Canada court: AWOL U.S. soldiers not refugees

This forum is for non aviation related topics, political debate, random thoughts, and everything else that just doesn't seem to fit in the normal forums. ALL FORUM RULES STILL APPLY.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

User avatar
Nark
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2967
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:59 pm
Location: LA

Canada court: AWOL U.S. soldiers not refugees

Post by Nark »

The Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday refused to hear an appeal by two U.S. military deserters who sought refuge in the country to avoid deployment to Iraq, a conflict they argued is “immoral and illegal.”

The announcement ends a bid by American soldiers Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, the plaintiffs in the case, to win refugee status and opens the way for them to be deported to the United States, where they could face court martial for going AWOL and missing troop movements. It also could lead to deportation of dozens of other American soldiers who have filed formal applications for refugee status.
MSN link


Canada just got one bonus point.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
grimey
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2979
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: somewhere drunk

Post by grimey »

Good. Regardless of whether the war in Iraq is justified or not, these guys signed up for duty knowing the risks and responsibilities involved. If they object to serving in Iraq for whatever reason, they should at least have the gall to go to their CO, say that they won't serve, and report ffor duty recognizing they may be subject to a court-martial. It's a volunteer military, it's not like they were drafted into it against their will. They chose to sign up, for an education or paycheck or whatever, this is the cost.

Now as for the guys already overseas who are getting stop-lossed, they have a valid complaint, IMO. If you're told you're going to Iraq for 6 or 12 months, and it suddenly ends up being 12 or 24, that's a whole different story.

Anyway, best wishes and thanks to everyone serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, for all countries.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Dust Devil
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4027
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
Location: Riderville

Post by Dust Devil »

What is the penelty for going AWOL in the U.S?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Nark
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2967
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:59 pm
Location: LA

Post by Nark »

Anywhere from an entry into that persons Service Record Book or up to X-days jail time plus dishonorable discharge.

Once some has been UA for more than 30 days, then it becomes disertion.That is punishable by death in time of war.



AWOL is (UA) Unauthorized Abense to us in the Department of the Navy. It's the same thing under the UCMJ.


For some reason people who go UA always get caught by doing something stupid. IE traffic stop, try to fly across country, move to Canada and apply for refugee status.

It's no surprise the lawyer defending them is a draft dodger.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
sky's the limit
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4614
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:38 am
Location: Now where's the starter button on this thing???

Post by sky's the limit »

grimey wrote:Good. Regardless of whether the war in Iraq is justified or not, these guys signed up for duty knowing the risks and responsibilities involved. If they object to serving in Iraq for whatever reason, they should at least have the gall to go to their CO, say that they won't serve, and report ffor duty recognizing they may be subject to a court-martial. It's a volunteer military, it's not like they were drafted into it against their will. They chose to sign up, for an education or paycheck or whatever, this is the cost.

Grimey,

You sign up voluntarily yes. You do not sign up only to have your President start an illegal war. If I were in their shoes, I'd have left too. They lied at every turn, went against the International Community and Law, and conducted, for intents and purposes, a unilateral action on NO legitimate grounds. That's not what anybody with a brain signs up for. The American leadership are criminals, you may as well join the Hell's Angels, at least you get a nice jacket out that deal.

Iraq is illegal, the only unfortunate part is the people responsible are never going to face ANY prosecution of any type.

I see Canada is abandoning its traditional stance on this too.


stl
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by sky's the limit on Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dust Devil
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4027
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
Location: Riderville

Post by Dust Devil »

Once you become a soldier I think you give up the right to judge the validity of a war. Your job is to execute the mission you were givin. To think these cowards came to Canada because they felt the war was wrong is a load of bunk. They ran because they were cowards. It was their responsibility to go for no other reason then to help keep the next guy alive. It pisses me off when people enlist so they can get the free education then once they are called into action they cry foul.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Walker
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1070
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Left Coast... (CYYJ)

Post by Walker »

Me thinks im going to stir the pot a little here...

**** WARNING ****
Severe Peace Loving Hippy Content Ahead
http://homepage.mac.com/pmcfadden/Universal_Soldier.mp3

**** WARNING ENDED****
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
JakeYYZ
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1293
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 6:24 pm

Post by JakeYYZ »

Vietnam draftees were being sent to war against their will. Today’s deserters are VOLUNTEERS! They joined the army of their own free will, and enjoyed all the benefits of a military association. Running away when the going gets tough…that’s just pathetic. Goodbye, boys! And don’t try to claim your GST back on your way out.
Of course, this raises two pertinent questions: 1) when will immigration authorities actually get around to physically deporting these guys, and 2) will the Supreme Court now work on getting rid of the thousands of war criminals and terrorists who came here from overseas as bogus refugee claimants?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
wannabatp
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:55 am

Re: Canada court: AWOL U.S. soldiers not refugees

Post by wannabatp »

Nark wrote:
The Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday refused to hear an appeal by two U.S. military deserters who sought refuge in the country to avoid deployment to Iraq, a conflict they argued is “immoral and illegal.”

