Us Soldiers Defect to Canada

Great Debates
21

Also, they didn’t say what orders they received were unjust. They believe the war in general is unjust, but that’s a very different thing. I had my problems with the policy the U.S. was persuing in the former Yugoslavia in the 90’s, when I was directly supporting sanctions there as an enlisted sailor. I wasn’t free to criticize.

And the little twerp who wanted to serve in Afghanistan in a noncombatant role misses the point a bit, doesn’t he? All soldiers are, by definition, combatants. Even if they just push pieces of paper across desks, they’re assisting combat operations.

I have little sympathy for either one. I hope Canada ships them back, so they can spend some time in Leavenworth.

Mr. Moto. U.S. Navy enlisted, 1993-1998.

22

Dodging the draft and desrting are very different things. There is no draft now but to be extradited from Canada a suspect must be accused of an act which is a crime in Canada and, since there is no draft in Canada, one cannot be extradited for dodging the draft.

But these two have deserted which is a recognized crime in Canada and so I would expect they will be handed over in short time. They may delay it with legal technicalities about being sent to a country where they may be subjected to the death penalty but I do not think anyone seriously thinks they would be executed and, in any case, all the USA has to do is affirm they will not be subject to the death penalty. I expect them to be back soon.

I think more than right or wrong it is a matter of degree of foolishness and stupidity but, lets face it, most 17 year olds do not have the maturity to make important decisions without making serious mistakes. Most men in their late teens have made some pretty serious mistakes and these are no exception.

23

A conscientious objector is another kind of fish entirely. I know the exact implication of being one only in the french legal system, but some threads here made me think that it’s not that much different in the american system.

A conscientious objector would object to be involved in any kind of war, or at least in any king of military activity involving killing people. But someone could object only to a particular war, or a particular way of fighting a war, because he thinks that this specific war or specifi orders he received are unthetical (even if they aren’t illegal). A such example would be the Israelis “refuzniks” who don’t mind belonging to Tsahal or fighting, but disagree with the specific missions they’re given.

Though I understand someone could enlist, then change his mind, and become a conscientious objector, it couldn’t do so on the basis that he’s opposed on ethical ground to the particular war he’s involved in, or to a specific (not illegal) order.
When enlisting, indeed, someone accepts to fight in any conflict his country might be engaged in, and to obey any (not illegal) orders he will be given. This potential soldier might (and IMO should) think twice and realize that the cause he will fight for won’t necessarily be just, that the orders he will receive won’t necessarily be in agreement with his own morals. I assume most don’t (or else, they likely wouldn’t enlist at the first place). But I think most who enlist (at least in a democratic countries) do so with the assumption that such a thing won’t happen.
I doubt any oath include words like “I swear to fight even for morally abhorent causes, and to obey orders I morally deeply dissaprove as long as they’re legal”. They’re much more likely to involve statements about defending your country or such things. So, one can suddenly find himself at odds with his morals, and in good faith (once again, the “refuzniks” example is a good one).
Besides, a soldier’s job is basically to kill (or, if he’s lucky, only to destroy stuff) or to support other people doing the actual kiling. What he puts on the table is his own life. Deciding to kill (or to be accomplice in the killing) someone else or not is morally a much more serious decision than deciding to break an oath or not. And one’s own life has, once again, much more value than any oath, especially if youn regret having ever pronounced such an oath. So, choosing between killing someone without any good moral reason to do so (which is, moraly a murder) and breaking an oath is IMO a no-brainer : the oath should fly out the window.
As for the duty towards your country, such a thing exists only as long as the explicit and implicit moral contract between you and your “country” (the human community you happen to belong to would be a more appropriate definition) isn’t broken. You’ve a duty to pay your taxes as long as the governement actually repair roads or run schools. You’ve a duty to fight for your country as long as your country is in the right. When it is in the wrong, your duty is to fight against your country, not for it. Or at least abstain from doing the latter, depending on the circumstances.

24

If you really believe that, I suggest you go read Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. One has a duty to one’s country at the very least because the existance of that country keeps one from being in a state of anarchy and having a life that is “nasty, brutish, and short.”

25

Clairobscur, just so you know, this is the oath taken by the soldiers in question:

"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. So help me God."

(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

From this oath, we get two things. First of all, there is no obligation to a servicemember to follow an illegal order. The defense used by concentration camp guards, “I was just following orders,” would be no defense in a military court martial in the United States.

The second thing is that if the order itself is legal, the servicemember is obligated to follow it, immediately and to the letter. Failure to do so is a crime punishable by court martial. This is easy to understand - a battlefield or ship in peril is a lousy place for a political debate.

