American Gov't Arrests Canadian

[CaptainCrunch]

I remember when I was getting ready to deploy on a peacekeeping mission that I was really uncomfortable with. I didn't want to go, and I was pretty glum about it. And on a cold and stormy night in a mess with a senior NCO, he said "Crunch" , (actually he didn't, but I'm not going to use my real name), "Our job is not to debate the Command Authority, or the National Policies of this country, or even the will of the UN, Our job is to go in and enforce the mandate, do what has to be done, and get out alive. If you can keep life that simple, you'll always come out ahead".

From a morals point, I have a right to refuse orders if they order me to kill woman or children, drop bombs on Civilians, or burn villages, If a soldier has a moral problem with what he perceives as an illegal order he has a right to protest, bitch, refuse to comply, but you can't tell me that there is a moral's clause in a recruitment agreement, so the argument that the National Command Authority was morally wrong doesn't fly.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Jesus Christ. Did the US Military violate their end of the bargain? Allen signing knowing he could be sent to war. So Allen violated his contract, something that is called "breaking the law." Like Cowperson said, that law has stood through numerous Presidents from both sides of the political spectrum.

Therefore the US has every right to arrest him.

I don't know what Jesus Christ has to do with this. Why didn't you answer the question? It was a pretty easy one.

I'm of the opinion that the contract this guy signed was possibly violated and so maybe he's justified in reneging on it. I'm not sure if he was justified or not, but the possibility exists. He's at least got an argument (that would start with the words "they lied to me), to my mind.

You, on the other hand, appear to believe that a contract (of any kind) must be fulfilled even if the other guy bails out of his end. I disagree with that.

The bridge sale continues. Half-off, if you are interested.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know what Jesus Christ has to do with this. Why didn't you answer the question? It was a pretty easy one.

I'm of the opinion that the contract this guy signed was possibly violated and so maybe he's justified in reneging on it. I'm not sure if he was justified or not, but the possibility exists. He's at least got an argument (that would start with the words "they lied to me), to my mind.

You, on the other hand, appear to believe that a contract (of any kind) must be fulfilled even if the other guy bails out of his end. I disagree with that.

The bridge sale continues. Half-off, if you are interested.

You're of the "opinion"?

I'm basing my comments on what the article says.

[IggyIsGod]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Isn't there some kind of statute of limitations on this kind of thing? How can he still be arrested for a crime he committed 40 years ago where it's very hard to demonstrate he caused any actual harm to anyone (aside from maybe the US military who spent money training him, but that's stretching it).

If you want to see a real instance of the US unjustly prosecuting a Canadian, you ought to look up the case of James Sabzali. While working out of Ontario, Sabzali sold water purification equipment to hospitals in Cuba. He later transferred to the company's headquarters in Philadelphia where he was arrested for "trading with an enemy". I can't possibly imagine how the US claimed jurisdiction on this case, since his alleged "crimes" occurred on Canadian soil doing something that is perfectly legal in this country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1910284.stm

"Trading with the Enemy.", Hah that's just dumb.