• Canadian federal court rules in favour of US war deserter
    44 replies, posted
[QUOTE]OTTAWA — The Federal Court has ruled in favour of another United States war resister and has ordered Jules Tindungan’s case be returned to the Immigration and Refugee Board. According to his lawyer Alyssa Manning, this is the 11th time since 2008 that the courts have ruled in favour of U.S. war resisters. The 25-year-old California man deserted the U.S. army in 2008 following a 15-month tour in Afghanistan after learning he would be redeployed to combat instead of reassigned as requested. According to the court ruling, his decision was prompted by a “moral objection” to certain things he “witnessed and participated in,” including the torture of detainees, violent house raids on civilian homes, “indiscriminate and routine” firing into populated civilian areas and the strapping of dead insurgents to the front of U.S. military vehicles as a form of intimidation. It’s the first time, however, that the courts have not simply been moved by evidence they wouldn’t get fair treatment in the U.S. thanks to an outdated military justice system and the fact that punishment tends to be tougher the more vocal and political the deserter. In this case, she said, the court was also compelled by evidence that the U.S. military has violated international conventions on warfare. Read more: [url]http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/Federal+Court+Canada+rules+favour+deserter/7922553/story.html[/url] [/QUOTE]
[quote]the court was also compelled by evidence that the U.S. military has violated international conventions on warfare[/quote] The court is actually being quite bold if they put this in their ruling - it could end up being hard on the conservative government who continually claim that these people are criminals
Very surprising considering their very close alliance and how easily they are influenced by American FP. Good job, Canada.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39490611]Very surprising considering their very close alliance and how easily they are influenced by American FP. Good job, Canada.[/QUOTE] This guy is still likely to get shafted by Immigration Canada, they take orders from the government
What was he expecting when he signed up for the military?
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39490611]Very surprising considering their very close alliance and how easily they are influenced by American FP. Good job, Canada.[/QUOTE] Good job, that one judge. We can only hope for the guy.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39490576]strapping of dead insurgents to the front of U.S. military vehicles as a form of intimidation.[/QUOTE] For some reason I highly doubt this along with some of his other claims.
[QUOTE=Zambiesv2;39490661]What was he expecting when he signed up for the military?[/QUOTE] Maybe not: [quote] “moral objection” to certain things he “witnessed and participated in,” including the[B] torture of detainees, violent house raids on civilian homes, “indiscriminate and routine” firing into populated civilian areas and the strapping of dead insurgents to the front of U.S. military vehicles as a form of intimidation[/B].[/quote] [editline]5th February 2013[/editline] Actually in hindsight, that's the type of stuff I'd sorta expect from the U.S. military.
If anyone watched generation kill, shows how troops behave over there. They do crazy shit all the time
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39490611]Very surprising considering their very close alliance and how easily they are influenced by American FP. Good job, Canada.[/QUOTE] Contrary to popular belief, Canada isn't the yes-man of the US in everything.
[quote][B]and the strapping of dead insurgents to the front of U.S. military vehicles as a form of intimidation.[/B] [/quote] I have a hard time believing this one.
[QUOTE=Zambiesv2;39490661]What was he expecting when he signed up for the military?[/QUOTE] Probably a way to find steady employment in a time where finding jobs is hard for most unskilled and uneducated people. What do YOU think he signed up for? "Gonna kill me some people! Get me some glory!" ?
If you can't handle combat, maybe don't go infantry? Or hell, join the coast guard.
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;39491422]I have a hard time believing this one.[/QUOTE] it's hard for anyone who isn't in a war zone to believe what goes on in a war zone.
[QUOTE=Schmaaa;39491822]it's hard for anyone who isn't in a war zone to believe what goes on in a war zone.[/QUOTE] I'm trying to picture an Abrams or maybe and M-ATV with a corpse strapped to the front, but I just can't. [editline]5th February 2013[/editline] I'll believe it if I see it, though.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39490593]The court is actually being quite bold if they put this in their ruling - it could end up being hard on the conservative government who continually claim that these people are criminals[/QUOTE] Over the past few years I've noticed that the courts have been increasingly distancing themselves from the conservative government over key issues. Most of their controversial judgements have struck down conservative introduced laws and regulations.
i suggest you all watch generation kill, to get a good idea of the insanity over there, also if i'm not mistaken there is plenty of news coming from afghanistan about US troops doing horrible things, war dehumanizes by its own nature.
[QUOTE=viper shtf;39491702]If you can't handle combat, maybe don't go infantry? Or hell, join the coast guard.[/QUOTE] Ever think he was assigned to infantry instead of he chose it?
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;39491422]I have a hard time believing this one.[/QUOTE] Same, but I would not doubt that someone has not done it. There is always a small number of people who do fucked up shit and it ruins the reputation of the entire military.
[quote]including the torture of detainees, violent house raids on civilian homes, “indiscriminate and routine” firing into populated civilian areas and the strapping of dead insurgents to the front of U.S. military vehicles as a form of intimidation[/quote] Animals.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39493179]Ever think he was assigned to infantry instead of he chose it?[/QUOTE] That's a risk you take when you join up. The entire point of the military is killing people and breaking things.
