thus have no further obligation to serve the "president" who has betrayed America.

I mean, it's simple logic, really. The b*sh cabal broke their oaths long before these guys rightfully took off, and the contract is therefore null and void.

[DarkPhenyx]

113. Yet again wrong.

Nice try though. You might get there yet, keep trying.

[Zhade]

124. You know, just because you state it's wrong, that doesn't mean it is.

Clearly, you're talking out of your ass, condemning these brave men for actions you're too cowardly to take.

[DarkPhenyx]

128. No, my saying it is dosen't make it wrong.

In this instance it is however. They are not brave, they are not heros, they are not anything at this moment except deserters and cowards.

[Zhade]

135. Still wrong.

And ignorance like yours definitely goes on ignore. I don't have time to argue with self-important armchair warriors.

[DarkPhenyx]

136. And this would be your biggest mistake.

I am not an armchair warrior. I am, however, self important. I'm also an asshole. Did you have a point you were trying to make?

[Zhade]

137. "My Posts" indicates a response to this message.

If it's from DarkPhenyx, I wasn't kidding - you're on ignore. This is the last time I will address you directly: I have no interest in listening to your from-the-sofa condemnation of these brave men.

You're on ignore. Deal with it.

[DarkPhenyx]

140. Yippie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm on a new ignore list!

Go Me! Go Me! Go Me! Go Me! Go Me! Go Me!

:beer: :party: :beer:

[Zhade]

99. "I'm willing to die for the right cause." Sure you are.

Your willingness to brand these brave men cowards really shows your commitment to integrity.

:eyes:

[DarkPhenyx]

115. You are right. It does.

I'm glad you finally recognized that. Can we move on now?

[Zhade]

125. Learn the definition of sarcasm. Your integrity isn't showing.

Your straw men, however, are.

[DarkPhenyx]

129. And as you can't come up with any decent defense of these men.

Prehaps you should abandon the field and conceed defeat.

[markses]

38. I disagree completely

You should read Tim O'Brien's great story "On the Rainy River," in his award winning collection The Things They Carried. O'Brien is, of course, a Vietnam Veteran - he won the National Book Award for Going After Cacciato, another story about an abandoned desertion and one of the finest pieces of literature to come out of the Vietnam War. One of his recurrent themes is the courage it takes to desert.

In "On the Rainy River," a recent college graduate is drafted, and he has to make the decision whether or not to go ahead to the induction center and then Vietnam, or desert to Canada (a prospect made geographically easier since he comes from Minnesota. In any case, he goes up to northern Minnesota and spends some time just before induction on the Canadian border with an old man who lives there. The prospect of leaving his home and family, probably for ever, is terrifying; the prospect of shaming his father and town is even more terrifying. Finally, he goes out fishing with the old man (who is well aware of why he is there), and the old man gives him the cue: they are on the border, all the young man has to do is cross over. As Kierkegaard says, the moment of decision is madness. He cannot do it - cannot bring himself to do it; he is not brave enough to leave. The story ends with the poignant lines:

"I was a coward. I went to the war."

Point being, seems to me, that the social structures that compell you to stay and fight or to go to war have their own coercive powers, and may be harder to resist than going along. I understand that you think these boys should have fought the law here, risked prison, etc. Yes, that would have been brave. But I think the bravery of leaving everything you love behind and entering into an outlaw status is often discounted. I disagree that this is an act of cowardice. I think most of us would succumb to the ordinary, the familiar, and the massive social force these exert. In any case, these should not be discounted so cavalierly, as you do, Dark.

"We want to destroy all the ridiculous monuments 'to those who have died for the fatherland' that stare down at us in every village, and in their place erect monuments to the deserters. The monuments to the deserters will represent also those who died in the war because every one of them died cursing the war and envying the happiness of the deserter. Resistance is born of desertion."
- Antifascist partisan, Venice, 1943.

[DarkPhenyx]

45. I'm not saying they should have gone off to war.

There is no point in this discussion where I have said that. But instead of stayng here and doing the right thing they ran off to hide. That would be my point.

