A BBC feature today tells the story of a US National Guardsman who deserted to Canada after being deployed to Iraq. As Canada prepares to deport him to face trial in the US, Corey Glass is arguing he should be allowed to stay.
According to Glass, when he joined the Indiana National Guard, he was told that he would perform humanitarian work filling sandbags in the event of a hurricane — not required to serve in combat unless there were troops occupying the US — instead, he was sent to gather intelligence in Iraq. As he began to realize the repercussions of the American lead occupation, Glass wanted out. While on leave, he fled to Toronto where he is now asking for political asylum. However, he still faces deportation to the US, a move that will most likely land him in prison for deserting his obligations to the military.
Glass said:
I should have been in New Orleans after Katrina, not in Iraq. I believe the Iraq War is illegal and morally wrong. I believe I have a duty to refuse to take part in a war not sanctioned by the United Nations, started on the basis of lies.
Canada has passed a motion stating the Canadian government will accept conscientious objectors from the United States and allow them permanent resident status. They have also asked all deportation proceedings against soldiers currently living in their country cease, though this may not apply to Glass. The editor of the paper that ran Glass' plea said, "does Canada really want to cast itself as the protector of fair-weather American soldiers fleeing their duty?" He sums up his thoughts like this:
Six years ago, Corey Glass picked the wrong career. Three years ago, he picked an illegal way to abandon it. It's time for this ex-soldier to go home and pay the price for what he's done.
Do you agree? Should Glass be deported and put on trial, or should Canada be a refuge from militarism?
Marks and Spencer
I would join the National Guard in a heartbeat if it didn't involve service overseas.
1He joined the Guard in 2002, before the war, so he might well have been told he wouldn't be sent anywhere to fight.
He also says:
"I realised innocent people were being killed unjustly and I tried to quit the military while in Iraq. My commander told me I was stressed out and needed R&R, because I was doing a job I was not trained to do. I went home on leave and said I was not coming back. I was told desertion is punishable by death. I was Absent Without Leave (AWOL) in America for eight months."
If he can support what he says, he should be invited home and discharged - instead of being sent to prison, or becoming one more soldier who commits self-harm or suicide.
2stephly, I agree. If he can prove that he was mislead, he should be discharged. And if he was AWOL in the US for 8 months, how is it the military couldn't have found him if they wanted to?
3The law is the law. We can't pick and choose which laws we follow.
4And we are accountable for our own actions.
5Mr. Glass' good sense is about as fragile as glass. What the hell did he join the military for? If he wanted to fill sand bags hop his @$$ on a bus go to New Orleans and fill some sand bags. You don't need to be in the military to do that.
Shoot he could have been working right along side Brad Pit too. Turkey!
6Go Hypno
7Go Hypno
Go Hypno
This BBC commenter said it best:
"I joined the Army National Guard in 1992. We all knew and it was made perfectly clear many times, before and after we joined, that we were in the United States Military and were required to defend the nation at home and abroad. We were never once told, nor was it inferred, that all we would do is "fill sandbags" for humanitarian reasons. Corey Glass joined the "ARMY National Guard" not the Peace Corps, Salvation Army, or any other humanitarian organization. The difference is that the Military pays more money. That is why Corey Glass joined. You train with guns, grenades, claymores; you train to fight a war. Not once in basic training was Corey Glass trained, nor was it ever mentioned in any class, or any Army field manual how to fill sandbags to stop a flood. Corey Glass learned to fill sandbags for a bunker to defend a military forward operating base from enemy attack. If it is for moral reasons then do what other conscientious objectors with standards have done: serve your time in a military prison for going back on the oath you gave to your country and fellow military personnel."
8Maybe Glass thought he was joining the same kind of National Guard that Bush 'served' in during Vietnam.
9The BBC commenter can't speak to what Glass may have been told or his motives for joining. And Glass isn't the first person to object to this war on the grounds that it's illegal - maybe we should sort that whole issue out before we make him a prisoner of conscience.
If I were Canada, I'd be sick of having to take all of America's seamen.
10Those are two separate issues. If you join the military, it's your job to go fight the war they tell you to go fight. If you decide not to go, you are guilty of being AWOL, and deserve to be punished accordingly.
