This story got me thinking... Is Corey being truthful or did he make all that stuff up because he was scared? And even if it was the latter, should he be punished?
Should US deserters from Iraq be given refuge in Canada, a country that welcomed tens of thousands of Vietnam draft-dodgers and deserters?
It's a burning question in Canada as the authorities prepare to deport 25-year-old Corey Glass to face trial in the US.
Here, Corey argues he should be allowed to stay, while below Jonathan Kay from Canada's conservative National Post newspaper says deserters should be sent home.
COREY GLASS, CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR/DESERTER
In 2002, I joined the Indiana National Guard. When I joined, I was told I would only be in combat if there were troops occupying the United States.
I signed up to defend people and do humanitarian work filling sandbags if there was a hurricane. I had no conception I would be deployed to fight on foreign shores.
But in 2005, I was deployed with my unit to Camp Anaconda near Balad, Iraq. My job in Iraq was in military intelligence.
Through this job I had access to a lot of information about what was happening on the ground in Iraq. I realised innocent people were being killed unjustly and I tried to quit the military while in Iraq. My commander told me I was stressed out and needed R&R, because I was doing a job I was not trained to do.
I went home on leave and said I was not coming back. I was told desertion is punishable by death. I was Absent Without Leave (AWOL) in America for eight months.
I searched the internet and found out about US war resisters in Canada. I arrived in Toronto two weeks later.
----- TIMES THEY HAVE A CHANGED During the Vietnam War, Pierre Trudeau declared Canada ''a refuge from militarism'' Tens of thousands of American draft-dodgers and deserters took refuge in Canada Canada's immigration laws are much stricter now: refugees must prove that they would face persecution - not just prosecution - if sent back home On 3 June, Canada's parliament passed a non-binding motion in favour of allowing deserters to stay -----
I should have been in New Orleans after Katrina, not in Iraq. I believe the Iraq War is illegal and morally wrong. I believe I have a duty to refuse to take part in a war not sanctioned by the United Nations, started on the basis of lies. I have been in Toronto since August 2006. In my time here, I have been self-sufficient and I have made many friends. I have built a life here.
Last week I was in Ottawa, when the House of Commons passed a motion saying that the Canadian government should make it possible for conscientious objectors to get permanent residence in Canada. The motion also said that all deportation proceedings against us should be stopped.
But I may be deported anyway. On 21 May I was told that my last chance to stay in Canada had failed, and I must leave by 12 June (since extended to 10 July). I know that if I return to the US I will face imprisonment and possibly a criminal record.
I don't think it is fair that I should be returned to the United States to face unjust punishment for doing what I felt morally obligated to do. I am hoping that Canada, which stayed out of the Iraq War for reasons similar to my own, will reverse the deportation order and let me stay, as parliament has urged.
There are several dozen other war resisters like me in Canada now. They all deserve to stay here and get on with their lives.
I hope the new American President will end the Iraq War and bring the troops home. But until that happens, I believe it is every soldier's right to refuse to take part in that war, if that is what his or her conscience says they must do.
JONATHAN KAY, CANADA'S NATIONAL POST
Should Corey Glass have enlisted in the US National Guard back in 2002? Probably not. From what I saw and heard of his 21 May press conference in Toronto, my first impression was that this pale, lanky 25-year-old should be playing synth in a Gothic emo band - not kicking down doors in Iraq.
But for whatever reason, Glass did sign up for military service. There's no draft in the United States - as there was in the Vietnam era: No one forced him to put on a uniform. Why should Canadians help this deserter go back on his freely given word?
America's fair-weather soldiers shouldn't be permitted to make a mockery of a Canadian refugee system that was originally designed to protect migrants fleeing assassination and torture.
During his 21 May appearance, Glass said he was "morally obligated" to desert the US military rather than return to fight an "unjust war" in Iraq.
At the same press conference, anti-war activist Jane Orion Smith argued that Glass is legally entitled to asylum in Canada because the applicable UN standard covers conscientious objectors involved in military actions that are "condemned by the international community".