[markses]

51. I can read. I already accounted for your point in my post

To wit:

I understand that you think these boys should have fought the law here, risked prison, etc. Yes, that would have been brave. But I think the bravery of leaving everything you love behind and entering into an outlaw status is often discounted. I disagree that this is an act of cowardice.

[DarkPhenyx]

52. Running away is always easier...

...than standing your ground, and it is rarely the most noble choice.

[markses]

70. A very nice aphorism

And thoroughly false in this case, and others like it.

The point is that you consider this action "running away," or a means of avoiding trouble, resistance, or danger, when it can also be seen as putting oneself in trouble, resistance, or danger with respect to the social structure. So, you have a fancy little a priori, but it is of little value.

[DarkPhenyx]

81. *laughing*

So you think it was easier to stand trial in the States than to run away and avoid the conflict all together. Fascinating world view.

[gate of the sun]

123. you are embodying my mother's stance

on the draft and her grandson's possibly going. I'm actually surprised by your stand. well to each their own but you won't find me agreeing with you.

[DarkPhenyx]

131. We haven't even touched on the draft yet.

That would be a completely different subject.

[gate of the sun]

138. I know but it was interesting the words you were using to attack this

boy's actions and he is a boy are exactly what my Mother said to me when I told her I'd get my boys out of the country should a draft be implemented.

[DarkPhenyx]

139. Except those being drafted...

...hadn't already volunteered to serve. Signed contracts. Taken oaths. That sort of thing.

[andy12]

144. It isn't courage, it's cowardice.

Is what you are suggesting your views are. I suspect that have signed up to fight the good fight, or do you have some form of excuse that would prevent you from doing so. Those who have the courage of their convictions should be lauded, those who would slam them in a forum as this one are the true cowards. Look in the mirror sunshine as you might not be pleased with what you see.

[Mithras61]

27. Actually, if you read the whole story...

not just what's in this article, one of them attempted C.O. status before, and was turned down flat because he admitted he would fight back if someone was trying to kill him (not exactly an ideal or objective test, huh?). He claimed that he was told that he would not be allowed to seek non-combatant duties as he was allowed to on a previous deployment. He followed the rules, and was told F@#$% YOU!, so he is seeking asylum. Doesn't exactly seem like a coward to me.

The other one I don't know much about, but as I understand it, he signed up based on promises (yeah, I know... get it in writing) that he wouldn't be deployed and that the military would funds his college education. As I understand it, he comes from a pretty poor background, and this looked to him like one of only a couple of choices to have a decent life. Now the unit he's been assigned to is being deployed and his Commanding Officer won't even accept C.O. paperwork, so he went over the hill. When told that missing a troop movement was desertion and that he would likely be prosecuted and jailed, he sought refugee status in CA. Again, not exactly like you'd like to think things are done.

[DarkPhenyx]

29. And when he didn't get his request...

...and things didn't go his way he decided to run and not fulfill his obligations. That's called disertion. I had already read about his case. I said the same thing back then too.

[Mithras61]

30. Okay, so they deserted...

from an illegal war, an illegal deployment and officers who weren't willing to consider his application for C.O. status because he wouldn't just stand and die. I may question their methods, but not their courage. They have taken a stand on priciples saying that they WILL NOT fight Shrub's war for oil, even if it means jail or worse.

As a veteran, I can tell you that the expectation of war set forth for these boys was minimized by anyone they talked to before they signed (my 'cruiter told me it simply couldn't happen... of course, it did). Also, a contract that requires you to perform illegal actions cannot be enforced, so they haven't failed to fulfill their obligations under international law.

It seems that the question of illegality in this country hasn't even begun to be addressed yet, but think about this for a minute... CONGRESS has not declared war, and they are the only ones who CAN do so. They authorized Shrub to go back to the UN and seek consensus and to build a coalition to go and take away SH's weapons of mass destruction, and to use force if it was necessary. Check the resolution. There's no declaration of war. The 90 days of deployment to a combat zone without Congressional declaration allowed under current law expired long ago. Last time I checked, SH didn't HAVE any WMDs, so why are we there? Congress didn't authorize a deployment to take out SH or for regime change in Iraq, or to kill civillians, or any of the crap that our boys are being required to do in what appears from the outside to be a war for oil.

