Military "refugees".... real or legit?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Intersting topic was on my local talk radio station tonight. I was off to go rescue my wife who had a flat and was doing the helpless female routine on me, so I was out and about and had the talk station on.

It seems there is a war evader of sorts before an immigration panel in Toronto today. She was enlisted in the US Army. She was on her second tour of duty and had already been to Iraq once. She went AWOL when she was stationed back in the US and came to Canada as a guest...and has decided she isn't going home. The US of course is asking Canada for extradition and she and 200 others are crying about the unjustness of it all and that the war was illegal and that Canada had a duty to ignore the extradition request. Since Canada already sent someone else back in this situation back last summer....I cannot see where she thinks her outcome will be different. She has had kids up here since she came ( I suspect this has dragged out about 5 years) so they would be Canadian citizens but I cant see where it will make much difference.

As many have objections to the Iraq war and the subsequent occupation, I GET that most of you will say for Canada to keep her. What I want to see is your arguments why.

Here is what I feel: She enlisted as a volunteer in the armed forces of her nation. Regardless of where she came from she joined in this contract to be a military member willingly. There was no gun at her head, and the contract you sign is a pledge of allegiance to whomever holds the Presidency. She decided she didn't like this contract no more. While I sympathize with her in that she likely didn't like Iraq, she wasn't going over there on a tour with a bunch of seniors on a bus. She was going over there because she was assigned a job in her nation's military. As much as Canadians don't like the war in Iraq and differ from our American cousins on that, it isn't our job to fight the fight of these "refugees". The USA is a democracy not much different than ours and they have laws and elected officials who govern the country. It has rule of law for any of its citizens and anyone on their soil. Therefore it would be illegal for Canada to ignore the request for extradition.

Also...a side effect of keeping these AWOL US military members would be every criminal south of the border could sneak up here and use some trumped up justification in our courts to keep us from extraditing them...that is try to use actually. I think our courts have little patience for this sort of thing.

The point is we don't need to be the dumping ground for all those disaffected with the US Government.

[Jag_Warrior]

I'm against the Bush Crusade in Iraq - have been since the beginning. Our fight was with Afghanistan and the Taliban. That war, Bush and his neocon flunkies have turned into a cluster f###. But all that aside, I'm 100% for returning these cowards to the U.S. so that they can be properly prosecuted. They weren't drafted. They weren't forced to join up. And they don't get to pick their destination.

Canada should boot them out, no questions asked, IMO.

[Hondo]

I tend to agree since we no longer use a conscript army. She signed up for the ride, probably got enlistment bonuses or reenlistment bonuses and needs to fufill her legal contract. I say send them back, unless the individual can demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that they felt they had to flee because they were in danger of physical harm or unfair persecution from within their branch of service and their complaints were being ignored by their commanding officers.

Considering Canada and Britain are both in this thing, I doubt the Queen's Bench will look kindly on them.

[Easy Drifter]

I concur. I am just waiting for one these deserters to be someone who was to be shipped to Afghanistan start claiming refugee status. They will get very little sympathy then. Many of the Cdn. troops there are reservists and they have to volunteer to go. Regulars have no choice but the reservists cannot be sent unless they want to go. Then they have to get approval from their employer to be gone for months without losing their jobs.
Unfortunately (Taliban) Jack Layton and the NDP are all for the deserters staying as are many of the Liberal Party.
Of course the fact that Canada accepted draft dodgers and deserters during the Viet Nam war is brought up. They were not volunteers but draftees so there is quite a difference.
I didn't agree with Canada's position then.

[Mark]

Agreed. While I would have sympathy if she was conscripted, she signed up to the army of her own free will. Being in the Army is for the express purpose of fighting in a war, you cannot then change your mind when you are asked to do just that.

[BDunnell]

I go against the grain here. Being in the military is a job just like any other in many ways. I believe it should be perfectly possible to resign with immediate effect without consequences if you object strongly to something your employer does. Why shouldn't those in the armed forces be denied the right to act according to their conscience in this respect?