These service members are in violation of their oath, likely sworn before God. They are also in violation of numerous articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

They are, quite simply, wrong for what they did. If they couldn’t be soldiers anymore, they could have been released in a more honorable fashion than this. By pursuing this route, I cannot help but question their courage, their honor, their commitment to their comrades left in their unit. I cannot help but question their respect for their own country, since they fled to another land. Their actions call me to question all of this about them, and justifiably so.

26

They were wrong for doing what they did. They volunteered to serve and protect the US, to go where the US told them to go and fight the enemies the US told them to fight. If they did not want to do this, they shouldn’t have volunteered to serve in the military. Once they got in, if they felt (for moral or ethical reasons) that they could not kill, they should have applied for non-combat positions or to become conscientious objectors. Failing that they should have taken their chances with a courts martial and served out their time (I seriously doubt they would have had too).

The war (from the troops perspective) was NOT illegal guys. It was authorized by Congress. I know this is getting a lot of your panties in a bunch, but the legalistic hair splitting that many of you are using to call the war ‘illegal’ just doesn’t cut it in real life. From the perspective of a US serviceman/woman the war was completely, 100%, grade A legal. All the I’s were dotted and the T’s were crossed from the US’s perspective. You can (and have in countless other threads) wrangle about the ‘legality’ of the US’s actions, but the bottom line is, from the troops perspective, the orders given them were legal and binding.

What these guys did was cowardly and weak and I hope the Canadians are happy with them…good riddens I say. It was cowardly, not just because they ran out on their fellow troopers, but because they didn’t stand up openly and become conscientious objectors and take responsibility for their actions (something that I could have at least respected even if I disagreed with it), but chose to run away and hide instead. I have nothing but contempt for such as they.

-XT

27

Assuming the U.S. bothers to ask, they’ll get their hearing, lose, and be quickly extradited. Desertion is a criminal offense in Canada.

If they wanted to refuse to serve, the right and proper thing to do would be to refuse and fight it before a court martial and/or go to jail for it. Dodging the draft is one thing; I can see that being a moral and ethical act. Signing up and then refusing to obey an order you consider illegal or immoral is fine too, if you accept the consequences. But signing up, then running away, is simply cowardly.

Furthermore, based on the article linked to in the OP, the soldiers in question had not actually been given a specific order that could be construed as illegal or immoral. they had been asked to deploy to Iraq. There’s nothing illegal or immoral about going to Iraq. “Private, go shoot those children” is an illegal order. “Prviate, pack your shit and go to Iraq” is not.

And the “Well, we can’t be deported if we might get executed” canard won’t fly. The U.S. Army will simply assure Canada that they’ll just get a nice long prison stay, and they’ll be off to Leavenworth.

28

First, I’m pretty sure in the US, CO status is only available if you oppose ALL war. If you believe there is such a thing as a just war, you’re not eligible for CO status, even if otherwise you’ll end up fighting in a war you consider morally abhorrent.

Second, I’m not sure anyone here is arguing that the war is illegal, or indeed that what these guys did was remotely legal. I freely acknowledge their actions were illegal; I simply think that they may have been both illegal and ethical, whereas continuing to fight would have been legal and unethical.

I believe, incidentally, it is legal and unethical for all US soldiers to continue fighting at this point. Whether an individual soldier considers a war to be just has no bearing on whether the war is actually just; I believe this is an unjust war, and to the extent that an individual soldier disagrees, she is incorrect. (Of course, I may be incorrect in my assessment, too, but I believe this a matter for debate, not a matter of opinion).

John, if you truly believe in Hobbes’s definition of stateless life, may I refer you to Kant’s critique of Hobbes? or shall we debate with our own words instead of with appeals to authority?

Daniel

29 
Ok... lets get some definitions:

What is a Consceintios Objector legally speaking in the US ?
Isn’t it silly to enlist and then claim CO status ? Can a CO continue in the army or becoming a CO means asking for discharge ?

What about enlisting in the Army … can you ask to finish your contract earlier ?

30

According to the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (a US-based Quaker organization),

Given that enlisting in the army means you might fight in a war, it’d be pretty damn stupid for a CO to enlist. It is possible, of course, for someone to have an epiphany during their service leading to CO status, but I’ve never heard of the government recognizing such a claim as legitimate.

Daniel

31

States the one appealing to Kurt Vonnegut. :slight_smile:

I am unfamiliar with Kant’s critique. Where might I read such?

32

I can understand the 25 year old if he has been sometime in the army. He tought the USA was fighting the good wars… and now he doesn’t want to serve as a colonial soldier. The younger guy is stupid.

33

Actually, it looks like I spoke too soon:

A very interesting site, and definitely one that these guys should have read! The one who said he’d still fight in Afghanistan is SOL, of course, but others ought to read up on CO status for folks currently in the military.