It looks to me like these boys may have made the correct choice.

[DarkPhenyx]

35. The correct choise was...

...to stay here, refuse to serve, call the war illegal and the order to serve illegal, and do it in a way that gained positive press. Instead they ran away. They are hiding in a foreign country, and not serving up to their obligations. Deserters and cowards. It's pretty simple.

[Mithras61]

44. In your opinion, those are the correct choices, but...

how do you do that when you can't get the press to cover it and are put into a combat situation without regard to your objections to the war?

You keep saying the same things, but not offering any ideas...

How do you "refuse to serve" without going AWOL/deserting, and how do you "call the war illegal and the order illegal" without following orders anyway (the UCMJ is pretty clear that you follow the order and fight the legality later).

I'm not trying to get into a fight over this, but I'd like to know how they should do what you say?

[DarkPhenyx]

47. Very easily.

Stand in front of your CO and tell him very clearly that you refuse to serve in Iraq. That is how you start.

[Mithras61]

49. Okay, so now you're in the brig..

What's next?

How do you get press coverage? You aren't entitled even to a phone call from there. You MIGHT be able to get out a letter, but you may not. You probably won't have anyone who knows you've been arrested other than JAG, the MPs and your CO, and they aren't gonna tell...

Your lawyer? That's the 2LT assigned by JAG who's never won a case, or even defended one before in some cases. You don't get a civilian lawyer, because you don't have anyone who knows you're in the brig.

Lookout Gitmo... Here I come!

[DarkPhenyx]

50. Unbelieveably simplistic...

...and uninformed view there. That's cool, not surprising considering.

[Mithras61]

55. Uninformed? Really? I spent 6 years on active duty in the Army...

a couple decades ago. At the time, my brother was in the Navy> We heard pretty regularly from him until he was arrested for possesion of pot. He was arrested, tried, convicted and served his time before any of us learned he'd even been accused. We couldn't get any info on him from his CO, from the Base Commander, from any of his crew (most of them didn't know what happened. The few that did were arrested with him). When we finally found out was after he'd been discharged and he finally contacted us... about 5 years after the initial arrest. What's YOUR experience with Military "Justice"? Do you think that they would do anything less for someone who told his CO where to stick his Iraq orders?

[DarkPhenyx]

60. Then you should know better.

My experience with MJ, while not as personal as yours, is a tad more extensive. As is my experience with the military personnel system, the alternatives to going AWOL which are available to soldiers, et. al. My experience is also more recent.

[Mithras61]

64. I should know better how?

My experiences support my previous posts. Your experience may be more recent, but you haven't actually provided useful suggestions on what they should do.

You know as well as I that refusing ANY order is grounds for arrest and imprisonment in the brig. UCMJ made it clear (at least when I was in) that you ALWAYS follow an order, even an illegal one (which this is unlikely to be declared), and protest it afterwards through proper channels. In fact, the My Lai question was brought up in our training in Basic, and we were told that Calley shouldn't have given the order he did, but the people under him were required to carry it out anyway and file appropriate reports through their chain of command afterwards.

So after they refuse the order and are locked up, then what? What's next?

[DarkPhenyx]

66. Actually I did provide a useful alternative.

When I did the individual responding show a complete lack of interest in a constructive discussion on it, so I quit. :shrug:

Once you are locked up you begin the process of getting your story out. You are an American citizen and entitled to all the rights of an American citizen. At the very least you can start a Congressional Inquiry. Your family/friends begins the media campaign from the outside. After you see which way the winds are blowing you will have to make other decisions as things progress. Take an example from the refusniks in Isreal.

[Mithras61]

68. Again I ask you "How?"

How are you supposed to get your story out if your aren't allowed contact with anyone outside of the military that's holding you? You are stretching things when you say that you have all the rights of an American citizen, because you know as well as I that you give up a great many rights when you sign on the dotted line, but even so, you don't have the right to talk to the press or to have visitors, and how do you get the story out when no one knows where you are?

