Thanks for posting this item, will follow the link and share.

Thanks Pinga!

There is another side to this. Ms. Rivera enlisted and made a conscious choice to join the US Army. She enlisted and was not drafted.

When one makes a commitment like that, one hopes that one has the integrity to complete the commitment. There are consequences to not fulfilling a commitment like that. You don't get a "do over". 

Should Canada allow her to not fulfill her commitment? There are those, such as myself, who say "no". On the other hand, the House of Commons has passed a resolution which says that Canada should harbour those who object to war. It is not an easy question to answer.

Why do we continue to sing John Lennon songs but do nothing?  There is only one side, the human side and I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to put some works to my faith.

Thanks for that post, DKS. It's a side of the war resister debate that sometimes gets drowned out in the discussion in both UU'ism and the UCCan. As you say, we're not dealing with protecting draftees here, but people who signed up voluntarily to an organization that expects you to go and do as you're told.

The argument that I've heard (not necessarily saying I use or accept it myself), and I'm friends with some strong UU supporters of the war resisters, is that, yes, they signed up but they signed up to help and defend their country and they don't see how the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan serve that purpose. They see them as fulfilling a political agenda that isn't about protecting America or perhaps as misguided (mostly the former, though, I think). As I say, I'm not advocating for this point of view, but it is one argument I've heard to counter the argument DKS raises.

Mendalla

I believe she's resisting not because she was sent to war, but because once there she says she discovered the US was killing civilians, and she says she didn't sign up for that.

From the link, the first item on the list of actions:

• Worship: Pray for Kimberly Rivera and her family, as well as the other war resisters facing potential deportation from Canada.

Fat lot of good that'll do her. Ask Kimberly to rank the actions she would rather see people take on her behalf, and I think that would be at the bottom of the list. So, if your only aim is to feel good about yourself, go ahead and pray. If you want to help, start at item numbers 2, 3 and 4:

• Contact Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, by telephone, fax, or e-mail. Draft letters are on the War Resisters’ website; also see Amnesty International’s blog post for ideas. 
  Jason Kenney, can be reached at
  Phone: 613-954-1064
  Fax: 613-957-2688
  E-mail: Jason Kenney
• Sign the online petition
• Organize or participate in the Days of Action on Friday, September 14, and Wednesday September 19. This is the day before the Riveras' removal date. We must raise our collective voice to loudly say: Let Them Stay!

I have written my own email to Jason Kenney, and signed the online petition. I was about to say that it's the least I can do, but truly, praying would be the least I could do.

Well chansen, if that's still the one thing left for you to do then you otta hop to it!

From that list, the only useful thing I'm not doing is participating in the "Days of Action", for obvious personal reasons.

I have a really hard time believing that. Ms. Rivera appears to be of reasonable intelligence. Surely she is not so ignorant of life and reality so as not understand that the purpose of the military is to kill, when ordered or to protect others. Tthere are times when that means civilians die.

I have heard that argument as well, but find it incredibly hard to accept, given the level of militarization found in American culture.

Damn right. Anybody who signs up to do something which he or she discovers is wrong should do it anyway. My hat's off to all those Christians who carry on the good work of torture and murdering innocent people because that's what they signed up to do. The world needs more people like that.

Who's kidding who? People enlist to get a job, to get an education, or to get themselves straightened out, among other reasons. In the case of the Iraq war, there was a lot to not agree with, primarily with the case for war. As I wrote to Minister Kenney, Canada was a refuge for many Vietnam war resisters as well, and we got a number of very bright young people out of that deal, over a war we stayed away from. We should do the same here.

Please. That is more than a little disingenious. Soldiers fight wars and kill people. No matter what reason a person has for joining the army, Basic Training will disabuse them of any kind of idea that they are there to 'straighten out" or "get an education". That is especially true in the US Army. You are trained to follow orders and to kill people.

The problem with the US Army is that unlike the Canadian Forces, there is no clear path for conscientious objection. Once you have taken the President's Dollar, Uncle Sam owns your butt for your commitment period, no matter what. Canada deals with the matter differently. There is a ligitmate path for a CO both to stay in and to get out. I have met both.

Sure. Just bail on marriage, parenthood, mortgage payments and so on. You can get a free pass.

Hi AaronMcGallegos,

That is a slight spin on her actual complaint.  The actual complaint was that the US was careless about creating civilian casualties.

Your spin, rightly or wrongly, has the US armed forces deliberately targetting civilians.  I believe Rivera's position is that the US armed forces were reckless.

Believing that anyone can prosecuta a war/occupation/liberation without any civilian casualties is not a credible position to take.  Rivera didn't sign on to kill civilians.  The army never promises that civilians will not be killed.  One would hope that any army would make an effort to minimize civilian casualties.  What that looks like at the end of the day will constantly be a matter of dispute.

The primary difference between Vietnam and Iraq is the fact that the current American army is voluteer and not conscription.

Buyer's remorse means that if you want out you pay a price.

Court Martial gives Rivera part of what she wants.  It puts her out of the army.  I doubt that it is the court martial which is the problem.  It is the jail-time which can be a year or longer.  If there is a possibility of execution, no matter how slim,  for desertion then by all means grant her refugee status.