The announcement ends a bid by American soldiers Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, the plaintiffs in the case, to win refugee status and opens the way for them to be deported to the United States, where they could face court martial for going AWOL and missing troop movements. It also could lead to deportation of dozens of other American soldiers who have filed formal applications for refugee status.
MSN link


Canada just got one bonus point.

Rant mode=on


Bonus point from who? For what? Being the U.S' puppet in the North?

Keep your goddamn points. We don't need an "atta-boy". It's those sorts of condescending comments that piss people off the world over. You don't even know you're doing it, do you?

Btw, just what exactly changed since the Vietnam war? Why was it ok then to seek asylum, but not now? I'm not going to go into an individual soldiers choice to desert. Cowardice or conscientious objector doesn't really come into it as far as I'm concerned. They made their bed, they can sleep in it. But why would you want them back anyway? Make an example of them? Hide your public embarrassment of their existence?

What galls the heck out of me is that it's one more example of US imperialism eroding Canadian (and every other countries) sovereignty. I'm referring to Nark's comment, not the court decision, of course.

Why is it that 67 years ago, the US (with a little help) conquered the world, but now, given nearly double the length of time they had in WWII, they can't restore order to a small backwater desert country in the middle of nowhere? More Americans have died in Iraq then at 9/11, but we can't back out now....we're winning the war on terror! Hearts and Minds, Mission Accomplished and all that.

Land of the free? Home of the brave? Spread democracy? Crush terrorism? If you're not with us, you're against us? PUH-lease give me a break.

rant mode=off

Oops, sorry got more to say.

rant mode=on

Look, I understand you need to wave the flag and look like your doing something good for someone (just who exactly is going to benefit though, from all this democracy and freedom, I'm not sure).

And personally, I think the goals are laudable, just not workable. The original Afghanistan mission was probably justified, and at the time, Al-Quaeda was all but gone for good, nobody wanted them around. But then, the US had to go one step further and invade another "terrorist" sanctuary even though they had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or WMD's or anything else. Why? So little George junior could go in and 'finish the job"?

Since that invasion, Al-Quaeda is back, and stronger than it ever was before 9/11. Who's fault is that? Now what do you do?

The American economy is in shambles. Freedoms once vigorously protected by the US constitution are either eroded or diluted to the point where everyone is suspected of something. And for what? The US Government is bigger and more in our faces than ever before. And Americans wonder why they are so hated. Let's not forget the religious right in the US which has managed to stir up the same sort of fanatical fervour that any extremist muslim sect can conjour. It's often difficult to tell the difference. Each side is convinced it has the moral high ground, and the faith to do whatever is necessary in the name of God, or Allah.

I could go on, but it's my day off and Maury's on.


Keep your goddamn points. I don't want to play in your game.

rant mode=off (I promise)
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Dust Devil
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4027
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
Location: Riderville

Re: Canada court: AWOL U.S. soldiers not refugees

Post by Dust Devil »

wannabatp wrote:what exactly changed since the Vietnam war? Why was it ok then to seek asylum, but not now?
It wasn't ok then and it isn't ok now.
---------- ADS -----------
 
FrankD
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 6:55 am

Post by FrankD »

STL,

My understanding, and Nark correct me if I'm wrong, is that soldiers are allowed to refuse an order if it is illegal. If these two clowns really thought the war was illegal they should have refused their delpoyment and stuck around to deal with the consequences.

They signed up for the military...last I checked the miltary in all countries is used to fight wars. Anyone who signs up for the military knows what they are getting into. Along with the benefits of college education and technical training at no cost comes the reality that you may at any time be called upon by your country to pick up arms and fight. If you are not prepared to do that you should not sign up for the military.

If they had refused their deployment and stuck around to answer for their actions I would probably have a lot more sympathy for them.

And Nark, keep your head down and come home in one piece!
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Dash-Ate
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1760
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:15 pm
Location: Placarded INOP

Post by Dash-Ate »

While I may agree with the thinking of the desertees, they did sign a contract of employment and they knew what they were getting in to.

It's like running away froma training bond...unfair or not you knew what you were getting into when signing for the bond.

What's the point of a contract if it can't be enforced?