Regarding Iraq, we should not be surprised if some members of the armed services think like many other people do - that it is a conflict too far, that it is somehow particularly unacceptable. Mark said: 'Being in the Army is for the express purpose of fighting in a war, you cannot then change your mind when you are asked to do just that'. However, this loses sight of the fact that there will be those in the forces whose conscience was tested to the limit by Iraq in particular.

There are also, it must be said, far more members of the armed forces who object to the conflict in Iraq than those forces or Governments will ever let on. Combined with the effect on morale and readiness caused by military overstretch, Iraq has had a significant adverse effect on the armed forces of several nations.

[Mark]

I go against the grain here. Being in the military is a job just like any other in many ways. I believe it should be perfectly possible to resign with immediate effect without consequences if you object strongly to something your employer does. Why shouldn't those in the armed forces be denied the right to act according to their conscience in this respect?
.

In an ideal world, perhaps. But reality dictates that the armed forces cannot function in such a manner. After all you'd get lots of people joining up during peacetime to do all the training, but when it comes to fighting, they resign. That can't work..

[BDunnell]

In an ideal world, perhaps. But reality dictates that the armed forces cannot function in such a manner. After all you'd get lots of people joining up during peacetime to do all the training, but when it comes to fighting, they resign. That can't work..

I suppose I find it almost impossible to understand the notion of doing a job in which you have to be unquestioningly obedient when orders are issued. This, I think, is a bad trait in general.

I suppose I find it almost impossible to understand the notion of doing a job in which you have to be unquestioningly obedient when orders are issued. This, I think, is a bad trait in general.

It's a bad trait in Generals, possibly. Rommel was quite right to voice concern about the orders he was being given.

However, for the lower ranks, in a non-conscript army, it's too late for them to complain or realise that the Army may expect them to do things they don't like.

They should have thought about that before they joined up.

I suppose I find it almost impossible to understand the notion of doing a job in which you have to be unquestioningly obedient when orders are issued.

Which is why you, like me, have never joined the Army?

[anthonyvop]

Traitor, Coward and liar.

Return her and she should be punished.

[BDunnell]

It's a bad trait in Generals, possibly. Rommel was quite right to voice concern about the orders he was being given.

However, for the lower ranks, in a non-conscript army, it's too late for them to complain or realise that the Army may expect them to do things they don't like.

They should have thought about that before they joined up.

I respect this view, but exceptional circumstances can still intervene - like the war on Iraq. People generally felt strongly about it. Servicemen and women will have been the same.

[BDunnell]

Which is why you, like me, have never joined the Army?

Exactly. Quite apart from the matter of having to apparently put away one's conscience regarding the prosecution of war as soon as one joins the forces, I believe that respect has to be earned, rather than being immediately and automatically conferred by seniority.

Exactly. Quite apart from the matter of having to apparently put away one's conscience regarding the prosecution of war as soon as one joins the forces, I believe that respect has to be earned, rather than being immediately and automatically conferred by seniority.

Totally agree, although I can well understand why an army couldn't function with me & you in it.

[BDunnell]

Totally agree, although I can well understand why an army couldn't function with me & you in it.

Absolutely!

[Easy Drifter]

When you join an army voluntarily, as she did, you sign a contract.
She joined the US army in 2006 long after the situation in Iraq was known to any who paid attention.
That is far different than being in the army when the invasion of Iraq occurred.
She was not a front line combat soldier. She was allowed 1 free phone call home a day. She usually talked for an hour. The military cut this back to 15 minutes. Apparently this really upset her. Think of the number of troops that want to talk to family and the costs of the calls. Even 15 minutes a day seems excessive to me.
But to me the main point in this case is she knew all about Iraq when she joined.
She knew all about those who considered it a illegal war.

[BDunnell]

She joined the US army in 2006 long after the situation in Iraq was known to any who paid attention.
That is far different than being in the army when the invasion of Iraq occurred.

This is a very good point, and I should have noticed it.

[Tomi]

When you join an army voluntarily, as she did, you sign a contract.
She joined the US army in 2006 long after the situation in Iraq was known to any who paid attention.

