The Canadian “War Resisters Support Campaign” is crying foul over a new rule by the Citizenship and Immigration Ministry that requires immigration officers to contact the government when a U.S. military deserter applies for refugee status in Canada. They call the move “unnecessary and mean-spirited”:
“They’re calling these cases high-profile and contentious. They’re saying (the soldiers) may be criminally inadmissible, creating this perception that they’re criminals,” said Michelle Robidoux, spokeswoman for the War Resisters Support Campaign.
They may not be felons, but they are, potentially, criminals under the eye of the U.S. government. These deserters agreed to an unbreachable contract with the U.S. government when they signed their name on the dotted line. The fact is that the U.S. Army isn’t just concerned with the prospect of a soldier abandoning his or her post, but it presents a serious financial burden in the attrition department:
The most immediate and concrete costs of desertion for the Army are in replacing the individual who left. These costs are obviously dependent on when the desertion occurs. As a soldier goes through the recruiting, out-fitting, and training process, the associated fiscal outlays grow. The “payback” to the Army is represented by performance on the job. So one can conceive of these costs as being defrayed the longer the soldier remains in service. The United States General Accounting Office estimates that it costs the Services $38,000 to replace a fully-trained member. According to the PCF, Fort Knox, KY, 71% of deserters leave before completing their first year of service. In order to provide a general idea of the magnitude of the financial costs of this phenomenon to the Army, if we assign the full replacement costs to the 71% of deserters who left in their first year in calendar year 2000, this amounts to some $85,256,800 (.71 x 3,160 deserters x $38,000).
$85 million is a drop in the bucket in the U.S. military budget, but the above information shows that there is a financial consideration to desertion. Breaching a contract through desertion costs the U.S. military in both manpower and in the investment they made in the individual.
But back to the context of this post, which is about the criminal aspect of desertion. Under Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, any member of the armed forces who…
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States Note: This provision has been held not to state a separate offense by the United States Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Huff, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 247, 22 C.M.R. 37 (1956), is guilty of desertion.
Any person found guilty of desertion shall be punished, and if the offense is committed in a time of war — the United States is currently at war in Afghanistan and Iraq — that punishment may be administered by death or such other punishment as directed by a court-martial.
Though the justice may take place under military provisions and trials, the criminality of the act is not in doubt. The deserters are, by definition of the UCMJ, guilty of a military offence that makes them criminally inadmissable for residence in Canada.
So we should send them back, even if it means that they may be killed?
I guess human decency, morality, and common sense are all dead in Canada.
Death is only a provision. Other “war resisters” received only a year or two in prison.
And when we send back a deserter and the court-martial decides that the severity of the desertion warrants death?
It has no recent precedent.
That’s an answer to a question I didn’t ask.
I think Canada has a duty to protect human beings who seek the protection, even if it is from their own native governments. We’re talking about crimes of listening to your conscience and following your morals. Well, it’s immoral and unconscionable to send ‘em back to the wolves.
No it isn’t.
…and maybe you could clear this up, because I’m not entirely positive..
but I was under the presumption that “criminality” only applied to people convicted of crimes? A deserter by definition is guilty of desertion, but most deserters have never been convicted… so criminality wouldn’t apply to them?
BH.. Quit splitting hairs and spewing bu11s#1T. Send the cowards back.
In an all volunteer force you have to wonder what the people were thinking when they joined the military. Did they think it was a job with the boy scouts? Did they think acquiring weapon skills with rifles, hand guns and various weapons of war was just a fun hobby?
Yup, send them back, they knew what they were getting into when they joined, they are just shirking their responsibility, their duty.
What if they’re gored to death by pink and yellow striped unicorns as soon as they cross the border?
You’re being ridiculous BH. The US Army hasn’t executed anyone for desertion since 1945. No deserter has been given a sentence longer than 18 months for desertion in Iraq.
Currently, there is no “draft” or conscription in either Canada or the United States. This is the fundamental reason that we honour our military. They signed on “with eyes wide open”, so to speak to serve their respective countries, putting themselves “in harm’s way”, so we (the rest of the citizens) wouldn’t have to. This is an admirable calling and why we should support and respect their efforts on our behalf. U.S. military personnel need to go back and face the music in their own country for breaking a legal and binding contract. The U.S. would send Canadian deserters back to Canada in a heartbeat.
Whether or not the 2003 invasion of Iraq was legal or not, the presence of US and other foreign troops there was made legal under international law by UN Security Council Resolution 1511 of Oct. 16, 2003:
“The Security Council,
…
13. Determines that the provision of security and stability is essential to
the successful completion of the political process as outlined in paragraph
7 above and to the ability of the United Nations to contribute effectively
to that process and the implementation of resolution 1483 (2003), and
authorizes a multinational force under unified command to take all
necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and
stability in Iraq, including for the purpose of ensuring necessary
conditions for the implementation of the timetable and programme as well as
to contribute to the security of the United Nations Assistance Mission for
Iraq, the Governing Council of Iraq and other institutions of the Iraqi
interim administration, and key humanitarian and economic infrastructure;
14. Urges Member States to contribute assistance under this United Nations
inundate, including military forces, to the multinational force referred to
in paragraph 13 above [Canada continued to take a pass despite the UNSC's invitation and authorization]…”
So any member of the US military claiming that he deserted after that date because the war was “illegal” is simply wrong in international law.
Bet almost all of you did not know about that UNSC resolution.
Mark
Ottawa
I asked some of the guys I served with in the US military (that are still in) what happens when someone refuses to deploy or goes awol. I told them there is a move here to support deserters.
Beyond the first things they said, which was “Canada can keep them, they are cowards, we don’t want them”, they said that they have only seen deserters get discharged, some even honourably discharged for refusing to deploy. They have never seen anyone get charged or dealt with harshly.
Is a discharge (dishonourable or honourable)grounds for an immigration claim? I would hope not.
But Adrian, What are you saying, I thought that the voluntarily US military was just a free education, housing and health care plan to support the families of these non criminal deserters, lol,, ok,, Sarcasm off. To willing accept these “persons” is a slap in the face to every veteran and serving member of not just the US Military but also are own.
28 yr Vet.