Sean Purdy blogs:
Yesterday, the Canadian parliament voted 137-110 to give asylum to U.S. war resisters (known in the mainstream media as “military deserters”) and allow them permanent resident status. Officially, there are an estimated 200 U.S. soldiers who have fled to Canada in opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan but there are probably many more resisters who have not come forward yet.
The Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is free to ignore the decision since it was an unbinding motion. He has said as much. However, it is an extremely important victory in the campaign by the anti-war movement in Canada and the U.S. and will certainly put substantial pressure on Harper…
… U.S. war resisters (known in the mainstream media as “military deserters”)
I’m curious as to why it’s deemed necessary to use a different and more ambiguous term for deserters. Certainly the term “U.S. war resisters” has also been applied to, say, a group of Quakers who chain themselves to the gate of a military base. Why substitute that term for the much less ambiguous term “military deserter”? Especially since those Quakers have no need for asylum, whereas a deserter does, thus confusing the issue even more.
I’m very disappointed – but not surprised – with Harper. The Canadian conservative party loves to pretend that they’re representing some sort of “silent majority” but whenever it comes time to actually do the wishes of the majority, there’s always an excuse.
Because it sounds better and has the air of moral authority, whereas deserter is associated with cowardice and disloyalty. And, of course, it allows the blogger in question to slip in a backhanded accusation about the media being unfair or kowtowing to corporate interests, without actually making the accusation and thus having to justify it.
When someone seeks asylum, do they have to take any kind of oath to obey the laws of Canada, etc.? If so, Canadians might consider what these deserters did when faced with fulfilling the solemn oath that these people took when they entered the American military. An oathbreaker once is hardly someont to be depended on again.
I would trust a person who broke an oath for a good reason more than someone who honored an oath and supported tyranny. Blind obedience is not a good quality in a citizen.
Well, true. Fortunately we’re not talking about supporting tyranny. In fact, in Iraq and Afghanistan we’re talking about destroying it (e.g., the Taliban and Saddam and the Baathists) and replacing it with representative democracy. Which, after the initial false start, is gaining ground in Iraq as COIN strategies are implemented.
Taking an oath voluntarily and then breaking it and then running away to escape the consequences is cowardice.
I think you’ll find that your opinion is far from shared by all.
And that’s putting it nicely.
Oh, I know it’s not shared by all. The deserters we’re talking about don’t share it. At least, they say they don’t share it. It’s not shared by the majority of people on this blog. It’s not shared by a lot of people. And it is shared by a lot of people, including a lot (but again, not all) of people who are actually in the U.S. military and who are actually in Iraq and Afghanistan and see what’s going on.
I presume you don’t mean that there’s a question that the Taliban and Saddam and the Baathists were tyrants? Am I correct in taking it that your viewpoint is more of a question of what’s replacing them?
The bottom line is that these folks took an oath. Now they’ve broken it. Blind obedience is not a good quality in a citizen, but these people are breaking even the bond of citizenship, fleeing to another country under the guise of asylum.
There isn’t an enlisted person in the U.S. military today who did not either initially join it or re-enlist after the start of the war. So they took an oath knowing what that oath entailed. I’m not impressed with an asylum claim.
I am intimately acquainted with people working in Iraq and Afghanistan and, as you say, they do not share your view of the situation (this is to RonF). They tend to arrive optimistic and gradually become bitterly disillusioned.
More importantly, you’re not mentioning the views of the people most affected by the occupation–the Afghans and Iraqis, who have a greater knowledge of the results of the US invasion than Americans living on a military compound. Are you not aware that the majority of Iraqis want US troops to leave their country?
Returning to the question of the oath-breaking–it’s possible to sign up to do something and then realize that you’re wrong. Have you listened to the Winter Soldier testimonies from Iraq vets? They were broadcast on Democracy Now, but ignored by the mainstream media, except for an article in the Washington Post.
Thanks for covering this. However, there’s a typo in the post-title.