There is a small possibility that she only watched fox news, and because of that was misslead.

[Mark in Oshawa]

When you join an army voluntarily, as she did, you sign a contract.
She joined the US army in 2006 long after the situation in Iraq was known to any who paid attention.
That is far different than being in the army when the invasion of Iraq occurred.
She was not a front line combat soldier. She was allowed 1 free phone call home a day. She usually talked for an hour. The military cut this back to 15 minutes. Apparently this really upset her. Think of the number of troops that want to talk to family and the costs of the calls. Even 15 minutes a day seems excessive to me.
But to me the main point in this case is she knew all about Iraq when she joined.
She knew all about those who considered it a illegal war.

I got the full story in today's paper. In Today's Toronto Sun (Thursday Jan 8) Michelle Mandel tells the story in a fashion even you Mr. Dunnell might change your mind. Maybe. Anyhow, I had some of the initial details wrong. She joined in 2006. Far beyond the time when anyone could question the point of the Iraq war. She joined because it was a better job than being a Wal Mart employee, which is about the standard job one gets with very little work experience and barely a high school education. So she joins to get free education and maybe some adventure. She is a guard in a prison over in Iraq. She see's no car bombs. She see's no actual shooting or fighting. She just is away from her young children ( only the last one was born here and she was married the whole time) and is homesick. She phones home an HOUR a day FREE for a long time before her superiors deem this excessive and then cut her back to 15 minutes.

Hardly someone who has seen the horrors of war.......

Mandel to her credit comes out and admits she is against the war and always was but says also this woman is an idiot to volunteer under the circumstances she did and she should be sent home to face trial. Unlike the Canadian soldier who was killed within hours of this woman hearing who will be coming back from Afghanistan in a box who volunteered to go and serve overseas and hopefully make a positive change in a nation that needs some security to find its way.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I suppose I find it almost impossible to understand the notion of doing a job in which you have to be unquestioningly obedient when orders are issued. This, I think, is a bad trait in general.

This is why it isn't a job, it is a vocation. People who have to put themselves in harm's way for their country cant question orders. I hate to break it to you, but combat isn't a debating society. Orders are given to be followed because officers don't have time nor is it good to sit there and explain every ethical consequence of what could happen. People get killed if they think too much in a battle situation.

If you join the military, that is the sacrifice you make to your nation. You are willing to put your life on the line without question and without fail to accomplish whatever task your nation requires. It is why all but a very small percentage of German and Japanese soldiers were not tried for war crimes. The contract you have with your country when you put on your nation's uniform is that you do what you are asked to do and in return your nation will not ask you to do anything unethical or against the human condition. I can hear the but coming from a few of you on this one for Iraq but here is the rub. The conduct of US and UK servicemen in Iraq was held to the same standard they would be held to no matter the enemy. The soldiers didn't get orders to shoot unarmed combatants, to shoot enemy wounded, or rape and pillage as state policy. If this was the case, cases like this woman's would have some merit. The military and gov'ts that ordered this little boondoggle didn't order their troops to do anything that was unethical. The war itself may be in question but the soldiers prosecuting it did so under the laws of the Geneva Convention and therefore are going to be held to military justice. You cannot be a conscientious objector in the military when you a)volunteer and b) are not asked to do anything against the rules of war. This woman didn't even fire a shot.......

[anthonyvop]

The issues isn't if what she is doing is wrong.

The real issue is why Canada hasn't returned her to the US to face punishment.

Her punishment will most likely be a slap on the wrist. Restriction to base until her case is heard.
Then a dishonorable discharge and loss of benefits if found guilty.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Anthony....the process is a legal one and she has lawyers making appeals you can bet on that. They just don't find them and put them on first Greyhound south.

The courts here have been letting the deserters have their day in court to face the extradition and after the usual blathering and whining about how it isn't fair, they are sent packing. Gotta be legal about this sort of stuff....

The real issue is why Canada hasn't returned her to the US to face punishment.


