Resisting War Is A Human Right !
Thu, 2008-01-24 17:25
#1
Boyd Reimer
Resisting War Is A Human Right !
Thu, 2008-01-24 17:25
#2
Boyd Reimer
RE: War Resisters:
Resisting war is a human right! Any government which imprisons those who exercise that right are violating human rights ! Therefore the govt of the USA has been violating human rights for decades. Shame on our Canadian government if they participate in this violation by extraditing US war resistors.
Refusing to kill people is a human right. Makes sense? At any time, at any place, in any circumstance all humans have the right to refuse to kill people or participate in a group that is killing people. That's a human right. The govt of the USA is continuing to violate that human right--just has they have for decades.
In Canada, if the issue of extraditing war resisters to be imprisoned in the US--if that issue comes to a vote when Parliament opens on Monday, then I want all the Wikipedia writers to add to the Wikipedia entries of all MPs telling the world forever in history who voted which way on this issue. That way Wikepedia's history record will forever haunt those Canadian MPs who join in the violation of the most basic human right: the right to refuse to kill.
Sincerely,
Boyd Reimer
Fri, 2008-01-25 22:49
#3
quote:
[url=http://rabble.ca/in_his_own_words.shtml?sh_itm=da8165b267adb3effb189da58... the U.S. Army to Canada: a resister's journey[/b][/url]I joined the U.S. Army on August 28, 2006, after learning that not only would I be serving my country, as every young man should, but that I would also be receiving benefits such as: Tricare universal healthcare, a $400,000 life insurance policy, a $37,000 Montgomery GI Bill, a $10,000 signing bonus, a dependable monthly income, and, last but not least, career training for when my contract reached its completion. As a 19 year-old kid recently independent from his parents, one might say that I needed what they were offering me. And I took it.
===
quote:
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=64990][b]War resisters face potential deportation[/b][/url]
I am a former Soviet soldier who served in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and I know first hand how hard it is to walk away from a war, because one faces prison, frightening uncertainty, and social condemnation. . .How ironic, then, to reflect that on November 26, 1986, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario welcomed five Soviet war objectors from Afghanistan. The Assembly described them as [b]"heroic individuals"[/b] and [b]"conscientious objectors in refusing to be partners in crime."[/b] The soldiers were given asylum in Canada, and they were praised for refusing [b]"to be part and parcel of a butchering machine …occupying Afghanistan" (Transcript of Debates). Ontario's MPPs "gave them a standing ovation"[/b] (The Globe and Mail, November 27, 1986).
That doesn't sound like our warmongering stoogeocrats. Oh! Ya, cold war bullshit again.
Sat, 2008-01-26 15:31
#4
Yeah Canada = Soviet Union
What colour is the sky in yr world?
I'd guess forever dark and gloomy.
Sat, 2008-01-26 18:01
#5
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/01/25/war-resisters.html]U.S. protesters demand Canadian protection for war resisters[/url]
So why would our stoogeocrats welcome VietNam war resisters(albeit at the same time we were supplying $2.5 billion in war supplies and various technical assistance to the U.S.military), and then welcomed Soviet war resisters with open arms in 1986, but not American resisters of the Iraq war today?
Sat, 2008-01-26 18:10
#6
quote:
Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
[b]Yeah Canada = Soviet Union[/b]
Not quite:
Canada ~ Puerto Rico,
except that Canada is colder with a dwindling polar bear population - a lot more oil, gas, hydroelectric power and timber being siphoned off to the USSA - and no bananas. Canduras?
eta: At least the Soviets received bananas and sugar and rice and manufactured goods in exchange for their oil and humanitarian aid to the COMECON countries. Canadians see very little of the oil profits after they are pilfered, trucked, carted away and siphoned off to USSA.
[ 26 January 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sat, 2008-01-26 18:26
#7
Obviously Harper doesn't want to piss off the US and part of his persona is not being anti-american but he's wrong on the Canadian perspective of this issue. Letting them in would probably be an advantage to him politically here in Canada, the far right don't like him that much anyway.