RonF, are you American?
“Well, true. Fortunately we’re not talking about supporting tyranny. In fact, in Iraq and Afghanistan we’re talking about destroying it (e.g., the Taliban and Saddam and the Baathists) and replacing it with representative democracy.”
No, we are talking about supporting an inmoral war based on lies and deceit. Any oath taken in that direction should not be considered acceptable, and breaking it should be considered virtous.
Soldiers don’t take oaths regarding particular wars, though, and they don’t get to disobey orders and desert based on the reasons given for the war. If given illegal orders, they’re fully able to refuse to comply, but moral disappointment is not a legally valid reason.
But it’s a morally valid reason.
Sure, Amp. But that wasn’t the issue, was it? Law is not morality writ large.
Daran; yes, I’m an American, born in Massachusetts as it happens.
Medea:
Are you not aware that the majority of Iraqis want US troops to leave their country?
Yes. That makes sense. Are you not aware that the majority of Iraqis don’t want them to leave until their own military and police forces are able to take over securing the country? Which the Coalition troops are busy training them to do. That effort is progressing well at this point.
Although I do find it interesting that it is rumored that the upcoming security agreement between the Iraqi government and the U.S. government includes permanent U.S. military bases inside Iraq. We’ll see if that’s true, and we’ll see if whatever the final agreement actually says survives the next Iraqi election cycles of October 2008 (the provincial elections, which are now possible since the law governing them has been passed) and December 2009 (national elections). The U.S. has troops in many places; WW II ended in 1945 yet we still have troops in Germany, Italy and Japan, and there are still troops in South Korea decades after the Korean War armistice was signed. In fact, we have soldiers, sailors and Marines in at least 41 major bases in about 18 other countries. None of which are viewed as being an occupation of those countries.
We’ll see if the rumor is true. We’ll also see if the general statement of “We want U.S. troops out” gets parsed into “We want every single U.S. soldier out of here” or “We don’t want the U.S. military to have hundreds of thousands of troops here dominating our security structure, but we’re cool with a few bases as long as they don’t get involved in our security” as the Iraqi army and police finish getting cleaned up into professional security forces capable of maintaining Iraq’s security on their own. In other words, as long as they act the way that they do in that list of countries above. Mind you, if it turns out to be the former we should get the hell out. But if it’s the latter it would be quite advanatageous for us to stay.
Have you listened to the Winter Soldier testimonies from Iraq vets? They were broadcast on Democracy Now, but ignored by the mainstream media, except for an article in the Washington Post.
Maybe they were ignored because they found that the stories were more along the lines of allegations in that they were difficult or impossible to verify.
No, we are talking about supporting an inmoral war based on lies and deceit.
That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it, but many believe otherwise.
Any oath taken in that direction should not be considered acceptable, and breaking it should be considered virtous.
and Amp:
But it’s a morally valid reason.
If one has taken an oath and then found that it was based on lies and deceit then breaking it may well be moral. But then one should show the courage of one’s convictions, not run away and hide. Stand up for your beliefs and expose the lies and deceit. Such an action has the virtue of strenghening one’s argument, as it lessens the idea that you are acting out of self-interest rather than on the moral principles of the conflict. I believe that the idea was well explained in Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”, which I read in my junior year of high school, or at least in his actions when he refused to pay taxes and accepted a jail sentence rather than run off to New Hampshire.
Of course, Thoreau may not be in favor these days, as the man espoused conservative principles. The essay begins “I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — “That government is best which governs least”.
Actually, RonF, I think you’re wrong. 38% of Iraqis polled in February 2008 wanted troops out immediately; 35% favored a slower withdrawal.
Also, not only have South Koreans and Italians protested against US Army bases in their countries, the countries you listed are nowhere near as vulnerable to foreign manipulation as Iraq. It’s an unfair comparison.