11I wish they would deport his @$$ just so I can have the privilege of popping him upside his head.
Well aside from this Bozo I do sympathize with a soldier who has seen war experienced the shock and truly just can not go back. I do not think that Canada should involve it self.
12Does this guy have proof he was told that he would only have to fill sandbags or perform only humanitarian duties? From what he says he was told, he was lead to believe he would only have to serve on military missions if troops were occupying the US...seems a bit far-fetched, but....would he have a case if the recruiter who got him to sign up lied to him?
13Exactly, he was an adult and only an idiot would think joining any kind of military service would be a walk in the park.
And racc....he he he he.
14Rac, you dirty boy!
I do think that if he signed up, he has to fulfill his commitment. Read your contract!
15Hmph. They don't go looking for deserters, Martini. My ridiculous ex husband was UA for 8 months. The only reason they finally found him? He got pulled over and put in jail for a DUI. That's how they catch them. People who go UA from the military usually aren't especially responsible. The MA I was working with informed me that 90% of police returns of deserters involve traffic stops.
16Dave, look it up, a soldier has the right to object to illegal orders. In fact, under the military rules of engagement, a soldier is upholding the law by disobeying an illegal order.
17Yeah RAC that's even dirty for me. Hehe!
18Alright everyone sing along now.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/428397/south_park_blame_canada/
19But if they deport him and put him to trial here in the states, wouldn't that be better for all the "conscientious objectors"? Then we'd actually get an answer to that question and set some sort of precedent as to how to handle it.
20What? I just read this story about American seamen shooting into Canada in copious amounts. I'm not making this up and I wanted to draw attention to the fact that other branches of the service are having problems with endless ejaculations of AWOL servicemen.
That's all.
21That would be fine with me, I doubt he'll like it since he seems to be missing a change in Canada's policy by days.
22Sure he doesn't know exactly what he was told or what his motives are, but the fact is that the National Guard is prefaced with the word 'Army'. The whole military functions on the premise of doing what your superior tells you to do, regardless of your feelings on the matter. If that is so abhorrent, there are plenty of other ways he could have served his country, although the benefits are a bit more paltry.
The illegal orders (burning down a village, shooting anything that moves, etc.) referred to in military rules of engagement apply when a soldier is actually 'engaged', not on R&R.
23hahah SICK!!!!
24mondaymoos - I had no idea they didn't go looking for deserters! And I'm from a military family!! YIKES - obviously lots I don't know.
25Dear Lord, rac.
26Rac
27The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
28But Steph, there are so many orders and all by different people, and believe me, officers think long and hard when they write orders. If the officer agrees with the order and the chain of command does, all the way up everyone signs it, and then one person on the very bottom who may have little to almost no experience in the military decides not to do it because he doesn't think its lawful, then the whole command should be brought down?
29It doesn't bring down the whole command unless the guy on the bottom is proven to be the only person who's correct. If Glass is brought to the U.S. and tried, and during the course of his trial it is somehow proven that the war is illegal and serving in it is morally wrong, then yes, the whole command is brought down.
30What are the chances of that happening?
But going to fight in Iraq neither violates the US constitution or the UCMJ. Therefore, an order to and fight can not be objected.
31But my point is that there are THOUSANDS of orders... is it really worth it to entertain every single person's objection to every order?
The money, manpower, and time to examine is mind boggling. BILLIONS of dollars would be wasted.
Thats why I think they should try someone, ANYONE, decide if the war is legal, and be finished with it.
32But the term 'rules of engagement' still only apply when engaged with the enemy. I'm nitpicking, but the phrase is incorrectly thrown around a lot these days.
33Well, I would expect the "National Guard" to be deployed withing the United States or its territories. Places like borders, ports and airports need a lot more "guarding" than they have been getting! I've had a little bit of a problem ever since they started sending them abroad. Therefore, I have a little bit of sympathy for this fellow.
However, if I were Canada, I wouldn't want the deserters, either. I would have doubts about their desirability as residents.
34no matter what age you are, its not a far stretch to think that if you join any of the armed services during wartime, your going to end up serving in the war. this war has never proven to be "illegal" or based on "lies" and there absolutly no good reason for canada to allow hime to stay. he chose to go into the national guard after we invaded iraq and he chose to go awol and now he should pay the consequences.
