You could not even be court martialed for pointing out Afghanistan was a war crime (because it was war crime).
Introduction
I state in the memo’s presented below from 2007:
A case can be made that either the Canadian military intelligence agencies and or military command structure purposefully or implicitly deceived the public by portraying terrorism as a military threat (to secure more funding perhaps?) and are guilty of high treason, or that the Canadian intelligence agencies are so incompetent that they are a liability to the country. Either way, I believe a solid case can be made that it is irrational with respect to the duties of a soldier to support such corrupt or incompetent organizations of men and women.
and
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
3. Canada has made this declaration supreme law of the land, and I truly believed the Canadian Forces respected these principles when I joined. Specifically my argument will be that to actively participate in the CF will be, at the least, breaking Article thirty.
4. The CF is actively supporting torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment, arbitrary arrest and detention, and actively supporting the destruction of article 10, if not directly, at least through integration and active support for the US forces. And so, to actively participate in the CF would be to participate in this activity.
In 2007 you could say this in official CF memo’s to your direct superior (and the fact no officer intervened to defend the honour of the CF is absurd) and not be court martialed for defamation against the entirety of the chain of command.
Rather, they drop their claims against me (so as not to give me legal representation that I clearly request, and have a right to) and dismiss me honourably.
Ok, I’m the honourable party, according to the people I accuse of war crimes. Makes sense in a way.
How is that possible, unless the chain of command knows and fears the truth?
For those who supported the war and didn’t think twice about it all this time, and now seeing it’s disastrous failure are “soul searching”, the memos exchanged below, demonstrate things were obvious even to a 22 year old private.
Or worse, like President Biden, people who now blame the Afghani people for not fighting to correct the mistakes of rich countries (who “tortured some folks”). Pathetic.
Even after the invasion, sane policy could have led to a different outcome, regardless of the wisdom of the initial invasion.
A little note to the reader: There is some repetition of points in my memos, because I thought my bringing up the issue of war crimes and accusing the entire high command of treason, would be enough the first time to get me court martialed, legal representation (I have a right to in being accused of failing my duties and to challenge an involuntary release). To have my day in court to defend my views and so the judiciary and the public could hear and consider them. However, I put all the memo’s in full for the accuracy of the public record on this point, of obvious public concern.
When I didn’t receive a reply, it was unclear what I could do. I did contact some human rights organizations, but they were not interested. I think that’s unfortunate attitude, however, as helping soldiers resist unjust wars may prevent them in the first place. It was clear I would need a lawyer, but I did not have the means at the time. It has been an issue I have, since, always wanted to pursue further, but the urgency of climate change and my work in that has always gotten in the way (and I think for good reason, if we don’t solve climate change, we may end up killing the rest of the Afghani’s anyways).
I present it now, in the interests of the public record, given the extraordinary events in Afghanistan and active attempts to re-write history.
War crimes like torturing, you know, “we tortured some folks,” as Obama casually mentioned years later — and also zero coherent nation building policy and obvious corrupt war profiteering — were the mistake, not, as many are now essentially claiming, having “too good intentions” and there was just a little oversight of underestimating the difficulty of the noble and selfless task.
Wissenz Memos
Snowden.MJ2@forces.gc.ca
Tue, Aug 21, 2007, 6:40 PM
to me, MacTyre.LJ
Pte Wissenz
I have been informed that the best way to contact you would be via email. You are currently NES you now have the following options;
Let us know when you will return to continue parading.
It you are wishing to stay in the military please let us know so that we can send you a form to fill out for Exempt Drill and Training (whie you
continue your travels).
If you do not wish to stay in the military please let us know as if you let us know when you will be returning your kit or how we can gain access to your kit to return it on your behalf we can arrange for your voluntary release.
If you do not not reply to this email you will be compulsory released where the money that you owe on behalf of your kit will be taken off of your future tax return and this will effect your credit rating as well.
You can contact me at snowden.mj2@forces.gc.ca
Thank you
Michelle J. Snowden
M.J. Snowden
Private
33 CER — OR CLK
(613) 991–1533
fax: (613) 993–1477
Eerik Wissenz <wissenz@gmail.com>
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 11:15 PM
to Snowden.MJ2@forces.gc.ca
Pte Snowden
I was previously under the impression that I was already released. My parents received a letter stating what you state now, but coincidentally they were vacationing in Cuba in two weeks to Cuba (were I was at the time). So I thought it would more convenient for them if they simply gave me the letter. By the time I got it, the date had already past and I figured the action had already been carried out. I viewed it as unfortunate but I had other business to attend to.
Now that I am aware that this is no longer the case. I do not wish to be released. This letter that I must sign, can I sign it through faxes, or must it be mailed to Europe, signed and then mailed back?
Thank you for you time.