Given the extenuating circumstances of four young children and a husband with some disability I don't think it is a given that she will get even a year in prison.  That 94 percent of deserters receive only administrative discharges suggests that most deserters get a military bawling out and are kicked back to civilian life and spend no time in jail.  That 6% wind up in the klink means prison time is long odds.

Grace and peace to you.

John

That would be ideal to many people I know who's parents harmed them in significant ways. If you are doing something and by doing it, people, children or adults will die, than people should just stop doing. A child is better off healthy alive and without a parent that harms them. 

Birth parents who give up their children because they are unable to care for thei children are righteous. Just as people who find themselves in situtations, like the army , and believe they are helping kill innocent people and decide to dessert 

That is nonsense. People don't "find thenselves in situations, like the army..." They choose to volunteer, as this woman did. She was either incredibly dense (which I don't believe either) or chooses not to fulfill her commitment. Would she do the same thing to her children?  As for dessert, will that be chocolate mousse?

It might, because a court martial would leave her with a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) or Dishonourable Discharge (DD), affecting her employment prospects, especially for positions of trust or government work, her civil rights in some states and prevent her from owning firearams (if a DD). It will also affect any service (VA) benefits she might have accrued, part of the punishment being the removal of all such benefits. An Other than Honourable (OTH) discharge has little impact other than being barred from re-enlistment in the Armed Forces or Reserves. I don't believe any benefits are lost.

As you rightly point out, this sounds like "buyers remorse". There is always a price for getting out of a contract. This is no different.

Have you ever had lies repreated to you by your government, church, schools and family?

Have not heard of the way White American kids are raised to believe in American Exceptionalism. And that the US has a special relation with God. 

So if she was raised with an such an ideology, and if she only realised it was a lie after being exposed to a different reality in the Army while stationed in Iraq, I would find her story believable.  Even the brightest person can fooled. 

Then you are more trusting that I.

I just signed the petition. I think conscientious objectors should be protected and shielded, even if they signed up and later changed their minds.

Under both Canadian and US law, and international law, soldiers can develope a conscientious objection to war through the experience of soldiering and have that respected.  A larger issue that the volunteer argument (and many Vietnam deserters did volunteer) is that there are limits of what one can expect of soldiers - Nurenburg testifies to this. Soldiers should not be expected to violate the rules of war or international law in the fulfillment of their duties.  There are limits of what their volunteer status should require. 

In Kim's case, she is a Christian who developed sincere beliefs around war and the use of violence through her experience.  While one could apply to have their conscientious objection assessed, that is very difficult - they put themselves in a very vulnerable position. They are in the field, they have to apply to the CO (not an independent body), and - as in the case of many - they have to rise above their own fears of challenging the system, which can be very hard when you are poor, not well educated and disadvantaged. For women, there is the added (and real) threat of sexual harrassment. It is very difficult to try to get out - and most are not allowed out.  So they desert.  This is why most of the war resisters who came here took that tack they did - they knew they would not have a fair hearing based on what they had witnessed, so why bother. 

Anyway, yes, complex issues, and our understanding of conscientious objection continues to evolve, as does the law that governs it. 

There is, in fact, a very clear path around the chain of command in both the US Army and the Canadian Forces. I am more familiar with the CF path than the US Army, but in short, an appeal to the unit chaplain provides an automatic, and in Canada, unbiased, path to CO status and eventual release from service. In Canada, that path is respected. It is the view of the chain of command that an unwilling soldier is a liability to the unit and morale and it is better to test the status and if, appropriate, move to eventual separation from the CF. I have observed that process close up and am confident of the veracity and integrity of it.

In the US Army, the shear size of the military mitigates against any kind of process that is completely unbiased. In addition, the relationship of the chaplain is very different; where in Canada the chaplain both is a part of the chain of command and stands apart from it, there is some ability to act in a more even-handed manner. That is not entirely true in the US Army; at least that is how it has been explained to me.

DESMOND TUTU: Don’t deport war resister Kimberly Rivera

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/dont-deport-war-resister-kimberly-rivera/article4544856/

Thanks Aaron.

If anyone has watched the enlistment videos, they like many recruitment videos sure focus on the positive aspects.

I get how someone could think they could avoid certain items or just didn't get it.  I also recognize that things could shift once you have experience.

I will continue to follow this with interest, in part as I have two sons who are both interested in the forces.

Interestingly enough I was speaking earlier today to a woman in our community whose husband is a "deserter" from the U.S. Marines. He did a 6 month tour of duty in Iraq, came home with severe PTSD (medically verified) because of the things he had seen over there. Not just normal casualties of war, but what he considered deliberate war crimes. He asked for conscientious objector status- denied. He asked for a medical discharge based on the medical evidence - denied. Then they told him he'd be redeployed to Iraq. So they came to Canada. His trauma is so bad that he almost never leaves their apartment, he suffers terrible night terrors. Basically, his life is a mess, and now, in light of the Rivera deportation, they wonder every day if this is going to be the day they get their deportation notice and if he's going to wind up in a military prison.