Even if this label could fairly be applied to the 2003 liberation of Iraq (a premise I would dispute), it definitely did not apply to the Iraq conflict in 2005, which is when Glass deserted.
By that time, the UN Security Council had already passed Resolutions 1483 (recognising the United States and Britain as "occupying powers" under international law) and 1546 (endorsing the creation of an Iraqi Interim Government).
Glass's mission was not to invade Iraq, his mission was to help protect the emergence of a free, peaceful, sovereign Iraqi state. With the recent deployment of the Iraqi army to Basra, Mosul and the Sadr City neighbourhood of Baghdad, that goal is now close to being realised - no thanks to Glass, nor to the dozens of other "conscientious objectors" now residing in Canada.
Moreover, from a purely political standpoint, giving asylum to the likes of Glass would send a terrible message. It would undermine America's war effort in Iraq - even as Canadian and American soldiers fight side by side on another front in the war on terror, Afghanistan.
Given this shared enterprise, does Canada really want to cast itself as the protector of fair-weather American soldiers fleeing their duty?
Six years ago, Corey Glass picked the wrong career. Three years ago, he picked an illegal way to abandon it. It's time for this ex-soldier to go home and pay the price for what he's done.
Jonathan Kay is managing editor for comment at Canada's National Post newspaper.
Tell all the people who believe What they read in the press Tell all the folk who stare From behind suburban walls The enemy is not some nation far across the sea The enemy is with us every single breathing day.
So yes, i will fight for my country The land that i love so well Yes - for justice A land fit for all our futures Yes,i will fight for my country The land that i love so well Hear the voices Of our history echo all around.
Fight all the ones who divide us Rich against poor Fight all the ones who divide us White against black Fight all the powers who want their missiles In our earth Fight all the people who would Lead us into war.
And yes, i will fight for my country...
No rights were ever given to us By the grace of god No rights were ever given By some united nations clause No rights were ever given By some nice guy at the top Our rights - they were bought by all the blood And all the tears of all our Grandmothers,grandfathers before.
For all the folk who gave their lives for us For all the folk who spit out - never say die For all the fires burning on our highest hills For all the people spinning tales tonight Fight all the powers who abuse our common laws Fight all the powers who think they only owe themselves.
And yes,i will fight for my country... (ad infinitum)
One the one side I pity this guy, on the other I think he was dumb to join the army in the first place. I don't know about the laws of the States in regard of this issue, but I think he should've refused to go to Iraq when they sent him there. Then again, he obviously made up his mind only when he was there and when he saw what was going on. So in the end it comes back to the fact that's it's better to not join the army if you can earn a living elsewhere.
So from one perspective he signed a contract and chickend out of it, which is bad.
On the other hand though I think he shouldn't be punished for this "crime" in the first place, but seeing that the laws won't change I hope Canada gives him refuge.
Even though the National Guard's normal duties are to help states with disasters, they do have to mobilize at the president's command and are technically a part of the army. Canada will probably give him refuge, but he should be charged.
On June 11 2008 21:09 Jibba wrote: Whether the war is just or not is irrelevant.
I agree legally but disagree morally (I assume you meant legally). I feel bad for the people who were forced to go to Iraq even though they were not signing up to do things oversees. It's such a difficult time.
On June 11 2008 21:09 Jibba wrote: Whether the war is just or not is irrelevant.