Pte Wissenz
Snowden.MJ2@forces.gc.ca
Attachments
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 3:02 PM
to me
Pte Wissenz
The previous letter was your notification of NES status. We have just sent out the notice of intent to release, which your father had informed us of this email address which you have responded we will not release you as per your wishes. However I will need the following form filled out, I have inputted your start date as the 4th Sep 07 because that is when the unit will be standing up for the training year, as well when you will be returning to the unit. I will need this form filled out and completed as soon as possible, so that I can have it signed off and completed so that this won’t happen again. However unfortunetly I will need to have this form no later than 28 Aug 07, or I will be forced to follow through with the compulsory release.
Thank you
Michelle J. Snowden
M.J. Snowden
Private
33 CER — OR CLK
(613) 991–1533
fax: (613) 993–1477
Eerik Wissenz <wissenz@gmail.com>
Attachments
Sat, Aug 25, 2007, 2:08 AM
to Snowden.MJ2@forces.gc.ca
Memorandum
Wissenz (737)
24 Aug 07
Marseille France
Challenging involuntary release
1. I, C27575737 Pte Wissenz E.J. am challenging my imminent involuntary release from the CF by recourse to the various rights and protections afforded to me.
A. My reasoning for wishing to remain in the CF is the fundamental reason that I believe I have to the best of my abilities carried out my duties faithfully, that the situation may change in the future and I will have the option of returning to my chosen profession. As it is impossible to sign and return the form concerning my NES status, and impossible to extend my membership in CF by any other means, it is my duty to make known that I have not been idle in upholding my pledge to the Canadian people or in fulfilling my responsibilities to them and the members of the CF, that I consider my actions to have been the rational course with respect to the laws I am bound to, information I have access to, and reason endowed with, and that being involuntarily released (though in accordance with lower regulations) is a breach of the laws that govern the CF and an infringement upon my rights as an employee of the CF. I request the use of any and all of my rights under Canadian civil law and the laws peculiar to Canadian Forces to challenge this action.
B. As this is an unusual case, I will present a small narrative so that the nature of my frame of mind, previous and current conduct, and belief that I acted as best as I could in the circumstances, can all be accurately understood. However, the substance of my intention is found in section 2.
C. When I was recruited into the CF, I made it as clear as I possibly could that I would only join if my previous training in the Finnish Defence Forces would be recognized. I had achieved the status of well trained in the areas of infantry, 85 mm mortars, and urban combat, and had been led to believe I would at least start with the rank of well trained private, which even if I would have to go through the motions again, I would have had a slightly higher pay, higher respect, and less wait for promotion. It turns out that this has “never been done before” (except of course in the case of officers). This put me in a very low moral. Why not just quit? I hear is the criticism.
D. There is a very important detail; although my previous training did not warrant any supposition that I may have gained any sort of proficiency in the discipline of soldiery, it did apparently in the eyes of the CF warrant a nine month security check. So I had already waited nine months, pursuing no other career, based on the assumption that when I was told six or seven times that my training would be recognized in some way, I was given accurate information. And so, having already made this nine month commitment I reasoned it would be perhaps prudent to put up with the extreme boredom of being a new recruit, lest all the time and effort I had already invested go for waste.
E. Though this perspective kept me in the CF, it failed however to distil the initial enthusiasm I had possessed, and led me to look for as many faults in the system that I could find, for perhaps a rational basis to depart from the tedium would present itself. Though I found various inefficiencies I felt my duty to voice, I did not for a time find any grounds in which to discontinue training, and so resigned to completing the continue, seeing as it was only a minor waste of my time, and more interesting things would eventually present themselves.
F. Some time passed, and I came across an article about the controversy surrounding Teflon. This was of particular interest to me as Teflon was added to the rifle oil we used to maintain our rifles. I did some further research and found no research had been done on the use of Teflon as soldiers would use it and there is considerable controversy surrounding the commercial products where the Teflon is bound to a surface, and the user would absorb trace amounts, if at all. As soldiers all but bathe in and eat for dinner their oil, I became somewhat more concerned than I would be for the Teflon surfaced pan my friends use to cook eggs. Furthermore, Teflon breaks down into poisonous substances at high temperatures (temperatures that may be encountered, say, in the chamber of a rifle) such as “At 680°F Teflon pans release at least six toxic gases, including two carcinogens, two global pollutants, and MFA, a chemical lethal to humans at low doses.” I requested the health Canada report stating the use of Teflon in the manner soldiers would employ it is safe, but my command could not supply me with a copy (I was supplied with a copy of the report from the manufacturer of Teflon, but all it said was experiments do not suggest long term ill effects, which is a completely meaningless scientific statement, if the nature of the experiments are not explained).
G. Seeing as the CF has a history of experimentally or through some rationalization of exposing soldiers to chemicals that cause chronic diseases, trying to cover it up, refusing to research or cooperate with any researchers as to possible causes, and then refusing to compensate victims, considering all this it seemed to me wise to err on the side of caution, lest I be duped into being one more fanatically self-deceived pawn on the desk of a bureaucrat (or worse).