[QUOTE=Snivlem;39494391]Animals.[/QUOTE] More like people who've gone through more psychological and physical trauma than you could ever possibly ponder about. Stuff like this has been done since the beginning of time, if you want to blame something, blame the concept and practice of war itself.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39496046]More like people who've gone through more psychological and physical trauma than you could ever possibly ponder about. Stuff like this has been done since the beginning of time, if you want to blame something, blame the concept and practice of war itself.[/QUOTE] That's all fine and dandy but they're still animals, you don't get a free pass for doing abhorrent things just because you're a soldier in the field, and I highly doubt that every single strung out, unhinged soldier engages in such activity. The individuals engaging in such activity are deserving of pity and professional help just as much as they are deserving of disdain and punishment.
[QUOTE=Snivlem;39496245]That's all fine and dandy but they're still animals, you don't get a free pass for doing abhorrent things just because you're a soldier in the field, and I highly doubt that every single strung out, unhinged soldier engages in such activity. The individuals engaging in such activity are deserving of pity and professional help just as much as they are deserving of disdain and punishment.[/QUOTE] It isn't exactly their fault at all if they aren't mentally right, or if to them, doing the stuff they're doing is part of fighting against the enemy. There's no superficial difference between the militants and the civilians, and that just makes it even worse for our soldiers. You can't expect them to act all morally righteous and civil in contrast to the enemy.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39496434]It isn't exactly their fault at all if they aren't mentally right, or if to them, doing the stuff they're doing is part of fighting against the enemy.[/QUOTE] True, but that doesn't really make it any less vile or any more excusable. [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39496434]There's no superficial difference between the militants and the civilians, and that just makes it even worse for our soldiers. [b]You can't expect them to act all morally righteous and civil in contrast to the enemy.[/b][/QUOTE] Why not? It should be expected of them to live up to SOME standards of moral decency and proper conduct. Not routinely blowing civilians to bits and not strapping fucking corpses to their vehicles isn't too much to ask for, is it? Then again if some of the things stated in the ruling are true, that puts a completely different and even more sordid of a spin on the whole thing.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39490593]The court is actually being quite bold if they put this in their ruling - it could end up being hard on the conservative government who continually claim that these people are criminals[/QUOTE] From the ruling [quote] [168] As an alternative to its adequate state protection finding, the RPD found that the “military actions the claimant objected to, do not come within sections 169 and 171 of the UNHCR Handbook.” [169] As regards section 171, the RPD concludes, at paragraphs 145-148 of the Decision, as follows: The actions of various officers and other individuals may have been isolated incidents but as in the Abu Ghraib matter there is no persuasive evidence that any acts in Afghanistan that would come within Section 171 of the UNHCR Handbook were condoned by the USA or were systematic or that the USA as a matter of policy or practice is indifferent to alleged violations of international human rights law in Afghanistan. I find that the claimant has failed to establish that he has been associated with or been complicit in military action, condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct. He has not shown that the USA has, either as a matter of deliberate policy or official indifference, required or allowed its combatants to engage in widespread actions in violation of humanitarian law. I cannot find that, on a balance of probabilities, that the United States would not allow the claimant to raise in his defense, for refusal to obey an order, that the matter fell within Section 171 of the UNHCR Handbook, as it would be a crime, as outlined in the Huet-Vaughn case. I find that the claimant has not rebutted the presumption of state protection on this basis and if I am incorrect in that conclusion, I cannot find, on the same evidence, that, on a balance of probabilities, the United States as a matter of deliberate policy or official indifference, required or allowed its combatants to engage in widespread actions in violation of humanitarian law that would bring the claimant within Section 171 of the UNHCR Handbook. [170] [B] One of the fundamental problems with the RPD’s approach on this issue is that it assesses the Applicant’s personal experiences as isolated incidents that were not condoned by the USA and were not systemic, or a matter of policy, while completely ignoring the objective documentary evidence that confirms that the opposite is true.[/B] [171] The Applicant submitted [B]voluminous documentary evidence from credible, third-party sources such as Amnesty International that discuss routine and authorized military practices in Iraq and Afghanistan[/B] by the U.S. Army that describe conduct falling under section 171, and which [B]suggest that the U.S. has not complied with its international obligations in this regard. The RPD simply ignores this evidence.[/B] [172] Furthermore, the Applicant’s personal testimony was that these were routine practices by the U.S. Army. Yet the RPD found that these were isolated occurrences, without any explanation as to why it rejected the Applicant’s evidence on this point.[/quote] Some fairly bold statements by the Justice, for sure.
[QUOTE=viper shtf;39491702]If you can't handle combat, maybe don't go infantry? Or hell, join the coast guard.[/QUOTE] hey whoa don't be talking shit about the coast guards, they're great
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39491847]Over the past few years I've noticed that the courts have been increasingly distancing themselves from the conservative government over key issues. Most of their controversial judgements have struck down conservative introduced laws and regulations.[/QUOTE] This is the logical outcome of a government distancing itself from the constitution and acting above the law
[QUOTE=Apache249;39491828]I'm trying to picture an Abrams or maybe and M-ATV with a corpse strapped to the front, but I just can't. [editline]5th February 2013[/editline] I'll believe it if I see it, though.[/QUOTE] college aged dudes over there urinate on dead people, burn dead people and brutalize live people (not to mention all the killing which is the point) i dunno if i'd be suprised.
[QUOTE=viper shtf;39495853]That's a risk you take when you join up. The entire point of the military is killing people and breaking things.[/QUOTE] No the whole purpose of the military is to defend the sovereignty of your own nation. It isn't for killing people and breaking things with no end in sight for no legitimate reason.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.