Instead of facing a couple of years in the pen these guy should go back and serve out their contract. At least they will get paid and get training, education or whatever was coming their way.
---------- ADS -----------
 
That'll buff right out :rolleyes:
Image
User avatar
Dash-Ate
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1760
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:15 pm
Location: Placarded INOP

Post by Dash-Ate »

whew as if we didnt need a more emotional topic to talk about.

fire away at this new topic.

--- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ional/home
---------- ADS -----------
 
That'll buff right out :rolleyes:
Image
User avatar
wannabatp
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:55 am

Re: Canada court: AWOL U.S. soldiers not refugees

Post by wannabatp »

Dust Devil wrote:
wannabatp wrote:what exactly changed since the Vietnam war? Why was it ok then to seek asylum, but not now?
It wasn't ok then and it isn't ok now.
Wasn't really the point. I agree deserters shouldn't be coddled. They've made their decisions, and they'll live with them. Although, as far as freedom goes, Canada has always been a refuge for others who've been persecuted, either politically, religiously, or otherwise. Admittedly, the US has claimed to be the same. If there are Americans who now feel the need to leave the US (whatever the reason), why shouldn't we let them in?

Anyway, my point was the American influence on others (in this case Canada's) sovereignty. Bonus points because we're sending deadbeats back to the US? WHY?

There's too much other stuff going with respect to US/world relations and US/Canada relations in particular. Can you not see that in every important respect, the US attitude towards everything is "Our way or the highway"?

I'm losing a little steam here, but that initial comment really ticked me off. It just seemed to me to be ignorant, well intentioned though it may have been, and a general reflection of American attitudes toward anything outside of their own little world.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mellow_pilot
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2119
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Pilot Purgatory

Post by mellow_pilot »

FrankD wrote:STL,

My understanding, and Nark correct me if I'm wrong, is that soldiers are allowed to refuse an order if it is illegal. If these two clowns really thought the war was illegal they should have refused their delpoyment and stuck around to deal with the consequences.

They signed up for the military...last I checked the miltary in all countries is used to fight wars. Anyone who signs up for the military knows what they are getting into. Along with the benefits of college education and technical training at no cost comes the reality that you may at any time be called upon by your country to pick up arms and fight. If you are not prepared to do that you should not sign up for the military.

If they had refused their deployment and stuck around to answer for their actions I would probably have a lot more sympathy for them.

And Nark, keep your head down and come home in one piece!
Quite true. It is perfectly acceptable and, moreover, required of service personnel to refuse unlawful orders. Just cause your CO is a criminal doesn't give you the right to be one.

The US also has a back door out. (if I'm not mistaken) It's called conscientious objector status. It is granted to those who are unwilling to kill on religious grounds. Difficult to get as I understand it, but if you qualify, you get out of the military. I'm not sure, but you could probably start a big old court proceeding to have the status apply to you if you believe the war to be illegal.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!
shitdisturber
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty

Post by shitdisturber »

As someone who spent fifteen years in the Canadian military, these clowns get no sympathy from me; nor would anyone in our military who ran away if they were going to be deployed. As has been already stated, when you join the military you have certain obligations from the time you take the oath; among those is the possibility that you will be sent to not very nice places with the potential to die in a grotesque manner. If you can't accept that, you don't sign on the dotted line. It's actually quite simple. Those guys took the pay and training and then when the going got tough; they cut and ran. I'm not advocating shooting them but I won't be at all offended to hear that they spent some time in lovely Fort Leavenworth getting lots of fresh air and exercise. If it were up to me, after a stint in the crowbar hotel I'd make them do their tour in Iraq before giving them the boot.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mellow_pilot
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2119
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Pilot Purgatory

Post by mellow_pilot »

I wouldn't want them in my unit. To dangerous to have them there. (for friendlies I mean)
---------- ADS -----------
 
Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!
shitdisturber
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty

Post by shitdisturber »

mellow_pilot wrote:I wouldn't want them in my unit. To dangerous to have them there. (for friendlies I mean)
If you're in an infantry unit you put em out on point; "oh oh, the deserter just bought it, there must be unfriendlies out there!"
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
wannabatp
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:55 am

Post by wannabatp »

Well, my point isn't really getting across.

Nevermind then, how about a stat or 2?

In the last year, desertions in the US military are up 42%

Since the Iraq War started, desertions are up 80%.

Btw, source is MSNBC.

I wonder how many of these desertions are people who enlisted in a fit of patriotic fervour after 9/11?

Just wondering.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Nark
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2967
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:59 pm
Location: LA

Post by Nark »

ATP:

Is your skin that soft? You'd probably have an aneurysm after talking with me for 5 minutes.

