Jump to content

U.S. army deserter wants to stay in Canada


AME

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Thank you RFL smile.gif

Hopefully we, along with others, can be an example to certain "others" who have demonstrated their need for civility.

Have a good one wink.gif

Iceman

P.S. I agree with a lot of conservative views, I just believe that they have to interject their goals with a little more humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US soldier in question didn’t come to Canada to avoid being DRAFTED into a war he objected to on religious or moral grounds. He joined a volunteer military of his own accord and willing entered into a contract that required an unlimited liability in time of war. In addition to contract liabilities, he also obtained contractual benefits that I’m sure he would expect the government to honour. He would likely pursue legal action if they failed to do so. While I may sympathize with his dilemma and others may support his decision, to now claim war or the conduct of it a “force majeure” to justify desertion is too much of a stretch for me. I doubt his belief structure underwent a sudden epiphany. I think he had a duty not to join the military or at least to withdraw voluntarily during basic training when he knew he could no longer reconcile military service with his beliefs. The option was there… he had a duty to take it.

The contract he entered into does not provide an out. A police officer may have to guard an abortion clinic despite strong views on abortion. The next call may see a black officer responding to an appeal for help from the racist down the street. Military Search and Rescue crews regularly launch in the worst of conditions to save people from their own folly. And that is how it should be.

If returned to the US he doesn’t face torture and death although he will no doubt argue that death is still on the books. Canada too has a death penalty provision in the QR&Os but he’s pretty safe here too. Desertion is a crime and defaulting on contractual obligations comes at a cost… and that, too, is how it should be.

A final thought if I might. It is the context of scripture that allows for literal interpretation. Turn the other cheek is more a lesson in forgiveness than support for pacifism. Forgive your brother and then forgive him again. The parables were intended as lessons in life that would strike a chord with the masses. They are more than tips on building construction and farming techniques. To literally interpret them as such is to miss the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodness! I read through this thread from beginning to end today, and it still amazes me how such threads meander.

The question that was intially posed is should Canada give refugee status to a deserter from the American army. A deserter, I might add, who took voluntary service. This metamorphized into whether killing is a good thing. Quite a bizarre trend.

I agree with Neo on this one. The discussion should rightly be about choices and responsibility. This man chose to become a soldier and what a soldier does is kill. He has had second thoughts about what it is he has to do within the career path that he chose, and wants to change his mind. Awesome. I support him 100%. There is a way to do that: say so and deal with the consequences of such.

Desertion, in the manner he has done it, is a cowardly act. It is an abrogation of responsibility. He does not have to kill, ever, if he chooses not to.

I have been trying to think of a couple of examples to make my point clearer, and the best I can come up with are these:

A young man may choose a career in law because he wishes to defend the poor and downtrodden. As such he chooses a career as a public defender. Things motor along nicely and he feels that he is doing "good works" and contributing to the betterment of mankind. Then the day arrives when he is assigned to defend an obviously odious slimeball who rapes children and murders old women and handicapped men, and who is "guilty as sin and everybody knows it". His boss says tough tiddly-winks, our legal system can only funcion properly if each and every person is given an adequate defense before the courts and found guilty based on the evidence presented.

He can choose to continue as a public defender or stop. It is not right that he should only be allowed the cases that "feel good" and slough off the cases that don't. The consequences of stopping have a penalty. He may not like that penalty, but it is there nonetheless.

A similar example can be made for the young physician who has chosen medicine as a career to help the medically sick and suffering. One day that same odious slimeball turns up in his emergency department, having been beaten, say by inmates in the jail. The physician feels a tremendous loathing for this man, especially because this same physician has treated some of his victims, and doesn't really want to treat him at all. Guess what? Tough tiddly-winks. The choice was made initially to become a physician and it must be practised without prejudice. He may choose to not treat this patient, but the penalty of doing so is severe. He may end up censured and stripped of his licence.

The young man who chose to desert was not drafted. He made a choice to become a soldier in free will. He should have the courage to deal with the consequences of changing his mind.

I have only one rider to add to this. Jail time is tolerable; execution is not. If his desertion is defined as treason, and his punishment is execution, then allowing him refugee status is acceptable because the punishment runs counter to the laws of our land and my own conscience.

ccairspace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question that was intially posed is should Canada give refugee status to a deserter from the American army. A deserter, I might add, who took voluntary service. This metamorphized into whether killing is a good thing. Quite a bizarre trend.

