Deserter Poses A Problem For Ottawa

Why would any rational person entertain the idea of putting George Bush on trial? What a waste of time, apart from the admiration one would gain from others in the naive left.

The 'legality' of the Iraq war is a red herring. Even the United Nations has just published recommendations authorizing the pre-emptive use of force, despite the musings of Kofi Annan as to the Iraq war's legality.

Ottawa should have no problem with this deserter, just send him back. He is not fleeing persecution, he is fleeing prosecution.

Jerry Jay and Anonymous, I hate myself for agreeing with you. But agree with you I do.

The US-led war in Iraq is illegal - that much is plain. However, at the same time it would make NO sense to put George W. Bush on trial for war crimes (as has already been proven in Belgium). Similarly, I don't think that it makes political sense (although it arguably does make moral sense) to accept as refugees anyone who chooses to desert the US military to avoid participation in this war. I wish I could say otherwise, but how can we as a nation undermine the Americans in this way? It makes sense morally, and I sincerely wish we COULD "Do the right thing" but how can we so blatantly undermine the US administration?

I ask this question seriously - I'm not proposing to know for sure, but I seriously question our ability to do this. I balk at saying that we should send away a person I consider to be a fairly legitimate refugee, particularly when it flies in the face of our existing position, but what can we really do? Simply accept as refugees all members of foreign military who applied for the purpose of education and then renege on their duty? I myself considered applying to the (Canadian) military for similar reasons but didn't because I didn't want to find myself in such a position. Right or wrong... not only do I think that it IS wrong, I hate myself for saying it... he signed on, and has a duty to fulfill. I hate to think that duty is what it is, but I don't know what else to say.

Why put Bush on trial? Simple. WAR CRIMES! And aggression without any just cause!

---
Dave Ruston

Bush won't be tried for war crimes anywhere but in the minds of the unhinged left. I think a small community center in between bingo games will be large enough to hold everyone.

You think, thats an oxymoron. You just read the copy that Herr Bushmeister hands you. <p>As for those who wish to, avoid fighting in the US army or avoid persecution for refusing to fight, I say let them in to Canada. <p>However it is not our call, it is Paul Martin's call. Until we get our political environment in some sort of ecological/moral balance we are unable to offer legal hospice. <p>The Nuremberg trials gave us this legal counsel: "<p><b>Principle I</b> Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. <p><b>Principle II</b> The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law. <p><b>Principle III</b> The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. <p><b>Principle IV</b> The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. <p><b>Principle V</b> Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law. <p><b>Principle Vl</b> The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law: <li>a. Crimes against peace: <li>i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; <li>ii. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). <li>b. War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. <li>c. Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. <p><b>Principle VII</b> Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law. <p>Index <a href="http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm"> The Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal</a>

None of the above applies. Kick the shirker out.

Lets welcome the war resistors like we did back in the 60's. My friends and I helped many of them back then. There is nothing more noble than resisting an imperial war. May the Evil Empire fall! As for you J-J, you probably think you are some kind of conservative. Well, you arent. If you want to see REAL conservatives - those who hold to the anti-imperial traditions of the Founders see Antiwar.com or LewRockwell.com. You ain't a conservative, but a neoconazi. There is a big difference.

Truth told, this makes much plainer the fact that Bush is clearly a war criminal by the letter of the law. And, what's more is that it technically makes Canada guilty of violation of the law if complicit. I really wish there were easy answers as to what to do.

The way the brainless left throws around "Nazi" and permutations of the same convinces me these folks know nothing about history. Ordinarily, one would say they are then doomed to repeat it except that the phenomena the rest of us consider reality -- or, let's be ironic here, "reality" -- somehow slides past them unobserved or gets screwed up in brains that aren't firing on all synapses. The evil Third Reich in all its monstrousness was a serious thing, people. It cheapens the deaths of all those millions of people to use it to make some moronic point about the present.

Who financed the third reich, Jerry Jay? Do you know any history? <p>Consider this: <p>" What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey [part of the Rockefeller empire] managers shipped the enemy's fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipped Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars' worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan [the Rockefeller family among others?] Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help improve Hitler's communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the FockeWulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial balI bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Goering's cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?" Charles Higham, researcher, about U.S.-Nazi collaboration during WWII <p>Do you actually want to talk about history, Jerry Jay? Because the foregoing is just the tip of the iceberg. You should read <a href="http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm">War is a Racket</a> by Maj. General Smedley Butler, discover a failed attempt to overthrow the US government.

The tip of the iceburg for sure! Europe and the US had plenty of opportunity to squash Hitler from 1933-1938 but didn't take it. The reason? Because the ruling classes of Europe and America preferred to have Hitler in power, and in many cases actually backed him.

I would agree that calling neocons Nazis is a bit extreme however. But here is the pot calling the kettle black. This is the same fellow who called Tommy Douglas a communist. That said, though I would never call the neocons fascists their cobbled together pseudo-ideology has more in common with fascism than true conservatism, either the Canadian Tory variety or the UU libertarian variety.

The quote in my last post above is from <a href="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Trading_Enemy_Higham.html">"Trading with the Enemy" by Charles Higham</a>.

As for Anarcho, Europe and America didn't have "plenty of chances" to nip the Third Reich in the bud. Britain and the U.S. had disarmed between the wars. France, nearly ungovernable as one government after another fell because the communists and the right were at each other's throats, thought it was safe behind the absurd Maginot Line, obsolete before it was even started. Meanwhile, Hitler put Germany to work secretly and then openly rearming. There was a lot of sympathy for Hitler's style of governing among the Prince of Wales's circle and in the decayed aristocracy, but they had small influence in Chamberlain's government. He and the PM before him were the problem. They were businessmen who thought they could make a deal with Hitler to buy enough time to rebuild the army and fleet. It's all in the history books, folks. You can't educate yourselves reading left wing tracts and visiting wingnut blogs like this one.