When you answer, please keep in mind that the military under * is holding a great many people, and has refused to give out even lists of names.

[DarkPhenyx]

76. Gee...maybe tell someone before you get locked up? n/t

[Dhalgren]

78. His response to your valid question makes me

wonder just how "familiar" this poster is with military "justice" or the military, at all. Once you get arrested and place in confinement you "get your story out"? WTF? A prisoner in US Army custody cannot get anything "out", much less a "story" Good luck getting anything in response besides snideness or petulance.

[Zhade]

104. What a naive view.

You think, in a country where we have U.S. citizens illegally locked up with no charges against them, that desertion cases based on the illegality of this invasion and occupation are going to come to light?

If so, then why are we reading this in the Guardian, and not the New York Times?

[DarkPhenyx]

111. Somehow I don't see naive being something many would call me.

Of course you are basing this opinion an absolutely no information about me, so I'm not surprised you got it wrong.

In case you missed it what I am advocating isn't desertion. It is also worth pointing out that the first soldier was covered in papers other than the Guardian.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[DarkPhenyx]

132. Actually I am neither.

Apaprently, though, you believe people holding a difference of opinoin must be. Are you Rush Limbaugh?

[SquireJons]

105. Please inform us then

Oh wise sage...

I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you speak.

[DarkPhenyx]

114. Too bad.

had you asked nicely, w/o being insulting, you might have gotten an answer. Oh, well.

[SquireJons]

143. Lame

You can come up with a better avoidance than that. I'm sure of it.

[SquireJons]

145. A Respectful Question Then

Whom do you consider bigger cowards? The men and women who disagree with the war and what they may be forced to do but go anyways, or someone who runs from the fight in order to avoid being forced to do something that they think is wrong? I know that you advocate a different position to take, but what about this one? Even if only 10% of the troops involved in Iraq harbor uncertainties about the morality of their participation, that would be over 15,000 people (cowards?).

Keep in mind that by these boys actions, we are reading about their objections to the war. IF there are any C.O's in this war, which I doubt because they deny the status to anyone, we sure haven't heard anything about their cause. Or is this supposed to be some silent suffering thing, for the purification of the soul? I'm serious here, not trying to be sarcastic.

[Zhade]

102. What part of "they already tried and it didn't work" don't you understand?

NT!

[DarkPhenyx]

116. The part where they ran off...

...like scared bunnies.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

32. And there it is...

I KNEW you weren't complaining about them not staying in the US to "fight against Bush"! It is now clear that your problem is that they didn't go and join in on a war crime even though they were "obligated" to.

They ARE fulfilling their obligation of refusing an illegal order!

I tell you what, why don't you go sign up and fulfil their obligation for them? They could use you in Falluja, I hear...

[DarkPhenyx]

34. No, they ran away and shirked their duty...

...to refuse that order. They did not have the conviction of their beliefs to stand their ground and say "I will not serve". They refused to accept the results of their actions. Than ran away to hide.

For your information I am currently serving in the U.S. Army Reserve. Thank you very much. I would appreciate you not dispariging my position based on a complete absense of evidence on my character. That would make your arguments way too freeperish.

[SquireJons]

103. So... What would you do, DP?

Please be more specific than 'stay and fight.'

You might as well just say "I'd stay to get f#ck in the @ss."

How, exactly - and please be specific - would staying have been doing the right thing? How would it help the country? How would it have done any good at all?

As for oaths, there must be honesty from both sides for the oath to mean anything. The men and women in the military have been deceived, and they are paying the highest price for it. Men and women pledge an oath to each other when they get married. But if you find that you spouse is screwing half the town, are you still bound by your oath?

[DarkPhenyx]

117. Why do you insist on binding your personal honor...

...to that of others?

[cocoabeach]

7. the 100,000 military that are in Iraq

are war criminals equal to those in Bosnia or WW2? Pretty harsh comparison.

[Capt_Nemo]

10. Yes!

they are part of an agressor army.

[cocoabeach]

4. I agree

They voluntarily signed up for the military for the benefits that it offers and when they are called to fight, they scamper off to Canada. They should be prosecuted for desertion to the fullest extent of the law.