H. Though I discontinued my training I did not request to be released, as the situation may resolve itself I thought, through further clarification of the science or some other means. For instance, three weeks later it was reported to me that the use of Teflon had been discontinued within the CF. Now, before I continue with why I did not then return, I would like to illustrate why it is the duty of the soldier to think and criticize, and not as my superior instructed me “to shut up and soldier”. If my actions had any affect on the decision to change the Teflon policy, and Teflon turns out to be a harmful substance in the way it was employed in the CF, then my actions may have saved some members of the CF from chronic or even fatal disease, and reduced the risk of birth defects in the babies born to members of the CF. And in general my actions propagated, though perhaps only a little, the idea within the chain of command that the rank and file is not completely filled with vacuous and unquestioning automatons; an idea that would lead to better thought out strategy and policy and a greater probability of less harm for the members of the CF and their families.
2. Now I did not return to parading at this time over my further research into the reality in Afghanistan . As my intention when I joined was to volunteer for a mission to Afghanistan , it was then clearly my duty to research the culture and reality in Afghanistan that I may understand the situation and act effectively within it. Four things disturbed me: the use of depleted uranium ammunition; torture and other human rights violations by at least the British, American and Canadian forces; the strategy concerning the poppy crop of Afghanistan; the possible use of false flag operations to instigate violence between the groups in the Middle East; and the general nature of the war.
A. As these are complicated matters I wished to do as much research as possible on these things and the related Canadian law, for I reasoned I may become convinced that there is no foul play afoot, no need to trouble the chain of command, and grounds to return to more regular duties. However, now that I am threatened with involuntary release, and considering the weight of evidence I have collected, though my understanding of these matters is not perfect, I believe it sufficient enough to challenge this NES status and involuntary release.
B. My case for challenging my involuntary release from the Canadian forces is that the systematic and institutionalized breaching of the Geneva Convention, human rights, and the spirit of Canadian law, renders any cooperation within the offending institution an equivalent crime. The CF in supporting American and British forces (if not directly violating the Geneva conventions and other Canadian laws), is aiding and abetting any war crimes they may be carrying out and has equal responsibility in them, which is relevant for the case of depleted uranium (which the CF does not employ itself), and is valid for any other war crime carried out by any institution we directly support.
C. My case will be that it is the duty of every member of the CF, barring extreme circumstances, to refrain from participating in any war crime, which, if institutionalized, being supporting directly the functioning of the institution is such a crime, and so a member of the CF cannot be released, punished, or thought ill of for carrying out this duty to refrain from participating in war crimes. It is important to note that I need not prove beyond a benefit of a doubt that war crimes actually occurred, but only that it was rational, based on the information I had access to, my method of research and actions equally rational, to conclude that such war crimes may have been carried out, and most importantly, institutionalized to a sufficient degree to err on the side of caution, as genocide is no light matter. It is also important to note I must only succeed in one of the specific arguments I will present (being wrong about a hundred war crimes does not diminish the gravity of being right about one). Specifically I will argue citing
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948
Article 3
“The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (d ) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.”
The extensive use of Depleted Uranium is an act of genocide and the CF is complicit in this crime.
“Article 1 (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide)
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;”
D. I will argue that it is reasonable to suspect the US , the British and the CF are aware of the genocidal nature of depleted uranium, and thus by employing it carrying out the intention to commit genocide. I will site their obstruction of the UN process to decide the matter, obstruction of even their own agencies to research the matter, as a rational basis to sufficiently suspect the intent of genocide to warrant a cessation of any collaboration with any institution that is complicit in this act until the matter is resolved (barring extraordinary circumstances that I do not find myself within).
E. My second argument will be the mass incompetence with regard to the poppy crop of Afghanistan is a violation of the Geneva Convention and basic human rights, though I cannot present my argument in detail at the moment.
F. The use of and institutionalization of torture is a fairly straight forward case as the US has stated it’s policy towards prisoners of war which is considered torture in Canadian law (as well as complicity in torture). Simply because the US changes their definition of torture, or directly legalizes its use, does not change the legality of complicity in those acts under Canadian law. The Canadian military has argued that it only need to ensure that prisoners it takes are not tortured, but I will argue that not only is this not the case, but that this argument is absurd and cannot be rationally upheld. All that would be needed too render the Canadian ban on torture meaningless is for a foreign soldier, who can under their law torture, shadow a Canadian unit and make any arrests officially. I will furthermore argue that our integration within US operations renders us aiding and abetting any acts the US may carry out. It is not my understanding that it is in the best interest of the Canadian public for the CF to carry out or support torture.