Stories that were “difficult or impossible to verify”? Not really. Iraqis have expressed their fear of trigger-happy US troops through blogs and polls. There were hundreds of testimonies; do you believe that these soldiers were making it all up? To what end?
I might also point out the mainstream media have often covered sketchy allegations that were later disproved. Remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction?
RonF:
It’s easy to just assume everyone is, and I didn’t want to end up with egg on my face.
How many laws enacted by US legislators have been struck down in the courts as unconstitutional? Don’t US legistators take an oath to uphold the constitution? How many of these oathbreakers are still in office?
Shouldn’t you get your own house in order, before lecturing the Canadians?
In other words, no you haven’t listened to them, but you’re sure they’re false. Ron, your credibility just keeps dropping every time you post…
How many laws enacted by US legislators have been struck down in the courts as unconstitutional? Don’t US legistators take an oath to uphold the constitution? How many of these oathbreakers are still in office?
Your logic is absurd. An ex post facto ruling that a law isn’t compatible with the Constitution is not the same thing as an ex ante decision to violate the Constitution.
Ronf:
A proposition which has been falsified by the Government of Paul Bremer.
That would be the military they’ve had to build from scratch after Bremer disbanded the one they had in 2003.
It’s true that there has been a marked improvement in the security situation in the first half of 2008, but this only amounts to a reversal of the deterioration seen in 2007/2007. Things are no better than in 2005, and worse than 2004. After five years, the only words that can be used to describe the US’ involvement in Iraq are “abyssmal failure”, delusionarily upbeat assessments by rightwingers notwithstanding.
That should of course have read “2006/2007”. Unfortunately the edit comment facility isn’t working at this time.
“But we didn’t know that what we were doing was illegal.” Yeah, great excuse.
Daran, your ignorance of American legislative and judicial process is staggering. Not one American in one thousand – and not a single legal scholar that I have ever heard of – would characterize the ability of legislators to pass laws which then fail to pass Constitutional muster as “oathbreaking”.
Actually, RonF, I think you’re wrong. 38% of Iraqis polled in February 2008 wanted troops out immediately; 35% favored a slower withdrawal.
There is no conflict between the statements that “38% of Iraqis want troops out immediately” and “the majority of Iraqis don’t want troops out until their own forces can take over”. And what did the other 27% want?
Also, not only have South Koreans and Italians protested against US Army bases in their countries,
Some have. But that’s not necessariliy indicative of the attitudes of the country as a whole or their elected officials.
the countries you listed are nowhere near as vulnerable to foreign manipulation as Iraq.
True. Which is a good reason to stay, not a good reason to pull out and let other foreigners manipulate them. When Iraq gets to the point that they can take on this for themselves, we should then abide by whatever decision their elected officials (not public opinion polls) make.
In other words, no you haven’t listened to them, but you’re sure they’re false.
No, I haven’t listened to them. And I supposed I should. What I have done is read analyses of their statements by people who have checked out some of them and found discrepancies between where they said they were and where military records actually say they were at a given time, or the actions they said they engaged in vs. their opportunity to actually to so. it also seems that some of the allegations at least are so vague that it’s impossible to check them out. The U.S. media have been pretty fast to jump on allegations and actual examples of bad actions of U.S. soldiers – e.g., Abu Graib, the Koran flushing that never happened, the Koran that was used for target practice, etc. So if what these guys said wasn’t highly publicized, I’m thinking that their veracity is suspect. The job of a journalist is to print facts, not rumor, and publicizing unsubstantiated allegations is not journalism, it’s competing with the National Enquirer.
Daran, the fact that numerous legislators are ignorant of how to make good law is no surprise but does not rise to oath breaking. If you promise to protect and defend something but screwing up doing it it’s not oath breaking as long as you give it your best effort. I’d also say that on some occasions (e.g., Roe vs. Wade) it’s not the legislators who were mistaken on how to interpret the Constitution. And if you want to talk about legislators who should be arrested, where would you like me to send you the list? I may have to zip it, it’ll be a little long.