If he were to let in the resisters the only disadvantage I can invision would be statements from US politicians and pundits that would be blown up by the press here to suggest a big rift between the two countries. The press love to suggest conflict always.
I disagree with any insinuation of similarities between Canada and the USSR's wars in Afghanistan. The fact that both countries troops set foot in that country are where the similarities begin and end.
Sat, 2008-01-26 18:37
#8
It funny how the citizens of Canada have one of the highest standards of living in the world, the most diverse population, the most homes connected to the web in the world, riches, peace, safety and yet we are still no better than a banana republic. Sure things aren't perfect and we shouldn't stop striving to be better but which countries are doing things the right way according to you.
Sorry for this thread drift
Sat, 2008-01-26 18:40
#9
Harper, the CCCE and right-wing Vancouver make-believe think tank are all perfectly in-line and aye-aye with the Americanization of Canada. The lunatic right-wing fringe believe that Canada is a socialist country with too many social programs. The lunatic right-wing fringe think we need what is failing in the USSA, which would be deregulation, privatizations and flexible labour markets.
And Ottawa accepted orders from Warshington to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics because the Soviets "invaded" Afghanistan. And 20 some years later, our stoogeocrats are following orders again. Aye-aye, shit all over us and take the oil and gas off our hands, Uncle Sam, may we have another!!!
Sat, 2008-01-26 18:58
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
[b]It funny how the citizens of Canada have one of the highest standards of living in the world,[/b]
and largest low wage workforces among richest countries next to the USSA ... and one of the worst child poverty rates
quote:
[b]the most diverse population, the most homes connected to the web in the world,[/b]
Canada is an underdeveloped nation with third world conditions across our North.
And we have better broadband penetration rates than the U.S. thanks to previous policies for a regulated telecommunications sector.
quote:
[b] riches, peace, safety[/b]
Yes, Canada only helps the USSA invade Afghanistan so they can focus on military occupation in Iraq.
And Ottawa only helped the CIA remove a democratically elected leader in Haiti this decade.
And Harper only rubs elbows with a Colombian leader with ties to right-wing death squads and paramilitaries, while at the same time giving Fidel and Cuba the cold shoulder in playing stooge-diplomat to Latin America.
quote:
[b]and yet we are still no better than a banana republic[/b]
Yes, we have no bananas, just a heckuva lotta oil and gas and hydroelectric power and timber siphoned off to the USSA 24-7 as we fight imaginary wars on terrorism and inflation for the sake of a handful few.
Sat, 2008-01-26 19:12
#11
Fidel, I notice you have "invaded" in quotes as it relates to the Soviets involvement in Afghanistan. How would you characterize the Soviets involvement there?
[ 26 January 2008: Message edited by: ChicagoLoopDweller ]
Sat, 2008-01-26 19:23
#12
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by ChicagoLoopDweller:
[b]Fidel, I notice you have "invaded" in quotes as it relates to the Soviets involvement in Afghanistan. How would you characterize the Soviets involvement there?[/b]
The Soviets intervened in support of the existing government of Afghanistan, against mujahideen insurgents. Not unlike what Canada has done.
Would you characterize Canada's involvement as an "invasion" of Afghanistan?
Sat, 2008-01-26 20:21
#13
laine lowe
Canada (and perhaps the US too) probably accepted Soviet war resisters who had fought in Afghanistan as a blow to the USSR. I suspect it had nothing to do with humanitarian or compassionate concerns. It was probably purely a result of geopolitical gamesmanship.
Canada and US are allies. So the political gains from such a move are not great.
But I have to ask, if resisting a war is a human right (and I am not necessarily disagreeing), should Canada also provide refuge for those US soldiers who want to resist another tour in Afghanistan? On moral grounds, what is the difference?
On practical grounds, Canada is involved in one occupation and not the other. Makes it hard for a Canadian government to allow it for one war zone and not another.
