Thanks for the offer, but no thanks; this land is my home, too. I disagree that your husband kept me safe from anything–but if you want to pursue this tired old canard of an argument, start another thread.
Daniel
It may be a criminal offence in both countries, but it doesn’t look like it’s an extraditable offence under the terms of the Canada-U.S. Extradition Treaty.
The relevant principle is set out in the first two articles of the Treaty:
So it’s not enough that both countries have similar offences, such as desertion - the offence has to be listed in the Schedule of the Treaty as well.
The Schedule is quite long, so I won’t quote it here, but a quick skim through doesn’t have anything that refers to desertion from the Armed Forces, as far as I can tell.
Actually, I would be surprised if it did. Most extradition treaties focus only on “ordinary” crimes - they don’t include crimes that have a whiff of politics to them. For example, treason doesn’t seem to be listed either, nor are crimes relating to tax-avoidance.
Now, that just speaks to extradition. It doesn’t mean that these two have a right to stay in Canada on a permanent basis - they have to qualify as immigrants or refugees, just like anyone else. My understanding is that you can’t apply to immigrate to Canada from within Canada. I’d also be surprised if they could qualify as refugeees since, as others have noted, the US military has ways to apply for C.O. or discharge short of desertion. (And, as far as I know, no claim by a U.S. citizen for refugee status in Canada has been accepted - we had a thread on it a year or so ago.)
During World War II and Vietnam (and probably other times as well), thousands of COs served as medics or in other non-combat roles. See http://www.pbs.org/perilousfight/social/objectors/ for more details.
This does not sound like Gandhi to me. Where can I find a cite?
My understanding in Australia is that one can also conscientiously object to a particular war - but only if one is conscripted.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn31.pdf
On my reading above it seems to commit oneself as a soldier to fight any war no matter how illegal/immoral it is, as long as the war itself is fought according to the USMC etc. Eg if Congress agrees to say invade and occupy Canada tomorrow because it really wants cheap bacon, you still have to do it or you’re a traitor?
Otara
The oath requires you to uphold the Constitution, so I don’t think it would require you to fight in an illegal war–but only the laws of the US would be considered in making such a judgment. Certainly the oath can compel a soldier to participate in a war she finds immoral. And that’s precisely why I would never consider joining the military: nothing in our nation’s history makes me trust our leaders’ ethics to be more stringent than my own.
Daniel
Sailor I’ll post the title of the book I read it in, as soon as I can remember which book it was. As my books have overflowed my shelves and turn up in odd places in my apartment, it could take a while.
That was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Clay aka Ali v. United States. Clay/Ali testified that he accepted that some wars could be just under Muslim doctrine, which the government argued showed he was not eligible for c.o. status. The Court set aside his conviction on the basis that it was not clear if the draft board had applied the right test in law, but they affirmed that to qualify as a c.o. the individual had to object to all forms of war:
Cover them with whipped cream and chocolate sauce? 
(Sorry. I couldn’t resist.)
Mr. Moto: *And the little twerp who wanted to serve in Afghanistan in a noncombatant role misses the point a bit, doesn’t he? *
Er, no more than four out of five of all enlisted people in the US military:
I don’t think it automatically makes a soldier a coward or immoral (or a “little twerp”, for that matter) just because s/he prefers to get a non-combat job if possible. After all, aren’t the majority of military positions, even during periods of actual combat, behind the lines? And aren’t those very important jobs too? All soldiers are taking greater risks than the average civilian anyway; I would not scorn any serviceperson for merely expressing a preference for avoiding actual combat. I’d think that all soldiers with any sense would prefer to avoid actual combat whenever they responsibly and honorably could.
Now, fleeing the country to avoid serving is a different issue. But I think that criticizing this guy just for requesting a non-combat role when serving in Afghanistan is not only unfair to him, but an undeserved insult to the vast majority of US servicepeople who also choose non-combat roles.
I was late to this thread, but when I read the above, I couldn’t believe that someone would actually write or think this.
Something I’m curious about:
The CO statutes mention that you have to object to war in any form. According to this site, potential COs are sometimes asked if they would object to a war fought entirely with nonlethal weapons.
