July 16, 2008

Canada starts deporting deserters back to the US
posted by Mr. Knickerbocker 16 years ago
  • TOOLS
  • KNOBS
  • not cool, buddeh!
  • Filthy commie hippies, stinkin' up the place with patchouli and singing "Kumbaya" all the damn time, with the bongos and the dirty feet and the "oh, please don't make me kill innocent people" blather. They give me such a headache!!
  • This isn't a war resister or draft dodger...and he doesn't appear to have a problem with killing people. This guy knowingly joined the army and then changed his mind. Plus, he should have gone to Mexico.
  • OK, well, you guys can just have William Shatner back, then. We'll leave him on the Niagara Bridge with a clean change of underwear and a sack lunch, and you can pick him up whenever.
  • Druther have John Candy back, but you BROKE him.
  • Actually, rocket, I'd say he's a resister of this particular war. He knowingly joined the army, yes, but to fight a war that he'd been lied to about. When he realized that there was no justification for the US to be in Iraq, *then* he changed his mind before he got what he considered innocent blood on his hands. I think he did the right thing.
  • I'm having a hard time figuring out if I agree more with Rocket or Nick. On the one hand, if you voluntarily join the army you are not doing so with a contract that says you'll only fight in a war that you believe in. On the other, if you find out too late that you are going to have to be a jackbooted thug committing atrocities, there ought to be a way to change your mind without facing imprisonment. Either way, I'm pissed off at Canada.
  • FWIW, I think he did the right thing, too. I also think one should accept the consequences when doing the right thing involves breaking the law.
  • Boy, I don't know, rocket. On the one hand, do the right thing and bear the misery of getting court-martialled. On the other, do the right thing and go to Canada and get some fishing in. Ideals aside, I don't think I can fault him for that choice.
  • Neither Canada nor Mexico are far away enough. Try Brazil, at least.
  • Seems to me he might be overreacting a little bit: No evidence was submitted on what Mr. Long would be required to do in Iraq, whether he could have requested an alternative assignment or even what would happen if he was sent back to the United States ... The vast majority of American deserters have not been prosecuted for desertion, according to evidence before the court ... About 94 per cent of U.S. deserters from 2002 to 2006 were being dealt with administratively, receiving a less-than-honourable discharge from the military. ... The court heard that Mr. Long would likely be returned to his army unit, which would mete out whatever punishment he would receive. .... On the other hand, perhaps his fears are legitimate.
  • whether he could have requested an alternative assignment That suggestion is ridiculous. Not even remotely possible.
  • How do you know?
  • Dude, it's the military. Even if you don't have first experience in it, I find it hard to believe that you don't know that about the military. You have to follow orders. What's not understood about that? There's no way out of following orders. They say "Do it." and you don't get to respond with "can I do something else instead?" you have to respond with "Aye aye, sir!" or "Sir, yes sir!" That's it.
  • "Dude, it's the military"? So in other words, you don't know for sure either. There are a lot of specializations within the military, and I do believe you have the option of putting in a request to your CO to do specific things once you've completed basic training. Whether or not it's granted is another story, but I'm certain the option exists. I've seen it in the movies and TV! Help me out here, Dreadnought!
  • In a high stress, high media profile situation, such as a soldier returning to duty after fleeing to Canada, even the by-the-book idiots in the US`Army would throw out several options that would end this episode without a total melt-down.
  • I do believe you have the option of putting in a request to your CO Hahaha. I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be rude, but that's funny. No, you don't. Before you sign, you can negotiate with them what job you want. After boot, you can tell them your preferences for where you're next duty station is. Those are the only two situation that you have any sort of control over. The first situation, it's before you signed, so doesn't really count. The second situation, you still have to follow orders. You don't get to decide what orders you want to follow. That's just not even remotely possible. You'll go to Mast so fast (or whatever the equivalent is for diff. service branches) for trying something like that. You don't get to question your orders at all. You have to follow orders. That's it. No way around it. This is such a basic core principle of the military, I can't even believe that a movie or TV show got this wrong. Which show/movie said you don't have to follow orders? In a high stress, high media profile situation... In those situations, they use them to make examples. This guy will get it worse than the Lyndie Johnson crew got it. And the example will be made.
  • After boot, you can tell them your preferences for where you're next duty station is. Yes, that's exactly what I meant. At any rate, as the article says, No evidence was submitted on what Mr. Long would be required to do in Iraq, although it probably has something to do with being a tank commander, which was his original plan. If you're training to be an officer, I would think you might have a bit more leeway in regards to your assignment, as opposed to if you're just a grunt. However, during wartime perhaps not so much. I don't mean to be rude That's all right, I'm sure you can't help it.
  • Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Well, that's a lot different than what you said, and what the article says, especially the part I quoted that started this banter. Orders aren't suggestions, they are orders. You have to follow them. You aren't allowed to question them. At All. That's it. They are orders. I don't know how to explain in it more simply or bluntly to you. You have to follow orders in the military.
  • "I don't know how to explain in it more simply or bluntly to you. Thank you for explaining in it so simply and bluntly. We now understanding. Now you can Hahaha again and have funny.
  • Orders aren't suggestions, they are orders. You have to follow them. You aren't allowed to question them. At All. That's it. They are orders. Unless, of course, they're illegal orders, which you are required to not follow. I know it doesn't always work this way in practice, but modern military doctrine usually stresses that soldiers should be trained to spot and disobey illegal orders. Now it would be a very interesting question as to whether a solider could refuse service in a given place because the decision to invade was illegal. Might it be possible that a soldier's decision to refuse such a posting could trigger a court case examining the legality of a military action? I suppose it depends on the relationship between military and civilian courts. Which show/movie said you don't have to follow orders? Pretty much every one, I think. No, I tell a lie, there are some (usually serious and arty) military movies in which the heroes aren't flagrantly and routinely insubordinate.