I agree legally but disagree morally (I assume you meant legally). I feel bad for the people who were forced to go to Iraq even though they were not signing up to do things oversees. It's such a difficult time.
i feel the same way. drafts violate individual freedoms, but we don't even need to consider that - it still works out to preserve the nation. drafts don't need to happen. they happen in times of unwanted war that the people don't want, but the elite do. if it ever came down to true national security, where a country was invading ours, we would now have a common enemy and a strong reason to unite and fight. much like how false flag terrorism units and rallies the nation for war, except this time it would be real and legitimate. don't doubt for a second there would be millions ready and willing to defend the country and oust the foreign enemy. isn't it beautiful? still no need for a draft.
interesting thing, as EXACLTY THAT is the mentality of what's happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other country we invaded. if someone invades your country and starts blowing shit up and killing your mom, cousin and friends, you're gonna be fucking pissed no matter what form of govenrment they have. as much as i honor freedom and a democratic republic form of government, and disagree with socialism and welfare, i despise invasion, greed and power that leads to tons of unnessary death and suffering even more. i give my hats off to the vietnamese, who told foreigners to fuck off, and showed so.
if it ever came down to it, i would not submit to the american war right now. if i didn't know what i know now about constitutional philosophy, the plans goals and corruption of the leaders who start and sustain and then DRAFT for the war, and instead just thought it a duty as a citizen of america, and i can't fight the system and i should just submit and risk my life for global government and more elite profits, i probably would end up in the war feeling stripped, lonely, bitter, and at the stroke of an unlucky moment, be in agony and pain and die away.
instead i won't be quite. as jefferson said "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Therefore, "educate and inform the mass of the people... they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." Quite sad that the government holds and controls most of the education...
On June 11 2008 21:09 Jibba wrote: Even though the National Guard's normal duties are to help states with disasters, they do have to mobilize at the president's command and are technically a part of the army. Canada will probably give him refuge, but he should be charged.
Whether the war is just or not is irrelevant.
there is a higher principle than listening to the strongest guy. whether the war is just is infinitely more important. we focus judgement on this guy, but we should be focusing on the people who started this war. there is always a component of fear in war. while i do not admire that, i believe it is far better to be a "coward" and protest against unjsut war and refuse to shed blood than to be "brave" and prop up the powerstructure that will go on to cause more death of thousands of thousands in the future.
civil disobedience that honors a higher principle is more of a duty than going along with leaders that disregard this principle. if there is any knowledge of individual freedoms and a sense of a government that exist to protect these rights within this guy's head, then i commend him for deserting, coward or not.
On June 11 2008 21:09 Jibba wrote: Even though the National Guard's normal duties are to help states with disasters, they do have to mobilize at the president's command and are technically a part of the army. Canada will probably give him refuge, but he should be charged.
Whether the war is just or not is irrelevant.
righteousness and justice prevails over authority and force. whether the war is just is infinitely more important. we focus judgement on this guy, but we should be focusing on the people who started this war. there is always a component of fear in war. while i do not admire that, i believe it is far better to be a "coward" and protest against unjsut war and refuse to shed blood than to be "brave" and prop up the powerstructure that will go on to cause more death of thousands of thousands in the future.
civil disobedience that honors a higher principle is more of a duty than going along with leaders that disregard this principle. if there is any knowledge of individual freedoms and a sense of a government that exist to protect these rights within this guy's head, then i commend him for deserting, coward or not.
hahaha i cant stop laughing at that.. im sorry its just so fucking funny hah hah ah ahaha haha right..justice > authori.. AHahaHAHAHA Ok i'm done.
It sucks, cuz I can see where he's coming from in disagreeing with the war. We shouldn't be there. But then again, the guy really has to be a huge fucking retard if he honestly thought there was no chance of him going to war—be it Iraq, Afghanistan, wherever—when he joined the guard. If we need additional troops, the reserves come first, then them.
Like Jibba said, you're technically in the military and under the President's direction. Join the Peace Corps or Red Cross or something like that if you really wanna help out in domestic affairs like the shit that went down in NO.
Should US deserters from Iraq be given refuge in Canada, a country that welcomed tens of thousands of Vietnam draft-dodgers and deserters?
This is one of those things Americans like to say that makes my blood boil. So fucking what if people refuse to go to a war and fight for something they don't believe in? Did you ever learn about the Vietnam war? Have you heard the accounts of US soldiers there? I'm pretty sure the vast majority regrets not fleeing when they had the chance; it was a fucking terrible place to fight a war, and to what end?