No one forces you to sign up for service. There is no such thing as "join the Army or go to jail."

Maybe these words are little more than just that to you, but when you sign up they mean something us.

The Oath of Enlistment:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The Army is lowering its standards for enlistments, below standard aptitude is not a disqualifying factor anymore (ie. autism). Instructor's don't yell at recruits anymore and PT requirements are lowered among other things. Just the other day I chewed out an Army specialist for leaving his rifle unattended. I'm in fucking Iraq of all places. You will never see that with a Marines Kevlar helmet, let alone his rifle.

Do you have stats for deserters in the Marine Corps v. US Army? I bet you see a huge difference. We don't baby our juniors. Marines earn what they have, nothing is given.



PS. There are 21 other countries supporting ops in Iraq TODAY. When we first pushed in 2003 there were 39 other countries. 'Uni' is Latin for 1, not 39.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
User avatar
wannabatp
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:55 am

Post by wannabatp »

Nark wrote:ATP:

Is your skin that soft? You'd probably have an aneurysm after talking with me for 5 minutes.

No one forces you to sign up for service. There is no such thing as "join the Army or go to jail."

Maybe these words are little more than just that to you, but when you sign up they mean something us.

The Oath of Enlistment:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The Army is lowering its standards for enlistments, below standard aptitude is not a disqualifying factor anymore (ie. autism). Instructor's don't yell at recruits anymore and PT requirements are lowered among other things. Just the other day I chewed out an Army specialist for leaving his rifle unattended. I'm in fucking Iraq of all places. You will never see that with a Marines Kevlar helmet, let alone his rifle.

Do you have stats for deserters in the Marine Corps v. US Army? I bet you see a huge difference. We don't baby our juniors. Marines earn what they have, nothing is given.



PS. There are 21 other countries supporting ops in Iraq TODAY. When we first pushed in 2003 there were 39 other countries. 'Uni' is Latin for 1, not 39.
First, thanks for your reply.

Secondly, just to make things clear, I was a reservist for 7 years, and although I didn't serve overseas in a combat zone, I took my job seriously and would have performed my duty had I been asked (wasn't asked to go to the first Gulf War, and was out by the time Bosnia became a real show). I don't pretend to know what happens in a combat zone, but to me the phrase "I can only imagine" probably has more meaning to me than someone who's never spent any time in a uniform. I do know what things like Courage, Commitment, Loyalty and Honour mean. Btw, we swear a similar oath that means just as much to us as yours obviously does to you.

As far as the rest of your reply, I find it a little confusing.

I don't have any stats as to who how many are deserting by armed service. I doubt very much your DoD would allow specific numbers like that to be released (bad for morale and all that, I'm sure).

If it's true that the US Army is lowering standards to the point where Autism is no longer a disqualifying factor, can we agree that this doesn't bode well for whatever the mission is in Iraq this week? Just what are these new green, under trained soldiers supposed to accomplish over there now that the vets have (for the most part) been rotated out?

Can we at least agree, that, in hindsight, going into Iraq was a bad idea? If that's the case, can we also agree that the original mission, to oust Saddam and restore democracy in Iraq, has, for various reasons gone horribly wrong?

As far as the "coalition" forces go, it's an American show all the way. No American commander is going to accept being subordinate to any other coalition country. Quite rightly, btw, as it was, at best, a joint American/British adventure to start. We all know how popular this fight is in the UK right now, right? In fact, you pointing out that nearly half the countries that originally participated no longer do so only goes to prove how unpopular, misguided and futile this conflict really is. All those countries leaving the conflict means the US has to send in MORE troops to cover the shortfall, right?

And again, WHY? So the US can appear to be resolute in the face of the enemy? GWB at least had that right when he ended the first war in Iraq, get in, get the job done and get out, let them sort themselves out after.

Anyway, none of this means that I don't have the utmost respect for the individual soldiers who are over there trying they're damndest to do the job the best they can.

You're going to have a much bigger problem trying to convince me that US leadership is doing the same, however.

As far as deserters go, I agree with you that they are a waste of skin, and probably the only thing to be done with them is to discharge them one way or the other. On the other hand, if a soldier is badly led, and this leads to disillusionment, who's fault is that? If a soldier realises that he's fallen for the party line and doesn't believe what he's told anymore, is that really his fault? In any case, if these deserters want to claim refugee status in Canada, how can I object? And why should I send them back to the US on your say-so? What a way to restore order and discipline.

Maybe that's the real reason why the Army has lowered it's aptitude standards, stupid soldiers are more likely to do what they're told? Just kidding. Well, a little anyway.