[DarkPhenyx]

6. I disagree with fullest extent.

Death is a bit harsh in my opinion, however that is a very real threat for these two men. However if they really have the strength of their convictions they should have fought it out here not ran like scared bunnies.

[leanings]

19. I don't think the death penalty is a realistic scenario.

They'll probably get a couple-five years in prison. But they are cowards. They took an oath, and if they feel strongly enough about their orders to desert then they should have the integrity and conviction to stand up and be heard. And, if necessary, to go to jail.

[DarkPhenyx]

22. I agree it isn't likely...

...however it is an option. Had they done something similar while in country I think death would be a more likely punishment option. Even then it isn't all that likely. Unless their actions resulted in the deaths of fellow soldiers.

[Zhade]

107. Um, they'd have to desert before they'd go to jail.

So your argument defeats itself.

[Zhade]

106. So easy to criticize from your armchair, eh?

Tell me, if death is "a very real threat", how again is their decision to flee an unjust country (America) to avoid fighting in an illegal war cowardice?

Would you apply the same broad brush to Germans who deserted the Nazi army?

[DarkPhenyx]

118. In fact I would.

To do otherwise would be hypocrasy. I don't like hypocrasy.

I would also point out, before you try and make an issue of it, that there is a world of difference between desertion and surrender.

[bahrbearian]

9. For having to fight an illegal war , I'd love to be able to move to

Canada. If Chimpy told you to jump off a bridge....

[leftchick]

13. I think the aWol* chimp in the WH...

Should be prosecuted for deserting his Alambama ANG unit.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

16. They voluntarily signed up to serve in the military to fight...

...America's enemies, both foreign and domestic. That much is true.

But, they also signed up with the understanding that:

1. they would only have to fight as a last resort, not as a first or preemptive resort;

2. their commanders would issue lawful orders based on sound foreign policy from a legally elected government; and...

3. the wars in which they fought would not be based on reasons which have all been exposed for the lies that they were.

You're wanting to prosecute the wrong people, IMHO. When do we prosecute Junior for his AWOL/deserter status during the Vietnam War?

[DarkPhenyx]

20. You are wrong on one points.

1. There is nothing in your contract about pre-emptive attacks. Nor anything about "last resort".

#3 is an acceptable assumption, but it dosen't negate the nature of the actions of these soldiers.

#2 is accurate, for the most part. The UCMJ does deal with lawful orders. It does not deal with soundness of judgement in your elected officials however.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. Just curious, but have you ever served in the military?

[DarkPhenyx]

46. I am serving currently.

Did my time on active duty. Am now in the Reserves.

[Dhalgren]

33. So, Cocoa, why aren't you in Iraq, doing your duty?

Sorry, silly question. You are serving your country sitting, staring into a computer, passing judgement on young people who actually are taking action. My bad.

[Vladimir]

23. Total rubbish

this is the only way they are going to get a fair trial, since this administration has shown itself totaly unable to grasp the basics tennents of the rule of law. Moreover, not wanting to participate in an illegal invasion is a fully justified action under any convention you care to name.

V

[DarkPhenyx]

53. How sadly mistaken you are.

Too bad really. I hate when my side proves itself to hold opinions no better than the opposition. Horribly sad.

[Vladimir]

56. I know how you feel nt

[DarkPhenyx]

59. Well, when you are ready to learn about this...

...let me know. I'd be happy to inform you about how it actually works, from an insiders perspective. Always happy to help educate people when they are willing to learn.

[Vladimir]

61. My family served

parents, grandparents, all the way down the line. I know perfectly well how it works in the army, and I know all about honour, pride, oaths and similar. In my opinion, it is ten times better to renege on an oath than to comitt a crime for it.

V

[DarkPhenyx]

63. And these two men did both.

So I would assume, based on your own words, that this makes them even worse in your eyes.

[Vladimir]

65. Under international law

if they believed the war illegal, they were obliged not to serve. Technically they comitted the criome of desertion, but a fair trial would see them acquitted. That they do not trust the US to provide a fair trial is hardly something you can blame them for, IMO.