Not so bizzare perhaps, when you consider his stated reasons for deserting...?

I see the cowardly, and I'll admit I'd rather see one with the courage to face the music, but I also see an ethical wrong in punishing him for deciding he doesn't want to kill.

I like your lawyer analogy, though the physician one strikes me differently.... The moral dilemma in healing the wounded doesn't seem so thick to me. Even if he's your enemy, it's still the right thing for a doctor to to do (maybe I've seen too many M.A.S.H. episodes?). But I have a hard time seeing the morality in defending the slimeball you described. I understand others don't though... (In fact, I have a niece who's a criminal defense lawyer and does exactly that... She's one of the sincerest, planted on solid earth, and decent individuals I've ever known. We've had exactly that discussion... her feeling that even the slimiest are entitled to their defence, as provided by law, is absolute. I only know I couldn't do it.)

... I guess, I've come to agree, and not, with all of you. cool26.gifbiggrin.gif

I understand the thought that his desertion has consequences, and the right thing for him to do is to accept them... but I also think the right thing for society to do, is to not punish what I believe to have been the right choice.

...As for you... Cpdude... dry.gif

"God said many things and not just the 10 commandments."

.. Hmmmm... So we can ignore them on occasion, is that it? Good golly man! You don't reckon the very things he called "commandments" .... not "suggestions"... not "ideas for nice living"... not "thoughts to be elaborated upon" !!... ... God's own words as given to Moses.... might somewhat outweigh the varied ways to interpret the man written words in all the rest of that flippin' "holy book"? cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so bizzare perhaps, when you consider his stated reasons for deserting...?

I see the cowardly, and I'll admit I'd rather see one with the courage to face the music, but I also see an ethical wrong in punishing him for deciding he doesn't want to kill.

I like your lawyer analogy, though the physician one strikes me differently.... The moral dilemma in healing the wounded doesn't seem so thick to me. Even if he's your enemy, it's still the right thing for a doctor to to do (maybe I've seen too many M.A.S.H. episodes?). But I have a hard time seeing the morality in defending the slimeball you described. I understand others don't though... (In fact, I have a niece who's a criminal defense lawyer and does exactly that... She's one of the sincerest, planted on solid earth, and decent individuals I've ever known. We've had exactly that discussion... her feeling that even the slimiest are entitled to their defence, as provided by law, is absolute. I only know I couldn't do it.)

... I guess, I've come to agree, and not, with all of you. cool26.gifbiggrin.gif

I understand the thought that his desertion has consequences, and the right thing for him to do is to accept them... but I also think the right thing for society to do, is to not punish what I believe to have been the right choice.

...As for you... Cpdude... dry.gif

"God said many things and not just the 10 commandments."

.. Hmmmm... So we can ignore them on occasion, is that it? Good golly man! You don't reckon the very things he called "commandments" .... not "suggestions"... not "ideas for nice living"... not "thoughts to be elaborated upon" !!... ... God's own words as given to Moses.... might somewhat outweigh the varied ways to interpret the man written words in all the rest of that flippin' "holy book"? cool.gif

Come on man, how many times must it be said. The meanings of these 10 commandments are explained and you have taken a very literal meaning from them. I'm not picking which ones I will accept or ignore I just understand the meaning a little more than you. Open your mind to something you don't understand and maybe you will learn something. You don't have to accept or agree with what is said but at least learn the meaning of what you’re quoting. wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolfhunter, your comments are completely wise and reasonable. It's possible that you mistook my ironic writing style as my personal religious views. My apologies if I caused any confusion in that regard.

Those who wish to view the Bible as the literal word of God are free to do so, although to do that and remain ethically and morally consistent will be impossible. Those who wish to view the Bible as being open to reasonable interpretation can do so with their morality intact, in my opinion. But what you may not do (and still avoid the worst religious hypocrisy) is declare the Bible to be the literal word of God, and then twist and pervert those words into an interpretation which suits yourself.

Although I'm not a Christian, there's much to learn in the Bible for those who wish to understand the human condition, it's glories and its shortcomings. There's also some truly remarkable commentary. Christ warned everyone to beware the ravening wolves who would come in the guise of the Lamb, claiming to speak in his name, or words to that effect. Forget the wine and water, forget the fish and loaves; it's prescience like that which makes him seem almost god-like.