Becuase the Canadian government & legal system are doing what a free, democratic and fair society should do and being duly diligent.

The alternative approach would be just what our nations have supposedly been fighting against in Iraq.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tam....us Canadians will take your comment as a compliment.

[anthonyvop]

Becuase the Canadian government & legal system are doing what a free, democratic and fair society should do and being duly diligent.

The alternative approach would be just what our nations have supposedly been fighting against in Iraq.
Does she deny that she is a member of the US Military?

If not then what is the delay? Slap the cuffs on her and put her on a bus to Levenworth ks.

[Easy Drifter]

Canada has certain laws regarding refugee claimants. Every refugee claimant is protected under Cdn. Law by our Charter of Rights from the moment they step foot in Canada. This has been challenged but was upheld by the Surpreme Court of Canada.
Therefore she is treated the same as any other refugee claimant. So far no US deserter has won but some might.
Our refugee system has a huge backlog and in many ways is a joke, but it is the law. There is appeal after appeal if you have the money. She has the backing of leftist civil rights groups, as do all the deserters so money is there.
For this we can thank the late Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party who brought in what to my mind is a deeply flawed piece of Legislation with the Charter of Rights. One flaw is that the Supreme Court can and has overuled Parliament.
As the Surpreme Court Judges are appointed basically by the Prime Minister they tend to think along the same lines as the Prime Minister and his party of the time. Most of the Judges for the last umpteen years were Liberal appointees as they have been the governing party for most of the last quarter century. They tend to be left leaning.
New appointees will be more to the right as long as the Conservatives are in power.
Personally I agree with Tony but that is not the law.

[anthonyvop]

So Canada is to blame?

She is a member of the U.S. military. She has no claim whatsoever for refugee status.

[Easy Drifter]

So she is a member of the US military. So what. We all know that.
The minute she entered Canada and claimed refugee status Cdn. law kicked in. She is in Canada and under our laws not those of the US.
Canada is a sovereign nation and laws of another country are not applicable in Canada. We do have an extradition treaty with the US but each case has to go before the US courts to be decided if we are trying to extidate someone and before Cdn. courts if the US is applying for extradition.
Our Supreme Court has ruled even those who enter Canada illegally are protected by the Charter. A stupid decision in my opinion, but that is the law now.
The odds are she will be shipped back to the US as have others in the same circumstances. Actually most of the previous cases involved those who were in the military before the invasion of Iraq and claimed it was an illegal war as part of their basis for deserting, which she cannot really do.
I personally agree that the deserters should all be shipped back immediately but my feelings do not over rule what is part of our Constitution.
You may not like our laws but that is the way it is. I don't like some of them either.
I also do not like some of the laws in the US but they are none of my business.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Anthony. Lets put the shoe on the other foot. A Canadian citizen is wanted for murder in Alberta but he escapes to Texas, lives under another name for a decade and is a real wheel in the community. Does well, owns his business, marries a local girl, joins the service clubs, runs for town council. All the sudden he is found out and Canada wants to extradite him back to Alberta for trial for murder. You think he is on the first plane to Calgary? Good luck with your delusions if you say yes. I wouldn't expect it and that is the truth.

These things have a legal process to follow. It what separates us from the Saddam Husseins of this world....

[Jag_Warrior]

She should get her day in court just like illegal aliens here get their day in court. I have little doubt that the Canadian courts will decide to send Private Cupcake back to the U.S. to face the music.

In the meantime, I hope that she ends up in a cellblock full of big, mean Canadian girls (who think that American girls are whiney, overly pampered Barbie Dolls)... and the rumor is spread through Cellblock A that Private Cupcake hates hockey! :devil:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jag...I suspect she is on bail because she does have little ones to look after. Lets face it, in no civilized nation would this woman be in jail for this awaiting an extradition. Since she has committed no crimes on Canadian soil she likely just has to report into the cops every week or phone in every day.

I know a lot of people are frustrated by this sort of sloth in the justice system of our nations but the safeguards and road blocks on something like this are designed to NOT abuse people's rights.