Huh? That seems so far removed from what I think of as “war” that the question becomes meaningless–it’s like asking if I would object to a totally peaceful war, or if I’d object to a war decided by cutting a deck of cards.
What is the relevant legal definition of “war”?
Similarly, is it possible to attain CO status by objecting to organized violence, while still condoning certain acts of specific violence? For example, could someone who would have supported assassinating Hitler have objected to fighting in WWII (because of, for example, Dresden) and achieve CO status?
Daniel
Well, I think I can speak to this quite well, given my own experiences, and recent history.
My service in the Navy may not have looked like a combat role to a lot of people. For the most part, I sat at a desk with a set of headphones on, talking on radio circuits or internal voice networks. I was also typing away on a computer to either produce aircrew briefs when I was stationed in Sicily or manning a Tomahawk weapons console while on the ship.
The shipboard service, though, was aboard a guided missile cruiser and a destroyer. These are front line, combat ready units. As the Cole incident showed, these ships can sometimes be in harms way. In the Navy, a clerk or a barber can find themselves in combat just by being assigned to a ship. And no sailor should be exempt from sea duty.
Similar situations occur in the Army. Jessica Lynch didn’t choose to join a combat unit. She joined a maintenance unit, one of your “behind the lines” positions. She didn’t seek combat, but it found her anyway.
By definition, all members of the Armed Forces are combatants, even if they are in a “non-combat” job. All soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen learn in training that, whatever job they signed up for, the time may come when they might have to fight. If they can’t do that, they shouldn’t be in the Armed Forces.
The way it’s set up, CO status is to be granted for a person who has committed him/herself to nonviolence, because the military cannot afford having the troops pick and choose when they will or will not perform. You must also consider that the development of that status in the USA is influenced by the existence of religious communities with absolute prohibitions against violence of any kind. Assassinations are acts of violence. When there is a high need for manpower the COs may be shunted off to administrative positions or medical billets within the service, in order to free up non-objectors for the front; else they may be pressed into doing “civilian service” in the home front.
Hmm…I’m not sure you’re right on this. The criteria don’t mention a commitment to nonviolence, but rather an objection to war in any form. These two aren’t necessarily identical; can you point to references suggesting that only absolute nonviolence is accepted?
Note that atheist soldiers have received CO status based on the “religious” nature of their beliefs; the army considers it religious if the soldier believes in a universal, objective moral system that has consequences in our world, regardless of whether gods are involved.
Daniel
Do I understand this correctly as meaning that this conscientious objection has to be based ** only on religious belief ** ?
I happen to be a CO. I’m also an atheist. Does it mean that I couldn’t have been granted CO status if I had been an american citizen?
Isn’t that somehow fishy, in that it grants special rights to people based on the religion they belong to?
OK. The answer to my question was just above my own post. Sorry.
No, wait, you’re right – it’s “war in any form”. However, as you found out, the tests can be very strict as to how absolute is the objection: you can’t make an exception for “war which doesn’t hurt anyone but those who deserve it” and assassinating a foreign head of state is an act of war even if you do it very discreetly. Still, as you yourself found, the tests essentially seek its derivation from an absolute moral standard.
Curse this board and its post-eating ways!
As I typed, I’m not sure all assassinations of foreign heads of state are acts of war. If Lee Harvey Oswald had been a lunatic Canadian immigrant, would that have been an act of war?
If not, then a random American who shot Hitler (but wasn’t employed in any way by the state department) presumably wouldn’t be committing an act of war, either.
My primary objection to war is that it inevitably gets innocent people killed, and when you sign up in an army, you don’t have the option of refusing an order that might result in the deaths of innocent people. I’m fine with assassinating killers, but I’m absolutely not okay with bombing Dresden, or risking bombing marriage ceremonies (as happened in Afghanistan). I wonder whether the military would recognize this distinction.
Daniel
Unfortunately, civilians die in any war. That in itself doesn’t prove the war unjust, IMO.
If you believe it does, you cannot put yourself in a position where you won’t follow orders. It really is an all or nothing thing.
That in no way obligates you to follow illegal orders, which is a different kettle of fish entirely, Left Hand of Dorkness.