Don't ask people to risk their lives for you, and then when they say they really don't care that much about you to do that, label them a 'draft-dodger' or 'deserter' as if its an accurate portrayal of their personality. If you would fight in one war, and not another, do you still deserve to be called a draft-dodger? Heaven forbid someone have the intelligence to make discrepancies.
Sorry that Canada has different social values than America, but it's not good reason to specifically blame us for the people you failed to indoctrinate with ridiculous patriotic and pro-war beliefs.
heavonearth, ur irght that was kinda corny. i'm basically trying to compare following a principle vs following an authority. chnaged it. thx for the feedback
Wars are such BS. If a war isn't about a natural resource, it is in my opinion a complete lie designed for profit. Wars based on religion, terrorism, ideology/facism, are all completely fake, where a bunch of young ignorant poor people are persuaded to kill each other by old rich guys. If the average man just refused to fight, 90% of wars wouldn't happen.
On June 11 2008 21:09 Jibba wrote: Even though the National Guard's normal duties are to help states with disasters, they do have to mobilize at the president's command and are technically a part of the army. Canada will probably give him refuge, but he should be charged.
Whether the war is just or not is irrelevant.
there is a higher principle than listening to the strongest guy. whether the war is just is infinitely more important. we focus judgement on this guy, but we should be focusing on the people who started this war. there is always a component of fear in war. while i do not admire that, i believe it is far better to be a "coward" and protest against unjsut war and refuse to shed blood than to be "brave" and prop up the powerstructure that will go on to cause more death of thousands of thousands in the future.
civil disobedience that honors a higher principle is more of a duty than going along with leaders that disregard this principle. if there is any knowledge of individual freedoms and a sense of a government that exist to protect these rights within this guy's head, then i commend him for deserting, coward or not.
You're rambling on about drafts and justice. He joined the army. Case closed.
If you're against the war for moral reasons, then it is still completely irrelevant. When is war ever moral? Did troops in WW1 and WW2 have issues with the morality of battle? Fuck yes. That stance is always prevalent, that doesn't mean you can back out in the middle of your commitment.
Psycho, your post works in the case of Vietnam because it was a bullshit draft, but it holds no ground in this case, especially since the Canadian government has a history of deporting U.S. deserters from the Iraq war. When you enlist, you don't get to cherry pick what conflicts you enter. That type of inconsistency is guaranteed to fail.
Did troops in WW1 and WW2 have issues with the morality of battle? Fuck yes. That stance is always prevalent, that doesn't mean you can back out in the middle of your commitment.
Those were conscripts. The only thing they did wrong was being born. But they also knew they were doing great things for a good cause. When they came back, they got a hero's welcome (unlike Vietnam). I'm not sure, but I think if you could prove you were a pacifist, they wouldn't make you go to war (on the grounds you'd be an ineffective soldier, more than for consideration of your freedoms).
When you enlist, you don't get to cherry pick what conflicts you enter. That type of inconsistency is guaranteed to fail.
Then maybe I'm saying that's the way it should be. People join the army when they still have faith in their country, but then their country starts changing, and they realise they've gotten a bad deal. Maybe you could call them stupid, or naive, but it doesn't change that they didn't know what they were getting themselves into.
Here's the problem. If given the choice of life/freedom or dying for your country despite moral principles, most people, even military members, will choose the prior. They put up with it when they don't have a choice, but if they did get the choice, they'd find the conflict immoral, especially when they get involved and start seeing the horrible things that occur in all wars.
Unfortunately, I don't think that would lead to a reduction in the number of conflicts, just a severe reduction in our effectiveness.
If given the choice of life/freedom or dying for your country despite moral principles, most people, even military members, will choose the prior.
Oh, so you mean people will only fight when they feel their lives and freedoms (and the lives and freedoms of people they love) are at stake when they're given a choice? Jeez, we can't have that kind of non-sense.
EPT