Of course...in the infamous case where the RCMP shanghaied a possible terrorism suspect Maher Arar to the FBI and on to Syria, this was all forgotten about. Of coruse...it caused the head of the RCMP out of his job and a few people got the sack...

Human rights vs. swift justice. The quandary of civilized society.....

[Easy Drifter]

And cost the Cdn. taxpayers big bucks between the investigation and compensation paid, since he was innocent.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Drifter...he deserved every penny.....too bad the FBI didn't pay up some compensation. They all but lied to the RCMP about what they knew and they really should hold some culpablity in all of it.

I think anyone who watches events like this and these extradition cases of the military AWOL in Canada, knows that the Canadian justice system usually does get to the bottom of things and gets it right for the most part. It isn't for a lack of trying. I just wish like hell the punishment part of the justice system in Canada wasn't so out to lunch....

[anthonyvop]

Anthony. Lets put the shoe on the other foot. A Canadian citizen is wanted for murder in Alberta but he escapes to Texas, lives under another name for a decade and is a real wheel in the community. Does well, owns his business, marries a local girl, joins the service clubs, runs for town council. All the sudden he is found out and Canada wants to extradite him back to Alberta for trial for murder. You think he is on the first plane to Calgary? Good luck with your delusions if you say yes. I wouldn't expect it and that is the truth.

These things have a legal process to follow. It what separates us from the Saddam Husseins of this world....

MArk.

Big difference.
A murder suspect deserves a day in court to see if the evidence against them is enough to extradite them.

This woman has nothing, zip, zilch, nada to base any claim of refugee status.
She IS A US SERVICE person.
Nobody is arguing it.
There is no debate
There is no need for an investigation.

SO?

Send her back.

[Easy Drifter]

Tony: It doesn't matter who the h--- she is.
Under Cdn. law as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada she is entitled to claim refugee status.
George W. Bush could do the same thing. So could Bin Laden.
Bin Laden would face criminal charges in Canada and the US could call for extradition.
US law does not mean sweet f--- all here.
Sorry, but what don't you get?
Canada is a soveriegn nation not a possesion of the US.

You know how Mark and I feel.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Anthony...I agree with you in that she is a zero and should be sent back but it has to be done with the same care that your dad or brother who didn't commit a crime but was accused of it would be if he was up here. It is the same in the US by the way. Extradition hearings and refugee status isn't a slam dunk thing in the US either. Heck...you guys have had prisoners in Gitmo that now have to have trials (thanks to your ACLU...even I think they are out to lunch on this but...) and they still are in a lineup for a hearing and getting lawyers for them all. It takes TIME for any kind of trail and/or proceeding to take place in any proper democratic society. It is BUREAUCRACY for crying out loud.

Your insinutation we Canadians are idiots on some level (not said but I can read between the lines) is a big insult. I want this waste of time back in your hands as badly as you do but I will point out like my buddy Drifter that Canada isn't your whipping boy or lackey to do your bidding.

Canada isn't the USA and we usually unite really fast behind the idea when some American tells us to jump and expects us to say "how high!" It is that attitude you are giving us in your posts that fuels the really stupid radical left in this nation...which does realists like Drifter and I no favours.....

There is no debate
There is no need for an investigation.

SO?

Send her back.

Great, so your'e not interested in civilised democratic legal process when it doesn't suit you.

A fine example to the free-world you are.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tam...I suspect Anthony isn't a typical American. I suspect he is just naive.....

[BDunnell]

Great, so your'e not interested in civilised democratic legal process when it doesn't suit you.

A fine example to the free-world you are.

:up:

[anthonyvop]

Great, so your'e not interested in civilised democratic legal process when it doesn't suit you.

A fine example to the free-world you are.
What legal process?
What is her claim for refugee status? "Oh wow! War kinda sucks!"

In a just legal process the petitioner must have a reason to ask for refugee status. She doesn't have one.

That is like saying I wanna sue McDonalds.
No reason....I just want to sue.

What legal process?
What is her claim for refugee status? "Oh wow! War kinda sucks!"