Under what metric does the Conservative Party represent a majority? They won a slim victory after a combination of some scandals with the Liberals and simple voter fatigue (Liberals having been in power for 13 consecutive years), and they still only have a fragile, minority government.
Some majorities are apparently so silent that they become non-existent to independent observers.
American military intervention is by definition foreign manipulation. Using the logic that the US Army should protect Iraqis from foreigners, we can also justify mafia protection rackets.
Also, if we are to accept Iraqi democracy is serious and not a farce, then it can’t be conditional on anything but the Iraqi people themselves. Not their occupiers (however benevolent), not conservative voters in the US. Who, in your mind, gets to decide when Iraqis have reached the point at which they can be trusted to run their country better than foreigners can?
It takes pretty bad logic to compare the U.S. military to the Mafia.
As far as who gets to decide when Iraq is able to handle it’s own security, that would be the Iraqi people as expressed through their representative government. I’m definitely on board with the concept that if the Iraqi government says “get out”, we get out. The flip side is that if the Iraqi government says “stick around”, we stick around. So far they’re saying “stick around”. Public opinion polls that say that roughly 2/3 of the Iraqi public haven’t said “get out now” doesn’t change that.
I’ll bet not one American in one thousand has ever given so much as a moment’s thought to the question.
The issue raised by RonF is whether the war refugees can be “depended on”. I would suggest that nations “depend on” their government much more than they do on regugees within their border.
Also I don’t think legislators are as stupid as you suggest. They know when they are sailing close to the wind, constitutionally, and, for example, when it comes to passing legislation which has the practical effect of establishing Christianity, they’re putting their moral beliefs ahead of their oath of office.
They know when they are sailing close to the wind, constitutionally
Sometimes they do. And when they’re sailing “close to the wind”, they are legitimately exercising their power. The legislative is an equal branch, not a subordinate to the judiciary; they owe no special deference that arises to a level of “oh, gee, we better not pass this because the court might not like it.” If the court doesn’t like it, the court is able to handle its own responsibilities.
Empty appeal to emotion. You’re ignoring the substance of the argument.
Is the US Army a foreign intervener, or isn’t it?
If it is, why don’t you see the illogic in proposing that the US is there to protect Iraq from foreign intervention?
If it isn’t, why not?
Mafia protection can protect you from other people, but it doesn’t protect you from the Mafia, which is often worse than those other people. The US military can prevent foreign intervention from other countries, but it doesn’t prevent foreign intervention from the US, and history shows us that occupying armies have among the worst tendencies to do that.
To get it out of the way, I’d say it sets a dangerous precedent to stipulate that anything a representative government does is by definition reflective of the will of the people. By that standard, a government can do no wrong. Of course, the Iraqi government is certainly more representative of Iraqis than the US military or US pro-war voters, so there’s that.
To the extent that the current seated Iraqi government represents the Iraqi will, the US may have to stay a bit longer until some sort of political stability or compromise can be reached.
The issue raised by RonF is whether the war refugees can be “depended on”. I would suggest that nations “depend on” their government much more than they do on regugees within their border.
Nations depend on all residents, citizens or aliens, to promise to obey the laws and customs of the land and then to keep those promises. If they are lying, if they break their oaths to obey the law, then they are operating under false pretenses and will consume the resources of where they live. A nation where people cannot be depended on to keep their oaths is a nation weakened by each such person.
“War refugees” is a rather novel way to refer to military deserters, BTW, and hardly fit.
Also I don’t think legislators are as stupid as you suggest
The ones I’ve run into have not impressed. My worst experience was with my State Representative (not the incumbent). I brought her in to a Troop meeting to work on a citizenship requirement for the kids – “have a discussion with an elected official on your rights and responsibilities as an American citizen under the Constitution.” I had had a couple of discussions with her staff on the matter, but when she actually showed up for the meeting she said “Oh, well, I don’t know much about the Constitution, I’m a State legislator.” I’m thinking, “You gotta be kidding. How the f**k did YOU get elected?” Mind you, she knew full well she was there to talk for 10 minutes to a bunch of 12-year olds, not to prepare an article for the Harvard Law Review.