V

[DarkPhenyx]

67. I only blame them for desertion.

So again I ask...since both men broke their oath, and the law, they are worse in your eyes, correct?

[Vladimir]

69. Nope

they would have been comitting a far greater crime by fighting in Iraq. As a reduction ad absurdum, robbery is better than murder if you must do one of the two.

I have read your arguments about what they should have done, and I still put it to you that post 2000 election, post Gitmo, post 9/11, you cannot work on the premise of getting a fair trial within the US.

V

[DarkPhenyx]

77. Then you have no concept of reality...

...and really shouldn't be discussing this till you figure it out.

[Dhalgren]

86. So, when your Reserve unit is called up

will you go kill people for George Bush or go to prison? Just curious, that seems to be the options you are leaving for everyone else.

[DarkPhenyx]

90. I haven't decided.

:shrug: I'll make the choice when I need to. The probability is leaning toward prison though.

I'm also considering a branch change to Chaplain Corps.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

94. Now there's moral courage for you!

I mean, you're seriously considering particpating in a war crime, and you call these two guys cowards?

[DarkPhenyx]

95. No...

...not participating in a war crime.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

126. Yes...

The question:

So, when your Reserve unit is called up will you go kill people for George Bush or go to prison?

The answer:

I haven't decided.

That means you are NOT ruling out going to Iraq and participating in a war crime. You DO know that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war crime, don't you?

[DarkPhenyx]

134. No, I am ruling out participating in a war crime.

You use black and white thinking don't you. Amazing. How do you survive?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

148. So you are suggesting theat the illegal invasion of Iraq

on trumped up charges of WMD is NOT a war crime?

If so, I am sure the Nazis would have loved you, seeing as how of all the crimes they commited during the war, actually STARTING it was considered the worst because the war contained all of the other atrocities within it.

It's NOT black and white thinking to say the US commited and is commiting a war crime in Iraq, it is black and white thinking to accuse anyone who refuses to participate in such war crimes a coward.

How do YOU survive?

[DarkPhenyx]

149. Do you even know what a war crime is?

It dosen't sound like it.

[daleo]

58. I think they are showing great moral courage

It is not easy to leave your home, possibly never being allowed to return without being arrested. If there was no amnesty, this could be a lifetime ban from family and friends. I think people who do this, to avoid an immoral war, are showing great moral courage. In many ways it would be easier to just go along, and hope you survive the war, to return to family and friends. I don't expect everyone would agree with that assessment, and I might not agree if the present war was in any way just (although there is also a strong case for general pacifism on moral grounds).

[DarkPhenyx]

91. By joining the military...

...they kinda lose the pacifism moral ground.

As to their moral courage I find it lacking in them. It would be a greater show of moral courage to stand your ground, live up to the obligations you signed to, and refuse to serve because you believe the order to do so is immoral or illegal.

[daleo]

93. We agree to disagree

Either way they are showing opposition to what they (and I) consider an illegal war, and paying a heavy price (jail if they stay in the U.S., exile if they are accepted by Canada). One way they go quietly into jail, the other way they make the war into an international issue. Arguably, the latter action will do the anti-war cause more good.

I know their cause would be more black and white if they were draftees, but I suppose I subscribe to the 'poverty draft' theory in this case.

I know it is probably non-sequitor, but I recall in my reading that the ancient Greeks generally considered exile to be a very severe form of punishment.

[DarkPhenyx]

96. You are assuming they have to go quietly.

I'm saying they should go loudly.

[daleo]

122. I suppose I had assumed that the media and military wouldn't allow that

Perhaps they could create a sort of cause celebre around the issue, but it seems more likely to me that the military would keep the whole thing out of the limelight and the corporate media would cooperate by burying the story if they claimed conscientious objector status and went to trial.

One trouble they will probably have is that our current P.M., Paul Martin, may be unwilling to stand up to the Bush administration the way that Jean Chretien did. So it is very possible that their application for refugee status will be denied, and they will face combat or jail anyway.

[DarkPhenyx]

130. There are ways around both the military and the American media.

I agree that they are likely to fail in their bid for assylum. Even under Chertien, though, Canada had pretty much said they wouldn't be taking Americna refugees.