So what of this Biblical injunction to avoid killing, Wolfhunter? Is the best interpretation (if you're religious) that God is really saying, "Don't murder, but if you have to kill someone in a war it's OK?" Or, if you're not 'religious' but simply trying to live a good life, is that an ethically consistent, morally wise precept to live by?

The answer is unavoidably, uncontestably that the most religiously consistent and morally wise path is to avoid any killing whatsoever, no matter what justification is claimed for it. Anyone, even the smallest of children, can see the logic of this. If you faithfully adhere to the admonition not to kill... all murder and all war... ends immediately. On the other hand, if you believe that the wisest course is that one is permitted to kill as long as you're in a military service which instructs you to do so, war is perpetuated. And it need not be said, that as wrong as murder is, war does far, far greater evil.

Every war, including the one currently being waged by the United States, is begun by those who believe that killing others is OK as long as its done by someone in a uniform. What a different world it would be if people would simply take the Bible's (and ethical logic's) injunction against killing at face value, rather than interpret those words in a way which is more suitable to their political goals.

Best wishes,

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on man, how many times must it be said. The meanings of these 10 commandments are explained and you have taken a very literal meaning from them. I'm not picking which ones I will accept or ignore I just understand the meaning a little more than you. Open your mind to something you don't understand and maybe you will learn something. You don't have to accept or agree with what is said but at least learn the meaning of what you’re quoting. wink.gif

The meaning of what I'm quoting????? huh.gif What could be more flippin' plain? Where in heck is the hidden meaning? "Thou shalt not kill" How can I possibly be missing the meaning of that??? How could it possibly be that I'm reading that wrong? Where is it written that you're supposed to interpret that to mean anything other than what it flippin' well does mean?!

Cpdude... you're just caught in a quagmire... The truth of that commandment doesn't jive with your other beliefs and you can't squirm your way out of that... I'll admit I've been relentless in pinning you on that point, and perhaps it would be kinder for me to give you a break and back off... I'll do that... in a minute.

That same bit of sticky stuff... that same basic moral dilemma has been rationalized to the nth degree by many a better man than you or I... In the end, I suspect each man comes to grips with their "sins" according to what is comfortable to them... but the truth cannot be denied. And that's all I'm after... the truth is that many of you who claim to adhere to religious values, will ignore some of those values when it suits you to do so.

I haven't misunderstood the meaning of that particular commandment, and you know it. There is no way other way but to take that literally. You're just having a damned difficult time of admitting that you think it's ok to ignore some of what "God" said.

Now I'll give you that break... 'cause I know that we both know.... and I don't want to drive you to drink. biggrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolfhunter, your comments are completely wise and reasonable. It's possible that you mistook my ironic writing style as my personal religious views. My apologies if I caused any confusion in that regard.

Those who wish to view the Bible as the literal word of God are free to do so, although to do that and remain ethically and morally consistent will be impossible. Those who wish to view the Bible as being open to reasonable interpretation can do so with their morality intact, in my opinion. But what you may not do (and still avoid the worst religious hypocrisy) is declare the Bible to be the literal word of God, and then twist and pervert those words into an interpretation which suits yourself.

Although I'm not a Christian, there's much to learn in the Bible for those who wish to understand the human condition, it's glories and its shortcomings. There's also some truly remarkable commentary. Christ warned everyone to beware the ravening wolves who would come in the guise of the Lamb, claiming to speak in his name, or words to that effect. Forget the wine and water, forget the fish and loaves; it's prescience like that which makes him seem almost god-like.

So what of this Biblical injunction to avoid killing, Wolfhunter? Is the best interpretation (if you're religious) that God is really saying, "Don't murder, but if you have to kill someone in a war it's OK?" Or, if you're not 'religious' but simply trying to live a good life, is that an ethically consistent, morally wise precept to live by?

The answer is unavoidably, uncontestably that the most religiously consistent and morally wise path is to avoid any killing whatsoever, no matter what justification is claimed for it. Anyone, even the smallest of children, can see the logic of this. If you faithfully adhere to the admonition not to kill... all murder and all war... ends immediately. On the other hand, if you believe that the wisest course is that one is permitted to kill as long as you're in a military service which instructs you to do so, war is perpetuated. And it need not be said, that as wrong as murder is, war does far, far greater evil.