In a just legal process the petitioner must have a reason to ask for refugee status. She doesn't have one.

That is like saying I wanna sue McDonalds.
No reason....I just want to sue.

And who decides if the reason is valid?

Anthonyvop, Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe?

Or a fair, democratic court who have listened to the facts?

Oh, and you could sue McDonalds. You could have your day in court.

OK, with nothing to sue them for your case would mean you actually had about 5 seconds in court, but theres nothing to stop you trying.

That's what a free society is about....allowing idiots the freedom to be idiots.

[Easy Drifter]

Tony, I know where you are coming from but please read and try and understand what Mark and I are saying.
The minute anyone reaches Cdn. soil and claims refugee status for any reason or even no reason given at the time the legal process starts. This applies even if they enter Canada illegally and then apply for refugee status. Our Surpreme Court has thus ruled.
We even go through this BS when someone we have deported sneaks back in.
As I have stated, and I think Mark has too, we think she should be shipped back but due process must be followed.
This involves a hearing before a 'Refugee Board'. If they lose at that point and the money is there as it is in this case, an Appeal can be made to 'The Fedreral Court' Then a further appeal can be made to the 'Federal Appeals Court'. If they lose there a petition to hear an appeal can be made to the 'Surpreme Court of Canada'. They can agree to hear the case or not. All this takes time and lots of money so to get anywhere near that far backing is needed. She has that from several anti war and some groups that really are anti US. If the Surpreme Court agrees to hear the appeal it may be years before that happens as they have a huge backlog. As an aside the Surpreme Court has refused to hear similar cases.
A last resort appeal can be made to the Minister of Immigration no matter what the Surpreme Court does.
With the current Govt. I don't think she would have a chance there.
We have a minority Govt. and a non binding vote by the opposition parties passed that the deserters should be allowed to stay. The Govt. has ignored this vote.
However there is a possibility that a coalalition may topple the Govt.
The Govenor General (the Queen's rep.) can then either call an election or allow the coalalition to try and govern.
If the coalalition does take over one party in it The NDP would demand the deserters be allowed to stay. The separtist Bloc Quebecois would agree and so would many of the Liberals.
Of course, this would be a mute point if US officials had stopped her at your side of the border.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Drifter...no point in airing the Canadian legal process. After reading your tome I am starting to think we have too much legal crap to wade through!!!

Seriously. Anthony...if you think the process isn't the SAME on the American side of the border, you are delusional. The ACLU ties up the American system for years on cases of like this or similar with foreign nationals. Your Constitution guarntees the rights of everyone on American soil to the same level as an American citizen. It is that reason the detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq that were put in Gitmo were NOT put in an American jail.

In any democracy, the process has to be followed. You have judged and convicted this woman and in my mind I don't disagree with that judgement but the courts have to make it official and with the backlog in the court system...she will be here a bit longer. That said...she arrived here 2006 and with the amount of crap going on in the US legal system, I suspect the US Military didn't get their order for an extradition before the courts right away either. Then the Canadian authorities have to get it and put it in the hopper here. It is now 2009 and she has had her hearings and last I heard was told she was going home. Likely she will appeal....but it wont go no where.

Even our lily livered opposition in the Parliament likely would cave in once the legal beagles gave them the implications of keeping just one of these weasels.

The problem is draft dodgers from the Vietnam war escaped up here and our left wing wing nut PM at the time gave them asylum and wouldn't process extradition requests. Then the always leftwing and naive Jimmy Carter granted them amnestiy and we had about 20000 new citizens who were draft dodgers bleating about how they were fighting for a princple. Fighting for the princple would have been refusing to serve and sitting in a US jail...not hanging out here.

I am sick of getting America's disillusioned and naive hippy and weasel culture....they are hooking up with our granola eating, dope smoking lefties and just grinding us to a halt.....

[BDunnell]

The problem is draft dodgers from the Vietnam war escaped up here and our left wing wing nut PM at the time gave them asylum and wouldn't process extradition requests. Then the always leftwing and naive Jimmy Carter granted them amnestiy and we had about 20000 new citizens who were draft dodgers bleating about how they were fighting for a princple. Fighting for the princple would have been refusing to serve and sitting in a US jail...not hanging out here.