[daleo]

146. It is true that Chretien seemed to be wavering as well

However Chretien had the examples of Trudeau and Pearson to support him (he worked closely with Trudeau for decades), so he may well have emulated them if there was another generation of American "draft dodgers", or conscientious objectors. It was a testament to the characters of Pearson and Trudeau that they kept Canada out of the mistake that was Viet Nam, and provided refuge for Americans who saw it that way as well. I can only imagine the pressure they were under by consecutive U.S. administrations to join the war effort and to refuse sanctuary to Americans fleeing the war.

I would hope Canada would be willing and able to provide that role once more if a draft is instituted in the U.S. to fill the army for Iraq. However, Paul Martin does not encourage a great deal of faith in this regard - I would estimate the chances at 50:50 at best.

I feel that Canada benefited greatly from the immigration of 60,000 anti-war Americans in the 1960's, but I hope that things don't develop such that another 50,000 to 100,000 have to be uprooted in the same way. And I certainly hope that Canada doesn't choose to join the U.S. in these imperialistic adventures, as I have a 20 year old son whom I would not want to see sent off to an unnecessary war.

[atreides1]

92. My Opinion

They're just as brave as the men that go to Iraq. Do you have any idea what kind of courage it takes to leave your home, your country,
to leave your family behind. These two men believe that this war is wrong, and their convictions are as justified as that of any soldier
that decides to go to Iraq.

The real cowards are those little college Repukes, who keep bragging how they support the war, and that Bush is doing such a great job. Yet they seem to be able to avoid walking into any recruiting offices,
all that seems to be important to these jerks is to have bake sales, and not charge blacks the same price for cookies, to prove a point.

In my opinion these are the cowards, the fence sitters, those who don't have the courage to actually back up the rhetoric. The future
Dick Cheney's, who had other priorities, more important then serving their country.

[Carolina]

109. Hughey was a kid looking for education

and signed up at 17. Do you realize or remember how YOUNG that is?! As the mother of a 20 year old, I can tell you that 17 is a just a kid, NOT A COWARDLY MAN.

Hinzman, I believe, is older and sought conscientious objector status without success. I would consider walking in his shoes before calling him a coward since leaving behind -- perhaps forever -- your homeland, family and everything that is comfortable, familiar and at least at one time secure is no easy thing to do.

The dastardly coward is Bush.

[Nlighten1]

133. Wrong.

It is a soldier's duty to disobey an unlawful order.

[Just Me]

141. You make me cry,...

,...by your chill to human experience. YOu act like we all have control over everything,....and excuse all that over which we have no control with a breath and a smile. WTF is the matter with you?

[saigon68]

8. War -------what is it good for?

An unidentified injured US soldier is carried on a stretcher into an ambulance on the U.S. Airbase of Ramstein, southern Germany, Wednesday, April 14, 2004. About 25 US soldiers of which some were injured in combat in Iraq (news - web sites) were flown on a C 141 out of Balad in Iraq to get medical treatment in the nearby US hospital in Landstuhl. (AP Photo/Michael Probst)

[Qanisqineq]

12. Exactly

Re: your subject line

[Mari333]

14. They are kids. Good for them. Lets hope other kid do the same thing.

I wish Michael would have done that, and we tried to talk him into it.
Its pretty easy to make off the cuff remarks about life and death scenarios when your loved one isnt in them.
http://www.bringthemhomenow.com

[Zhade]

110. Pretty cowardly to make such remarks, too, in my opinion.

I expected more from DP.

[Dhalgren]

21. I can't believe this bunch of 'online' heros!

These young men have taken a huge step. You think it doesn't take courage to uproot your life, face the kind of crap being slung on this "liberal" board, have their whole lives turned upside down? Some of you people make me sick! If this war is illgegal, then anything a person does to not participate is the right thing. No military person is obligated to break the law. There is no justice in the Imperial US, so these guys took off and were smart to do it. Anybody here who thinks they have a corner on balls is full of shit. Go stand in those boys shoes for a while before you start spouting stupid shit.