Every war, including the one currently being waged by the United States, is begun by those who believe that killing others is OK as long as its done by someone in a uniform. What a different world it would be if people would simply take the Bible's (and ethical logic's) injunction against killing at face value, rather than interpret those words in a way which is more suitable to their political goals.

Best wishes,

neo

Do you read any of the responses to your writings? I have explained this as it is all in the Bible. Do you want verses? Will you read them or are you so focused on your own path that you don't hear anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The meaning of what I'm quoting????? huh.gif What could be more flippin' plain? Where in heck is the hidden meaning? "Thou shalt not kill" How can I possibly be missing the meaning of that??? How could it possibly be that I'm reading that wrong? Where is it written that you're supposed to interpret that to mean anything other than what it flippin' well does mean?!

Cpdude... you're just caught in a quagmire... The truth of that commandment doesn't jive with your other beliefs and you can't squirm your way out of that... I'll admit I've been relentless in pinning you on that point, and perhaps it would be kinder for me to give you a break and back off... I'll do that... in a minute.

That same bit of sticky stuff... that same basic moral dilemma has been rationalized to the nth degree by many a better man than you or I... In the end, I suspect each man comes to grips with their "sins" according to what is comfortable to them... but the truth cannot be denied. And that's all I'm after... the truth is that many of you who claim to adhere to religious values, will ignore some of those values when it suits you to do so.

I haven't misunderstood the meaning of that particular commandment, and you know it. There is no way other way but to take that literally. You're just having a damned difficult time of admitting that you think it's ok to ignore some of what "God" said.

Now I'll give you that break... 'cause I know that we both know.... and I don't want to drive you to drink. biggrin.gif

Oh please don't. I live for this and believe it or not, I enjoy this! smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your enjoyment is... how should I put this... as sincere as your religious and political views are consistent and reasonable.

But perhaps I'm giving you insufficient credit. Maybe it's possible to enjoy stating extreme views, while having people expose them for bad fiction. It takes all kinds, doesn't it? smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your enjoyment is... how should I put this... as sincere as your religious and political views are consistent and reasonable.

But perhaps I'm giving you insufficient credit. Maybe it's possible to enjoy stating extreme views, while having people expose them for bad fiction. It takes all kinds, doesn't it? smile.gif

again Neo, you don't answer replies meant for you. You just intercept ones meant for others. tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler

I imagine those who follow other religions, except Buddhism, can read the same sort of "let" into their teachings. Mankind has always been able to justify the killing of another be it for profit, land or just a difference in religion. Sad isn't it! Thank God, Agnostics and Atheists need no "let" to follow in the footsteps of those with religion. whistling.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cpdude, did I not answer someone who expected a response? Kindly point it out and I'll correct the oversight immediately.

And I'm really glad you brought this issue up. Because I've noted the predisposition you have to taking potshots from the sidelines. Then, when your views are challenged, you run and hide behind a wall of condescension and ersatz smiley faces. Or allusions to your military experience. biggrin.gif

I'm not a big fan of extreme religious or political views, that's for sure. But yours don't even have the virtue of being courageously held.

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup rattler, it's one of the saddest aspects humanity has. For those who still waffle on the sidelines in this debate, consider an even greater sadness:

Jesus Christ was tortured and executed by soldiers. They were simply following orders given by a superior who feared for law and order and the security of his country. Well, I guess if being a soldier makes it OK to kill, then it was even OK for those soldiers to kill the Son of God.

They were just following orders, and doing their duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cpdude, did I not answer someone who expected a response? Kindly point it out and I'll correct the oversight immediately.

And I'm really glad you brought this issue up. Because I've noted the predisposition you have to taking potshots from the sidelines. Then, when your views are challenged, you run and hide behind a wall of condescension and ersatz smiley faces. Or allusions to your military experience. biggrin.gif

I'm not a big fan of extreme religious or political views, that's for sure. But yours don't even have the virtue of being courageously held.

neo

Potshots? I state my opinion. What is wrong with that? Just because we don't agree? blink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rattler,

As a guide for human relations, it matters not whether you're agnostic, atheist, Christian, pagan, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist... you will not do better than the philosophy you practice.

Best,

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a guide for human relations, it matters not whether you're agnostic, atheist, Christian, pagan, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist... you will not do better than the philosophy you practice.

Best,

neo

?

Is it quicker to New York or by train? blink.gif

Doesn't make any sense to me either!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...