But I have to say, I am conflicted on the issue of "war resisters". It really is not as clear cut an issue as providing safe haven for those who were drafted against their will. I have tremendous respect for those US military resisters who risked court-martial to object to the war(s) in the US. I think that has more power in swaying public support against these illegal wars than seeking refuge in Canada. In fact, I wish some Canadian military would do the same. Maybe if the occupation in Afghanistan continues and gets bloodier, that will happen.
Sat, 2008-01-26 22:34
#14
quote:
Originally posted by laine lowe:
[b]But I have to say, I am conflicted on the issue of "war resisters". It really is not as clear cut an issue as providing safe haven for those who were drafted against their will.[/b]
I quoted Brad McCall's comments above as to why he joined the U.S. military. He didn't join because they are paying McWages without any benefits, like: free college tuition, socialized health coverage, and access to trades apprenticeship that would have been useful to him after military service.
I think the number of U.S. and NATO deserters is higher than we know. I have no idea what the rate or number is, just that more Canadians have come home from Afghanistan in plastic bags than were killed on 9-11.
And with the next largest low wage workforce among rich countries right here in Canada, the CF is using the same enticements to attract new recruits for imperialism abroad. Not all of Canadian recruits will admit to seeking a decent paycheque, full dental and medical, job training and free post-secondary ed at a time when university and college costs are throwing young Canadians into a quarter century or more worth of student loan debt sentence.
But I'll bet the feds won't privatize the military anytime soon. Our stooges believe in socialism when it serves a U.S. agenda for imperialism on the other side of the world.
Sat, 2008-01-26 23:20
#15
Yes, most U.S. military personnel joined up, at least in theory, "of their own free will", although there are a surprisingly large number of places, (from the Detroit neighborhoods Michael Moore visited in "Farenheit 911" to the deeply impoverished West Virginia town that Lynndie England hailed from)in which military service was and is the only employment or educational opportunity available.
In welcoming resisters, you are welcoming and honoring those people who, even though they joined at least in theory of their own volition, grew enough through their experience of war to realize it is an unconscionable evil and who have chosen, at great personal risk, to cease to participate in it. Little ambiguity there, if you ask me.
There's also a class dimension in another sense;
In the Vietnam era, it was often middle-class or upper-middle-class kids who were able to make it to Canada(unless their daddies pulled them strings and got them non-combat jobs)while it was working class kids, and people of color, who were forced to desert AFTER being drafted. This was what made the weird double standard some people had at the time "it's okay to be a draft resister, but it's evil to be a deserter" particularly reactionary and, well, bigoted.
Today, there's no draft, but it's still much more likely for working-class people and especially working-class people of color to be forced economically into the military, and, if possible, into combat, the theory being that middle-class white Americans are going to be far less concerned about the deaths of people like THAT(if you know what I mean). So if people of color and people who aren't rich are going to choose to stop being part of the war machine, it is always going to be much more likely that they'll be in the resister-deserter category, and thus much more necessary for Canada and other countries that still have humane values to provide sanctuary for them.
[ 26 January 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
Sat, 2008-01-26 23:38
#16
quote:
Originally posted by laine lowe:
[b] But I have to say, I am conflicted on the issue of "war resisters". It really is not as clear cut an issue as providing safe haven for those who were drafted against their will. I have tremendous respect for those US military resisters who risked court-martial to object to the war(s) in the US. I think that has more power in swaying public support against these illegal wars than seeking refuge in Canada. In fact, I wish some Canadian military would do the same. Maybe if the occupation in Afghanistan continues and gets bloodier, that will happen.[/b]
There are much easier ways for Cdn military to avoid service overseas in unpopular wars than to hide out in another country. Smoking a little gange for instance is a guaranteed show stopper, although it comes with some uncomfortable administrative side effects.