[markses]

39. Amen, brother

The endless spouting from some corners is normal, and normally ridiculous.

[Domitan]

40. Good for them

My doors are open to those who resist serving in an unjust war.

[Dhalgren]

43. I think a lot of us are going to have to

"open our doors" and empty our pocketbooks for any young person who is trying to do the right thing and get away from the clutches of this evil, murdering government. We have to protect our children in any way we can.

Welcome to DU. We need you here.

[saigon68]

54. Welcome to DU

We do need you here !!!!!

The real fight will begin in Amerika when the Draft starts.

That is when the BLOOD will flow in the Streets.

People will have to be committed to more, than "Just Resisting"

[Aristus]

41. When I was in Army Basic Training, we had a day-long course on the

Geneva Convention and US military law. I think it was a way of preventing future My Lai massacres. We were told in no uncertain terms that if we were issued an unlawful or illegal order, we were legally, ethically and honor-bound to disobey it. They were very clear on that. These guys were just acting according to their training. This war is illegal, and even if it wasn't, illegal orders are being given every day; Entering the homes of innocent civilians, disrupting the daily lives of the occupied population, and of course, ordering the bombing and shooting of innocent men, women and children.
My heart goes out to the poor troopers who believe they have to obey these orders, but my admiration is for the patriots who refuse to bloody their hands or participate in the sullying of their nation's reputation. They are doing the right thing, legally, morally, and ethically.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

72. Unelected 'prez', unconstitutional and illegal war= no complicity in crime

Since the military oath is to 'defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic,' the logical choice for our troops is to oust the Bush*/Cheney hijackers of the White House, right?

There is NO CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID CHAIN OF COMMAND. That makes the troops who are overseas unaffiliated private combatants. And we know what those folks are called. They just don't KNOW that they are mercenaries in a private army stealing resources for neocons.

These two BOYS are upholding their both their oath to service to the country AND to the most basic human values against MASS MURDER.

[Dhalgren]

73. Good point! No legal CoC!

[DarkPhenyx]

121. Actually they didn't listen to training.

They deserted their post. Your training does not teach you to do that.

[DrWeird]

75. Give 'em medals.

They deserve it.

[DarkPhenyx]

120. Send 'em to jail.

That's where criminals should go.

[Hekate]

127. Recruitment of high school kids should be banned

Military recruiters have access to high school campuses just about whenever they want, especially during "Career Days." In addition, ROTC is explicitly a recruitment tool (per their own handbook).

As if that were not enough, there is a provision in the No Child Left Behind Act that requires high school administrators to send boys'contact info to the DOD. This is in the fine print, so to speak --
buried even more deeply is the proviso that parents and/or students may opt-out of having this info sent off, and that they have to do so in writing every year.

Boys are already required to register at the age of 18 -- is there any sane reason why the military needs to go trolling in the high schools? Adolescents are very naive, idealistic, and impressionable -- perhaps as they mature they begin to look more skeptically at what the military is offering them.

Counter-recruitment activities (i.e. "truth in advertising") are seldom if ever allowed. In our district we found out that IF someone is invited to a social studies class by the teacher, they can then come on campus to discuss their opposition to recruitment/this war/all wars, etc. They are not allowed otherwise.

Locally, the Veterans for Peace and the Conscientious Objectors and Supporters formed a joint task force to explore counter-recruitment activities. They were already active separately in other arenas, but came together to address the school board about notifying parents of their right to opt-out (the board did so and got a couple of hundred responses from parents), and to explore other avenues.

I think those young men are in for a difficult life, and I don't know if Canada is a safe haven anymore. I wish them luck. There were a few military in Gulf War I who became COs when they realized what a crock that war was, and they suffered greatly for their courage...

Hekate

ARLINGTON WEST, SANTA BARBARA CALIF.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Default.htm
click on the large photo of AW to go here and scroll down:
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Arlington_west_121003.htm

[freeforall]

147. I say, "Welcome to Canada boys!"

Good for them! They're young, and they have the right to make the decision to stay out of * illegal war.

For all the complainers - why aren't you over there?