U.S. War Deserter Should Stay in Canada
October 19, 2009 · By Jonathan McLeod
No, I don’t mean Rodney Watson, nor do I mean Kimberly Rivera. I have little time for the pleas of those who join a volunteer army and then desert to avoid being a soldier.
I’m talking about Pte. Bethany Smith, now known as Skylar James. Ms. James, gainfully employed in Ottawa, is a lesbian who willing joined the U.S. Army, adhering to the ludicrous Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Sadly, her fellow soldiers felt no such compunction, and outed her. She has since been subjected to harassment and death threats.
And, considering what happened to Barry Winchell, I’d be wary of being dismissive of those threats.
Ms. James played by the rules. She joined the army, “didn’t tell”, and planned on serving her country. Unfortunately, her country failed her. The Army, according to policy (and basic human decency), owes her a discharge. Her superiors said they’ll take care of the paperwork after she returns from her tour… after she is shipped to Afghanistan to serve with people who, it is reasonable to believe, might seek her death.
But for now, she is in Canada.
It is bad enough that the U.S. Army has a de facto discriminatory policy. It is bad enough that they treat homosexuals as lesser citizens, whose service to country is devalued. Beyond all that, they actively and tacitly support the subjugation and malicious imperilment of these people. They need to address this matter and, finally, allow homosexuals to be open about their sexuality while serving their country.
Until they do, it is Canada’s duty to protect those whose worth the United States has callously discarded.
(Note: This post has been edited to correct an error in Ms. James’ name.)
I’m sorry, but this just isn’t good enough. Now I am not suggesting that the harassment she has been subjected to is at all reasonable. However, just because a person has ‘problems’ in their home country doesn’t mean we should swing wide the doors over here. Now before you suggest “well her problems include death threats” – it should be noted that the United States has a constitution that protects ALL of its citizens, regardless of the circumstances. If she is getting threats, there are a number of American agencies she can contact to help.
Furthermore, Obama is preparing to revoke “don’t ask, don’t tell” – which makes the entire debate moot. The armed forces now will have to deal with this on a wide scale, and so this one person will quickly become forgotten.
Frankly, there should NEVER be anyone who is accepted as a ‘refugee’ from the United States since the U.S. is a country that rivals our own for democracy and legal protections. It’s a joke to suggest that anyone needs to be ‘protected’ from America.
Savant, this isn’t true. The agency that was to help her was the U.S. Army. They decided that they’d rather wait until after she was sent to Afghanistan with a bunch of people that wanted her dead before they would look into it. This woman was afforded no suitable protection.
Obama says he is going to revoke Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but that doesn’t really mean anything in this situation. She is still being put in unreasonable danger by the army. Nice rhetoric won’t save Ms. Green’s life.
Further, are we to decide that if someone can be quickly forgotten we need not worry about their lives?
I hope Canada is not the type of democracy that feels homosexuals are of less value and more disposable than heterosexuals.
Does this not provide a precedent for other deserters? This part makes me somewhat uncomfortable.
I think the assumption has to be that law and order will be upheld in the US fighting ranks. Death threats, or any other crime committed against this woman should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
RD, I think this would create precedent for other gay war deserters who were outed by their fellow soldiers, suffered death threats and then thoroughly ignored by superiors as they ship the deserters to a theatre with people who have expressed the desire for the deserters to die.
I, too, think we should assume that law and order will be upheld in the U.S. (generally), but in this situation, we see that it hasn’t been. That is why I suggest we should protect his woman. If something nefarious were to be committed against Ms. Green by her fellow soldiers (or if there were to be malicious neglect of Ms. Green’s well being), causing her injury (or worse), justice brought upon the perpetrators wouldn’t absolve of us of our willful ignorance of her danger and our callous disregard for her well being.
Seems like a classic case of too much regulation. Maybe I’m ignorant, but shouldn’t regulation of any sexual conduct in the army concern itself with specific acts? Why have a policy directed toward some theoretical construct like “sexual orientation”?
Concepts are like tools. Sexual orientation is one such concept. It has a specific purpose for explaining individuals who view their sexual desires as necessarily problematic or beyond intelligent moral constraint. Not all people have a sexual orientation. It’s a concept that isn’t intended to simply explain preference, like, say, which flavour of ice cream do you like, but, rather offer up some “diagnosis” (the concept emerges from psychiatry) for why certain desires to do certain acts are seemingly irresistible. … It’s not exactly comfortable being so afflicted, which is why people still seek out psychiatric therapy for understanding some sexual orientation or another.
Whether or not Canada should comply with extradition depends on how much Ms. Smith did, before coming to Canada, to establish her level of personal danger; how her chain of command assessed her case.
Some things should be left to the discretion of commanding officers, commanding officers who take responsibility for their decisions. A risk assessment is necessary. Whether or not Ms. Smith can safely serve before being discharged, or should be discharged straight away, is of primary concern.
This is what Canada should expect in any extradition hearing. Ms. Smith is a self-identified “war resister” which also raises suspicion that she may have other motives for her claims of harassment.
I see no evidence that she was “thoroughly” ignored by her superiors. What I know of the case is that her superior gave that idiotic response and that she fled to the Canadian border.
I don’t know how it works in the US, but in Canada, a sergeant has zero authority to discharge anyone.
If an actual tribunal ruled, against their own policy that she could not be discharged, then I will accept being corrected on this point.
I agree with RD in that I think this could set precedence for other war resisters and other deserters.
Ms. Smith(Green) has processes available to her even within the US Military where she can refuse to deploy and have her case brought forward to the Judge Advocate General for examination where she may be found guilty of dereliction of duty or desertion with just cause and receive an immediate dishonorable discharge.
She may (or may not) have to spend time in custody/jail, but that is not grounds for a refugee claim.