35"But going to fight in Iraq neither violates the US constitution or the UCMJ. Therefore, an order to and fight can not be objected."
Dave, that's just your opinion, that is not a certain fact.
Sarah, it's not about rules of engagement - the Constitution does not spell out battlefield rules: "The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution..."
Cab - No one's saying that every private can quibble over whether to go south or north - but the big issues need to be sorted out, we agree on that.
Laine - I read that for the most part, Canadians found deserters from Vietnam to be excellent citizens. These aren't people skipping out cuz it's yukky, for the most part, it's people who object to violating certain moral behavior.
Flutterpie - he joined the Guard in 2002, before we attacked Iraq.
Obviously, Glass should have just had someone shoot him in the knee or attempted suicide while he was on r&r - people are far more sympathetic to that.
36IMO people who suffer self-inflicted, intentional injuries don't deserve the purple heart, and shouldn't get benefits for any disabilities aquired from those injuries...
37You would have to be a damn fool to sign up for any service after
389-11 and think you wouldn't be active in the forces, Iraq or otherwise.
Recruiters lie. Maybe I should say some recruiters lie. How do you think they convince usually young men and women to join during war time? There have been exposes done about this.
39I agree that some recruiters lie. That said, anyone who signs up during a time of war, and thinks they aren't going to have to fight need to be released from military service by means of insanity or stupidity.
40"Last year, ABC News armed a group of high school students with hidden cameras and sent them into ten Army recruiting stations in in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, posing as potential applicants. Sadly, the Army failed this particular recruiting ethics test. More than half of the recruiters were caught on tape making what can only be kindly referred to as "misleading" statements. In other words, they lied.
One recruiter was filmed telling the applicant that his chances of being deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan after basic training and job school were"slim to none." One recruiter bluntly stated that the Army wasn't sending people to Iraq anymore -- in fact, they were bringing them home. One simply said, "War? What war? The war ended years ago."
41http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/recruiterlies.htm
Right because these people who are "convinced" are completely incapable of thinking for themselves.
When a person joins the military aka The Armed Forces, it is known that there is a distinct possibility that you may have to one day go into combat. I just don't understand why this is so difficult for some to see?
42I know it's not about rules of engagement. You were the one that brought them up in a response to Dave's post.
"How do you think they convince usually young men and women to join during war time?"
If someone is seriously considering joining the military, war time has little to do with it. My cousin just deployed for her first time, my father is over there now, and the only reason I haven't volunteered myself is because I promised my father I'd finish college. Most people who join are very well-informed about the risks.
43Glass was 19 years old when he joined the National Guard. That's not the best age for making life altering decisions. Before the Iraq Occupation how many people did you know in the National Guard who actually faced combat. One of the selling points for the guard was you only had to give up so many weekends a year. Sand bagging, crowd control, helping during a natural diaster are what the National Guard was known for.
44"I just don't understand why this is so difficult for some to see?"
I suspect it's because some people can't comprehend willingly putting themselves in harms way for the benefit of others without having to be tricked into doing it.
45liliblu - so are you arguing that recruiters lie or that 19 year old kids are dumb? which is it? or is it both?
46I know a young man who joined the marines. He planned to join the air force but a recruiter convinced him to change his mind. I won't go into all the details but that recruiter should be ashamed of himself. They know they are dealing with either idealistic teenagers or desparate ones and some take full advantage.
47"That's not the best age for making life altering decisions".
so why do we send 18 year olds to college? Why do we let them vote?
Why do we let them get married w/out parental consent?
My husband joined the Military Academy right after High School and if he had to make the same choice right now his duty would be to go to war upon graduation - he'd do it all over again. (He just said that to me when I read him this).
Which brings up another good point, how are the enrollment numbers in The Naval Academy? They're still up there like they've always been, it's one of the toughest military academies to get into and everybody wants in. All those poor deluded suckers...
48well i would argue that there are idealistic and desperate or just plain dumb people at any age.
and in a war time i think the majority of kids are far more cynical than idealistic.
49"All those poor deluded suckers..." that part made me laugh!
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.