“They know when they are sailing close to the wind, constitutionally, and, for example, when it comes to passing legislation which has the practical effect of establishing Christianity, they’re putting their moral beliefs ahead of their oath of office.”
There have certainly been some surprisingly novel decisions from the Supreme Court from my perspective. I can understand if a number of our legislators, even a majority, were surprised. I also endorse Robert’s answer.
I’m curious as to what you think constitutes legislation that has the practical effect of establishing Christianity?
Is the US Army a foreign intervener, or isn’t it?
Yes.
If it is, why don’t you see the illogic in proposing that the US is there to protect Iraq from foreign intervention?
Because the U.S. is there to stand the Iraqis up to be able to govern themselves, not to either conquer them or to make them a client state. This greatly contrasts with the intentions of Syria, Iran, Al-Queda, etc.
Mafia protection can protect you from other people, but it doesn’t protect you from the Mafia, which is often worse than those other people.
Which is where the analogy breaks down. The Mafia is a criminal enterprise. It’s purpose is to take resources away from it’s victims without compensation. It’s main service is to offer protection from itself, not others. And you have no option to break the deal. The US military is and does none of these things. It is, in fact, far superior to the other parties involved.
To get it out of the way, I’d say it sets a dangerous precedent to stipulate that anything a representative government does is by definition reflective of the will of the people. By that standard, a government can do no wrong.
A representative government can certainly do things that are at variance with the will of the people. But not for long, not if it’s truly representative. They are in a better position than we are to measure the will of their people in any case. And for us to deal with some other entity, even if it’s poll results, undermines the legitimacy of that government and harms it. As long as a government is representative of it’s people, having been duly elected and operating under democratically established laws, it’s in everyone’s best interests for us to deal with them. We may not agree with them and may operate on the basis of that disagreement, but they are the entity in charge whether we like it or not and we have no right to overthrow or evade dealing with them if they don’t threaten us or other countries.
Of course, the Iraqi government is certainly more representative of Iraqis than the US military or US pro-war voters, so there’s that.
It’s more representative of Iraqis than anti-war voters as well.
The U.S. has troops in many places; WW II ended in 1945 yet we still have troops in Germany, Italy and Japan,
And frankly their a dammed nuisance. Nearly as bad as American tourists for obnoxiousness and don’t contribute nearly as much to the local economy. It’d be much easier to be an American in Germany if the soldiers weren’t hanging around and giving Amis a bad reputation. Plus I get flashbacks to 9/11 every time some dolt of a pilot decides he or she wants to buzz the city. Which is about twice a day. Trivial complaints, compared to what the Iraqis or Afghanis are going through, but just to point out that just because US troops are everywhere doesn’t mean that they should be everywhere.
Because the U.S. is there to stand the Iraqis up to be able to govern themselves, not to either conquer them or to make them a client state.
So it’s ok to invade a country as long as you don’t intend to conquer them or make them a “client state”? (It seems to me that the US does intend to make Iraq and Afghanistan client states, but maybe you mean something different from me by that term.)
Or is it only ok to invade if the country’s government is evil(tm)? If so, how evil do they have to be before you have permission? The US is certainly doing things that are questionable or outright banned by most “civilized” countries and its last two elections were pretty shaky (particularly 2000). Would it be ok for, say, Switzerland to invade, restore democracy by putting Al Gore in the White House, abolish torture and capital punishment, and impliment a national health insurance program before withdrawing? (Feel free to delete this post if the very thought is illegal in the US. I’ve never been very sure just where the “free speech” right ends…)
Folks, Ron’s got a point here. It’s not as if there’s some vast, untapped natural resource in Iraq that the US is just itching to acquire on the cheap.
