Laws and legislators are devised to give more people than not contentment in shaping the political and legal culture in which they are to live.

Treaties signed with other nations cannot be abridged without retaliation and, sometimes, isolation from the international community.

The difference between a deserter and a war resister, a draft-dodger and volunteer are clear.

Parliamentarians may not properly attempt to influence the decisions of courts. The place of parliamentarians is Parliament: if they do not like the extradition laws, they must change them there.

The chain of command between the highest POLITICAL power which represents the peoples’ will to the highest MILITARY power appointed BY that representative and thence delegated to officers and soldiers beneath them must be inviolate to protect democracy and the principle of rule by law, not force. There is no fundamental difference between the act of a common deserter and the usurpation of political power by such thugs as Pinochet or Franco.

We can argue about whether Iraq was justified, legal, etc., but that is all beside the point. You sign up for the military, you are signing up for a specific length of time and a specific commitment to duty. During that time, you do not have the luxury of questioning orders (unless it is something extreme, like the Nuremburg trials clarified). You do not have the luxury of quibbling over the legality of command decisions. If you do not like losing these freedoms, then I have a simple solution - DON’T SIGN UP FOR MILITARY SERVICE.

I am not saying I am in total or even partial agreement with the American policy on Iraq. I don’t believe the question even enters into this debate. If you’re considering joining the army, you need to think twice and recognize that the army may be ordered to do things you may not agree with, with your limited information. You need to understand that the highest levels of government are going to make decisions with more info than you, but they still may be wrong. If you are not okay with complying with orders that may prove to be wrong, then don’t join.

“For those people who decided a year into their service that they really didn’t want to go to Iraq, I say too bad.”
That is not an accurate characterization of their position. Rather, they are claiming that they are not fighting a lawful fight — something which they could only find out a year into their service.

You know, igloogirl, once you put a person’s individual sovereignty behind that of any group of people, you are carrying a hammer in one hand and a sickle in the other.

Claiming that the soldiers are cowards is pretty cowardly itself. I will tell you who are cowards: their employers.
I can not think of an employer in any other industry who demands their employees go to jail if they want to get out of a work contract. In a game of bait-and-switch, it sounds like the employer — the US Army — holds the upper hand.

“Looks like Chuck is alone on this one.”
Awww, shucks. Maybe I should re-think my position on this one….. I certainly would not want to feel left out, right?
Hey, Mr. Strong, I am probably the only one on this entire planet who never trusted Bush when he said their were WMDs in Iraq too. Let me know when they are found, will you?

The fact is, why should Canada take in these criminals? The comment that they are adults who should be prosecuted for breaking US law is exactly right.

I do see quite valid differences between the Vietnam war and the Iraq war, but at the same time, the ‘conscientious objector’ route has been tried, unsuccessfully, by many others. In their eyes, if you sign up with the military, you must go wherever you are told to go. There is some logic to that - this is the military, after all - but it effectively eliminates the conscientious objector status entirely.

For some people, such as those who were forced into military service to avoid a prison sentence, or victims of the US ’stop-loss’ program, I could support such a policy. For those people who decided a year into their service that they really didn’t want to go to Iraq, I say too bad.

There is no comparison between Vietnam draft dodgers and deserters from a voluntary army. These cowards decided that they wanted the benefits of the army but not the responsibilities that go with it. If they were men then they would have brought the matter of their deployment to Iraq up to their commanding officer and then suffered the penality of a dishonourable discharge after spending 2 years less a day in prison.
This is what a British Medical Officer did in that volunteer army.

Not these losers. They thought that we were too stupid to know the difference between a draftee and a volunteer. They did get one thing right: if they came across the border that the loony left would support them based on - as usual - misinformation.

At the Nuremberg trials after WW2 it was decided that soldiers have a duty to refuse to kill if ordered to. So these cowards would have had grounds to disobey. Instead, they took the easy way around a problem and ran away from it.

We do not want spineless people coming into this country if we can avoid it. These cowards let their fellow soldiers down and then themselves.

Send them back and make sure that the US army is at the border to receive them with open arms when they cross.

I see nothing wrong with letting them stay in Canada to avoid them being punished for breaking unfair laws particularly when they were deceived as they claim. Does that help?

The US army is a volunteer force requiring soldiers who volunteered to FIGHT when called upon by the nation they SWORE to defend under oath.

Does that help?

The dodgers from the Vietnam era are conscientious objectors, Iraq dodgers are not. They are deserters and should be sent back.