Sun, 2008-01-27 03:03
#17
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b] So if people of color and people who aren't rich are going to choose to stop being part of the war machine, it is always going to be much more likely that they'll be in the resister-deserter category, and thus much more necessary for Canada and other countries that still have humane values to provide sanctuary for them.[/b]
Thanks Ken. I didn't realize that's the way it was with the Vietnam resisters. Pierre Burton described the many reasons why young Canadians volunteered for the second world war. He said that Canada was a pretty boring place for young people in the 1930's, and that they couldn't find jobs or even get a drink anywhere. Canadians couldn't wait to go overseas and see the world, and free the world from fascism and all that. Dad said it was something just to have three squares a day and must have been 25 pounds heavier by the time they'd reached Brussels in '45. I think there are certain similarities today but not nearly the same as it was in the 1930's.
On the other hand, I don't think young people today have a the same things to look forward to like my generation and the previous one did growing up. I was a young man in the 1980's, and the world was everyone's oyster then. There were still lots of jobs in the 70's and even into the 80's as I left highschool. College and university was affordable. The average person wasn't overly concerned about pollution or terrorism then.
Sun, 2008-01-27 14:02
#18
quote:
But I have to ask, if resisting a war is a human right (and I am not necessarily disagreeing), should Canada also provide refuge for those US soldiers who want to resist another tour in Afghanistan? On moral grounds, what is the difference?
The war in Iraq was initiated in violation of international law. The war in Afghanistan is a stupid war, and one that Canada should get out of, as soon as possible. But it had a legal basis at the start.
Sun, 2008-01-27 14:52
#19
What was the legal basis for bombing poor people in Afghanistan, Jeff?
Sun, 2008-01-27 14:53
#20
Jeff: Without even appealing to the moral angle,does the fact that the US government changes the "contract" as it were between the military and those who enlist carry any weight in Canada?
I speak specifically of recalling discharged vets against their will for deployment in Iraq, unilaterally extending tours of deployment past discharge dates and forced reenlistments for furthur deployments.
No doubt, these machinations are technically legal in the US but can they carry some weight in a resister's case to stay in Canada?
Sun, 2008-01-27 15:02
#21
laine lowe
Are you suggesting that resisting war is only valid if it's an illegal conflict? Was the Vietnam War considered an illegal conflict?
Also, the legitimacy of the US attack and occupation of Afghanistan is questionable. Does it not qualify as an attack of one sovereign nation against another without provocation? Are preemptive strikes/preventive wars considered legal?
Anyway, I doubt Canada's new government thinks of the Iraq occupation as illegal:
[url=http://mostlywater.org/canadian_general_takes_senior_command_role_iraq]C... General headed for Iraq[/url]
Sun, 2008-01-27 15:51
#22
The Vietnam war was naked aggression against yet another poor country struggling to themselves of imperialist occupations.
[url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew36.htm]Marjorie Cohn said about the illegal bombing of Afghanistan:[/url]
quote:
Although the horror of the mass tragedy inflicted on September 11 is indisputable, the bombings of Afghanistan by the United States and the United Kingdom are illegal. This bombardment violates both international law and United States law, set forth in the United Nations Charter, a treaty ratified by the U.S. and therefore part of the supreme law of the land under the U.S. Constitution. . .The bombing of Afghanistan is not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the Charter because: 1) the attacks in New York and Washington D.C. were criminal attacks, not “armed attacks” by another state, and 2) there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the U.S. after September 11, or the U.S. would not have waited three weeks before initiating its bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” (Caroline Case, 29 BFSP 1137-8; 30 BFSP 19-6 (1837)). This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been [b]affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly.[/b]
According to what I've read, the same shock and awe gangsters are violating U.S. constitution and international law again by threatening Iran, also a sovereign country, with military aggression. The Nazis did the same things: threatening, menacing, bombing and marching into sovereign countries.
Tue, 2008-01-29 10:58
#23
Here are Bob Rae and Olivia Chow, supporting War Resisters:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzWgHAFzdnY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Rae
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU7I0ouaLFw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Olivia Chow
Tue, 2008-01-29 12:37
#24
And here is a really nice video of the march which occurred after the Toronto meeting at which Rae and Chow spoke:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcwn4AW8l1s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?...