Anyway, I doubt I've convinced you of anything, I just hope you realise that whats at stake here is more than whats happening in Iraq or the US. It involves everyone on this planet to a greater or lesser extent. Until the US realises it's not going to solve it by bullying everyone else into it's own version of foreign policy (a capability it is less likely to be able to project as time goes on), the better off we'll all be.

Thanks for participating.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Dash-Ate
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1760
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:15 pm
Location: Placarded INOP

Post by Dash-Ate »

History has shown that citizens never want war they must be goaded into it by fear or otherwise.

Along the line of: people who live across the world in poor countries somehow will come over here and get you (vietnam, cambodia, iraq, iran). :roll:

hitler did a great job convincing everyone to destroy jewish people.
bush is doing a great job getting us to kill arabs.


history books are always written by the victors. 100 years of war, get ready for 100 more years.
---------- ADS -----------
 
That'll buff right out :rolleyes:
Image
mellow_pilot
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2119
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Pilot Purgatory

Post by mellow_pilot »

Wait, you're not suggesting that Hitler and Bush use similar tactics are you?

I thought I was the only one who studied history and saw the correlation...

Read Mien Kampf, you'll see how the US admin uses corporal hitler's ideas on the media (called propaganda back then). I'm not saying that Bush and the Nazis are equal, but the style of leadership and the tactics used to steer the public are the same. Interesting stuff. Those who fail to read history, are doomed to be f-ed over in ways that they should recognized.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!
User avatar
Dash-Ate
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1760
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:15 pm
Location: Placarded INOP

Post by Dash-Ate »

Why? Should they be happy liberators??

:roll:


And why isn;t the govt/military helping them

--------------------------------


Veterans' suicide toll dwarfs deaths Font Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Correspondents in Washington | November 17, 2007
MORE US military veterans had killed themselves in one year than the number of American soldiers who have died in Iraq since 2003, it was claimed yesterday.

At least 6256 US veterans took their own lives in 2005, at an average of 17 a day, according to figures broadcast last night. Former servicemen are more than twice as likely than the rest of the population to commit suicide.

Such statistics compare to the total 3863 US military deaths in Iraq since the invasion in 2003 -- an average of 2.4 a day, according to the website icasualties.org.

The figures came as the US backed down on its policy of forcing diplomatic staff to serve in Iraq. Three foreign service officers who signed up for the last of the 48 vacancies had won tentative approval, officials said.

Once the appointments were approved -- a decision was due last night -- the State Department would announce an end to the enforcement policy. But the policy could return if the current crop of volunteers did not pan out.

"We're reserving the option," department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Three foreign service personnel have been killed in Iraq since the war began in 2003.

Meanwhile, Defence Secretary Robert Gates yesterday said that unless the US Congress passed funding for the Iraq war within days, he would direct the Army and Marine Corps to prepare plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year.

Mr Gates said he did not have the money or the flexibility to move funding around to cover the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"There is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting manoeuvres. This is a serious misconception," Mr Gates said at the Pentagon.

Now, he said, he was faced with the task of preparing to cease operations at army bases by mid-February, and to lay off about 100,000 Defence Department employees and an equal number of civilian contractors.

Similar moves would have to be made by the marines a month later, he said.

Mr Gates said he could transfer about $US3.7billion ($4.1billion), just one week's worth of war expenses.

Away from Iraq and Afghanistan, the tragedy continues. The rate of suicides among veterans prompted claims that the US was suffering from a "mental health epidemic" -- often linked to post-traumatic stress.

CBS News claimed the figures represented the first attempt to conduct a nationwide count of veteran suicides.

The tally was reached by collating suicide data from individual states for veterans and the general population from 1995.

The suicide rate among Americans as a whole was 8.9 per 100,000, but the level among veterans was at least 18.7.

That figure rose to a minimum of 22.9 among veterans aged 20 to 24 -- almost four times the non-veteran average for people of the same age.

There are 25 million veterans in the US, 1.6 million of whom served in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Not everyone comes home from the war wounded, but the bottom line is nobody comes home unchanged," said Paul Rieckhoff, a former marine and founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for America.

A separate study published last week shows that US military veterans make up a quarter of homeless people in the US, even though they represent just 11 per cent of the adult population.

Younger soldiers are trickling into shelters and soup kitchens after completing tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Times, AP
---------- ADS -----------
 
That'll buff right out :rolleyes:
Image
altiplano
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5916
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Post by altiplano »

Once some has been UA for more than 30 days, then it becomes disertion.That is punishable by death in time of war.
Nobody is going to get deported if that is on the table.

I don't agree with the war but it is what these guys signed up for when they joined... If they were draft dodging I would support them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Locked

Return to “The Water Cooler”