And what real difference did this make to either country? None. I can understand why they didn't want to go to jail, and have respect for their views.

[anthonyvop]

If somebody arrives at a U.S. international Airport and asks for refugee status the first thing they ask is "Under What Grounds?"
Their are certain grounds that are applicable.
Political persecution is one. Religious persecution is another.
Not being happy as a soldier isn't.

If somebody asks for political asylum and uses not being happy as a soldier for grounds they will be swiftly placed on a plane back to where they come from, No Court, No Judge, No Appeal.

[Easy Drifter]

Well Tony I guess you had better come up to Canada and persuade our Parliament to change our Constitution and then convince The Surpreme Court of Canada to reverse their previous decision.
I do not give a rats a-- what US law says or does.
For some strange reason in Canada, Canadian law applies not US law.

I do not know if she applied for refugee status at the border or later. Probably later. That is what most of the deserters do. If she and her family crossed at a land crossing they probably would not have been looked at closely. Thousands of US citizens cross the border every week mostly as tourists same as Cdns. cross into the US. Hundreds of US citizens work in Canada in border cities and go back a forth daily.
The normal questions would be 'Citizen of what Country?' 'Purpose of visit?'
When the Buffalo Bills played in Toronto thousands of fans came from Buffalo to see the game.

[anthonyvop]

For some strange reason in Canada, Canadian law applies not US law.

That is Canada's biggest problem.

[Jag_Warrior]

Does anyone know what the average (or maximum) sentence is for deserters in the U.S.?

And once court martialed or given a dishonorable discharge, isn't she basically going to be treated much like a felon when it comes to jobs, etc.?

[Easy Drifter]

I used to have respect for you Tony.
I now consider you an ignorant pompous a$$.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That is Canada's biggest problem.


Here is a clue Anthony. If you cant see what a pompous jerk you are looking like to a lot of pretty reasonable people, then I am feeling sorry for your naivete.

Private Cupcake here came to Canada, was found to be up here by the US authorties. They ask the Canadian Gov't. for extradition. If she was charged with murder or being AWOL it doesn't matter. The Canadian justice system is going to make sure the US charges against her are legitimate and when she applies as a refugee as a politically persecuted person seeking asylum, then she has her day in court. That is what this was about and last I read she was going back. She still gets her day in court. If a Canadian citizen was in the US and awol from the Canadian Military, I will bet you 100 Dollars the process in the US is pretty much the same.

We live in democracies that dont' just rubber stamp opinions...they make sure rights are protected. That is the difference between our countries and a 3rd world craphole.

[Mark in Oshawa]

And what real difference did this make to either country? None. I can understand why they didn't want to go to jail, and have respect for their views.


I would have more respect for their views if they went back to the US and faced the justice system there and put their views on the record in a US courtroom and embarassed the gov't of the day. That is what the "Greatest" did...Muhammed Ali didn't run from the fact he objected to what was a screwy war and faced the courts and dared the US Gov't to send him to jail and they DID. Ali wasn't going to see any shooting by the way. The US military probably would have given him a soft job behind the lines or maybe not even sent him to Nam. He was making a point and it has made him more than just a boxer.

The draft dodgers that came to Canada just were scared of getting their tails shot off in a cause they didn't believe in but they didn't have the balls to stay in the US and make an issue of it. They ran up here and then our gov't gave them asylum. I object to this because while I agree that the Vietnam War was a monumentally screwed up mess, I also believe we don't need Canadians who show a record of running from their problems and issues. Moral courage is not taking the easy way out. Moral courage is facing the music head on. Some of the draft dodgers that came to Canada and took up citizen ship have migrated into various places in the media and into politics and they have done little to make the political discourse in this country any better. I am of the opinion most of them haven't had a new idea since they were smoking dope in college in 1968. That is my opinion and I am sure some of you would disagree...but I have just no time for people who talk about principles who take the easy way out....