Until this conversation I was pretty ambivalent on this issue. I leaned toward the "You volunteered; you knew what you were getting into" side of things. I now understand after this conversation that a lot of these young men and women didn't know what they were getting into. They were willing to serve their country; they were willing to fight; they did their tours of duty. They didn't come to Canada to avoid that. But what they saw while they were over there convinced them that in good conscience they simply couldn't go again. It seems to me that's how Christian faith works: being transformed to a new way of looking at the world. I think we should respect that.

Thanks Rev Steven Davis.

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

I can and I do respect that soldiers serving a tour in Iraq have been transformed.

I acknowledge with profound regret that the transformation is not always for the better or the healthier.

I believe that the United States should do better by their forces who simply can no longer participate.  The strength of any volunteer army has to be the willingness of the volunteer and the moment a volunteers willingness waivers the strength of the army is diminished.

That said, there are contractual issues (which really defeats the voluntary notion when service is obligatory) and the question is whether or not the penalties are out of proportion to the contract to the point of being cruel or inhumane.  It is an issue of rights, freedoms, duties and obligations.

Would the US Army force a soldier with medically verified PTSD to return to a combat role?  I would hope not.  I can't imagine how many other soldiers/civilians that would put at risk.  I also cannot imagine how PTSD would affect serving in a non-combat role.  I would think that non-combat service would have to be stateside where the sounds of combat are minimized.

So it isn't that I am completely unsympathetic to all the various elements that go into each soldier's story.  I don't think running away from problems is always in anyone's best interest and I say that acknowledging that flight is as much a survival instinct as is fight and each have their value.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I would hope not as well. However, based on what I was told yesterday I have doubts. Essentially I've been told by many (icluding American clergy colleagues who've done stints in the US military) that - official policies aside - there's still very much a General Patton attitude among some in the US military. "Just slap 'em across the face, call them cowards and tell them to get back into the fight."

As to the contractual obligation/volunteer status, that's very dependent on what people understand they're being contracted to do. 

I have sympathy for the feeling that deserting soldiers had agreed to fight for their country, in its defence and in its interests, but that they never agreed to fight and potentially die in a war that most of the world now believes was wrong, unnecessary and probably even illegal, and that was based entirely on lies - that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and (more subtly) that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11 and that the invasion of Iraq was a part of the so-called "war on terror."

Broadly, this is an ongoing struggle for me; perhaps the classic example of the clash between gospel and culture and the extent to which they influence and become intertwined with each other, and the extent to which such influence and intertwining always and inevitably works to the advantage of culture and to the disadvantage of gospel. I, for example, cannot find any way to read the Gospels and come to the conclusion that Jesus would have been anything other than what we would call in modern terms a pacifist. I understand that's something of an anachronism, applying a modern concept to an ancient world, but of course in seeking guidance from Scripture we, in a way, do the reverse - try to apply ancient writings to modern culture. In that struggle, I simply can't imagine Jesus taking up arms. So, I struggle with that in terms of my reaction to so-called "deserters." I can understand and applaud their decision - especially if it's a faith-based response, made under conviction by conscience and gospel. On the other hand I understand the nature and importance of taking responsibility and living up to commitments. When commitments come to clash with a newly developed sense of conscience or a newly developed understanding of gospel, I believe that conscience or gospel must take priority. That's when "fight or flight" becomes a struggle for me. Should those in that situation stand firm and publicly for what they believe and take whatever punishment is meted out, or should they get away, escape punishment, but have perhaps more opportunity to bear witness to what they believe? (I say that knowing that there is a real price to be paid for the "flight" option - leaving behind home and family; living in fear of being returned with little notice.) I don't have easy answers to those questions.

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

That probably contributes to the suicide risk among American Veterans.

True.  Not much in basic training to suggest killing people is not what soldiers are supposed to do other than follow orders.

Who would?  And I suspect what the rest of the world thought at the time was irrelevant to their enlisting unless it was the fact that the rest of the world was being cowardly and the real heroes had to step up.  Now that they have undergone their transformation the fact that others objected and refused to get involved shouldn't really matter either.

I agree.

Two were apparently enough for the night of his arrest.  Enough for what I'm not certain.  And while I agree that he fits the definition of pacifist he seemed to understand that you lie down in the bed you make.

Well WonderCafe was established as a place to take refuge from easy answers so this seems like a good place for such discussions.

Flight does not come cheaply.  Which shows that decisions always carry consequences whether we like those consequences or not..  While flight means that American military deserters can never return home to the United States without facing punitive measures it doesn't prevent their families from coming here.

Which is like saying just because you have family in Leavenworth you aren't prohibitted from visiting.  All things considered, Canada is probably the more attractive prison.  There is a difference in that Canada as prison is probably a life sentance whereas Leavenworth would be shy of life and probably by some years.  So, are we truly helping?

I have no clue.  If we are comfortable believing that folk enlisted out of ignorance why are we not just as comfortable believing that they have run to Canada motivated by more ignorance?

As you point out, no easy answers.

Grace and peace to you.

John