Daniel

34

C’mon, now you’re playing games. You know I wasn’t telling everyone they had to read Cat’s Cradle in order to understand the dangers of nationalism; you know that I was just beginning my post with a cute quote. Please tell me you know that.

As for where to read Kant’s Critique of Hobbes, you could start by reading Theory and Practice by Kant, or you could read Kant’s Critique of Hobbes, an analysis of the difference between the two. However, I confess that I was making a rhetorical point, inasmuch as I’ve not read Kant or Hobbes (having focused more on economic philosophy in my readings of the classics); I simply don’t think it’s worthwhile to argue through appeals to authority like that.

Daniel

35

I am against the war. I agree with the deserters that it is based on lies.

However, they are faithless cowards who should be sent to prison for a long time.

IANA nor have I ever been a member of the armed forces. But, as I understand it, a soldier has both the right and the duty to disobey an illegal order. If an order is legal, regardless of whether they agree with it, they are bound to obey. These deserters are claiming that ‘report to your post’ is an illegal order. It isn’t. The US government will sign an agreement not to seek the death penalty(IMHO this is something of a strawman and the government wouldn’t have imposed the death penalty on this case anyway), and Canada will return the deserters.

These men were not drafted. They volunteered and took an oath of their own free will. Rather than fulfill that oath, or stay and face they consequences, they fled. If they had remained here, made their case in court (and to the media), then I could respect them. But they ran.

Gandhi said ‘A man must be willing to embrace passive resistance and be willing to suffer and to die for his beliefs, or he must be willing to become a warrior and to fight and to klll for them. A man who does neither is a waste and a burden’

36

No conflicts in my mind…lock them up for a good long time. They joined up of their own free wills, knowing that they might have to put their lives on the line. Instead of sucking it up, they ran. Welcome to Leavenworth! If they had stayed and fought, they’d have my respect, even though I disagree with their actions. In running, they prove themselves cowards.

37

It’s possible to ask, but there had better be one heavy justification and the requirements of the Service take priority.
In a general sense, since the 1980s an ordinary recruit incurs a total service obligation of 8 years, counting from the day the oath was taken (which may be months before you’re actually called up to start serving) in a combination of active duty (usually in 3-to-6-year terms, most commonly 4 for the first enlistment), drilling reserve, or “individual ready reserve” (you’re a civilian but the Army can recall you). When enlisting your contract defines what will be the time you spend in each of those classifications. If there arises a compelling circumstance why you (or the Army – sometimes it’s they who need to let you go) cannot comply with the specific contract, they will find a way to work around in such a way as the needs of the Service are covered. This is, however, by far easier to achieve in peacetime.

38

I do not doubt that. What i meant is that their oath probably didn’t pointed at the fact that the orders they could receive could be distasteful. That the wars they could be involved in could be of dubious legitimacy. Hence that members of the military swearing this oath would likely expect that what they would be ordered to do would be in the pursuit of a good, morally right cause. Whatever the wording of the oath, there are a lot of social, psychological, etc…assumptions about what it means to belong to a country’s military. These assumptions rarely involve, say : invading some random foreign country for no reason at all. Once again coming back to the example of the refuzniks, their assumptions was that their job was to defend Israel, not to bomb a civilian building during a “targeted killing”.
As for the particular individuals mentionned in this thread, I’ve no clue what their motivations could have been. I was just pointing out that deserting could be morally the correct course of action in some situations.

39

That’s the only one of your question I could answer to.

No, it’s not necessarily silly. Let’s suppose that you become a CO on religious grounds. You enlist as an atheist. One year later, a friend of you who belongs to a religion which hold that kiling is immoral in all situations convinces you. You convert. It’s then quite consistent to claim a CO status. Or you see an ennemy soldier that you just shot dying, and you suddenly realize that what you did is morally abhorent, and that never ever you should do this again, for any reason whatsoever.

Though such a situation would probably be quite rare, it’s not like people would never change their mind, even on very important issues.

40

It isn’t that difficult to get a discharge from the military in the US…requesting a status change to CO is valid, though if they object to that particular zone, they might have applied to do something different, like perhaps Bosnia…We are helping that region reconstruct itself…or they could put in for a change of MOS and become radiology techs and get stationed in a nice peaceful hospital…there are a number of non-war zones that need personnel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And to there being no ‘duty’ to this country, anybody believes that horsepucky pack your @ss somewhere else. My husband just spent 20 years of inadequate medical treatment, substandard housing, and serious substandard pay standing on that wall keeping your butt safe to whinge about anything you dont like. Go somewhere else, there are plenty of countries where whinging will get you ‘vanished’ softly and silently into the night.