This sort of thing, which supports your contention about legislators being stupid.
Because the U.S. is there to stand the Iraqis up to be able to govern themselves, not to either conquer them or to make them a client state.
Bwahahahahahaha!
How about the U.S. legislators who authored Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act which gave disabled persons the right to federally sue states that discriminated against them? (Title I declared unconstitutional)
Surely those mendacious oathbreakers should have known how “close to the wind” they sailed with that legislation?
If another country, like Iran, steps in to fill the gap left by the US after our departure – an unlikely prospect, at the very least there wouldn’t be only one – would it be opposed universally by each and every Iraqi? No – at the very least, partisan Shi’ites would welcome it, and would justify it by citing historical persecution from the disproportionately powerful Sunni minority. (That would also be the way Iran justifies itself as well.) Will Iranian overlords march their legions down Iraqi streets, kicking over baskets, and smelting new coins with Ahmadinejad’s profile on it? I highly doubt it. Will “Iraq” as a political entity cease to exist entirely, or be relabelled “West Iran” on maps and globes? Impossible in today’s world. Iran would become a criminal in the eyes of the int’l community.
What it will do is maintain a stifling military presence in Iraq, hold top Iraqi officials under its thumb, and give Iraqis the illusion of independence while ensuring none of its decisions can go against Iranian interests. And that would be enough for me to castigate Iran as an occupier – whether or not its actions reaches the “conqueror” threshold is unimportant and trivial. So, OK, I don’t think the US is a conqueror. “Your Honour, I committed manslaughter, not murder, so please tell these guys to unhand me.”
One asymmetry here is that Iran may be worse about it than the US is. However, the other one is that it was the US, not Iran, that illegally invaded Iraq via tanks and cluster bombs and caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths.
Let’s see. The “you may not like me, but you need me to protect you from everyone else, so I’ll invade your life for your own good against your will” is Mafia self-justification. I realize in many other areas a military force is very different from the mob. I’m not talking about those areas.
Megalodon (Quoting me)
Here’s the first amendment, quoted from memory:
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or abridging the free exercise thereof or of speech or the freedom of the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.”
Let’s look up the actual text, for comparison:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Pretty close, though I say so myself. The point is, that I could tell you straight away which constitutional provision is contradicted by moves that have the practical effect of establishing religion. Legislators ought to be able to do better than I could. It’s their job after all.
I couldn’t say what constitutional provisions were contradicted by the legislation you refer to, so I can’t tell whether the legislators should have known.
Anyone want to express an opinion on this invasion?
Daran:
From memory, probably the 11th Amendment and subsequent cases.
States weren’t officially barred from establishing state churches until 1947.
If passing Constitutional muster is based upon what the Supreme Court will let you get away with, this “straight away” awareness seems hard to come by until after the fact, unless one is a legal shaman. I thought the legislators were beating a dead horse by passing a Federal abortion ban ever so similar to a constitutionally voided state abortion ban. But lo and behold, the Court said such a Federal ban was distinguishable and Constitutional after all.
What kind of moves are you referring to that have the “practical effect of establishing religion?” If these are the kinds of moves that I think you are referring to, legislators can almost always plausibly claim that the Constitutional case law is ambiguous or that there is room to conclude that their legislative policy will pass Constitutional muster. That the Court will say that their policy can explained away as a historical, cultural practice (despite the authoring legislator’s explicit Dominionist opinions), that the Ten Commandments are physically far enough from the legislative chamber, that tax funding of parochial schools serves a concurrent secular purpose, or that the Nativity Scene’s public funding is only incidental or indirect state support, etc.
Yes, the right of sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment and the judicial “congruence and proportionality” standard which limits Congress’s power to uphold the 14th Amendment. The 4 dissenting justices argued (I think convincingly) that the majority’s rational basis standard did not apply to Congress and that there was prior precedent justifying this use of Federal enforcement power.
Daran, there’s no link there.