G. The whole of the “war on terrorism”, from a make the world a better place perspective (which no sound mind could accept is the actual basis of the war), is completely absurd. Terrorists do not threaten our way of life, cannot hold territory and cannot be defeated by occupation. Furthermore, there is no satisfactory evidence linking Afghanistan to September 11 even if occupation was an intelligible response. A case can be made that either the Canadian military intelligence agencies and or military command structure purposefully or implicitly deceived the public by portraying terrorism as a military threat (to secure more funding perhaps?) and are guilty of high treason, or that the Canadian intelligence agencies are so incompetent that they are a liability to the country. Either way, I believe a solid case can be made that it is irrational with respect to the duties of a soldier to support such corrupt or incompetent organizations of men and women.
H. I would like to finish by saying that when I joined the CF I truly believed I was joining a tradition of rationality, sober competence and a love of peace. I am disappointed to find that it is not the case. I am disappointed to find nothing but sad frail illusions in the hearts of our country’s soldiers and indifferent weakness in the chain of command.
Sincerely
Pte Wissenz
Eerik Wissenz <wissenz@gmail.com>
Attachments
Tue, Aug 28, 2007, 6:58 PM
to snowden.mj2
Memorandum
Wissenz (737)
28 Aug 07
Marseille , France
Challenging involuntary release
Ref A. Wissenz narrative (attached): brief narration of events and thought process with regards to the CF.
B. Wissenz Case Delineation (attached): brief delineation of case.
1. I, C27575737 Pte Wissenz E.J. am challenging my imminent involuntary release from the CF by recourse to the various rights and protections afforded to me.
2. As a member of the CF I have the right to challenge any action brought against me. I am specifically challenging my NES status, and potentially any other negative status that may exist.
a. I believe I have fulfilled my obligations to the CF to the best of my ability, and therefore there are no justifiable grounds for NES status or involuntary release. I defend my actions in Ref A.
b. Due to this belief I am challenging the notion that I have not fulfilled my obligations. I outline my case in Ref B.
c. My basic position is that the systemic abuse of human rights and other foundations of Canadian law by the CF and allies of the CF, has rendered it my duty with regards to the CF to refrain from participating directly.
d. I request legal council.
3. It is my belief that the current humanitarian crisis in the CF and NATO in general is perhaps temporary. Since it is my duty not to support war crimes and human rights abuses, I cannot based on the information I have access to actively participate in the CF (barring extreme circumstances); it is my duty to cease participation and voice my concerns. Since in my estimation this is what the law requires of me, there cannot be and legal justification to involuntarily release me from the CF, if this estimation is correct. Though this may seem strange, members of the CF are actually bound to certain laws that transcend any transient government or CF policy. The current government can change these laws, and if I disagree with them I will voluntarily request release; until then, or until policy falls within the bounds of the law, I will continue to carry out my duty with respects to the laws I am bound to. The purpose of this system is so that the public is made aware of any fundamental shift in government activity, and debate ensues not only in the houses but within the public. The people of Canada made these laws because, unless they change them, they whish them to be respected. I furthermore agree that these laws are in the best interest of the Canadian people.
E.J. Wissenz
Pte
5737
Ref A
Document: Wissenz narrative
Author: Pte Wissenz E.J. (5737)
28 Aug 2007
1. When I was recruited into the CF, I made it as clear as I possibly could that I would only join if my previous training in the Finnish Defence Forces would be recognized. I had achieved the status of well trained in the areas of infantry, 85 mm mortars, and urban combat, and had been led to believe I would at least start with the rank of well trained private, which even if I would have to go through the motions again, I would have had a slightly higher pay, higher respect, and less wait for promotion. It turns out that this has “never been done before” (except of course in the case of officers). This put me in a very low moral. Why not just quit? I hear is the criticism.
2. There is a very important detail; although my previous training did not warrant any supposition that I may have gained any sort of proficiency in the discipline of soldiery, it did apparently in the eyes of the CF warrant a nine month security check. So I had already waited nine months, pursuing no other career, based on the assumption that when I was told six or seven times that my training would be recognized in some way, I was given accurate information. And so, having already made this nine month commitment I reasoned it would be perhaps prudent to put up with the extreme boredom of being a new recruit, lest all the time and effort I had already invested go for waste.
3. Though this perspective kept me in the CF, it failed however to distil the initial enthusiasm I had possessed, and led me to look for as many faults in the system that I could find, for perhaps a rational basis to depart from the tedium would present itself. Though I found various inefficiencies I felt my duty to voice, I did not for a time find any grounds in which to discontinue training, and so resigned to continue, seeing as it was only a minor waste of my time, and more interesting things would eventually present themselves.
4. Some time passed, and I came across an article about the controversy surrounding Teflon. This was of particular interest to me as Teflon was added to the rifle oil we used to maintain our rifles. I did some further research and found no research had been done on the use of Teflon as soldiers would use it and there is considerable controversy surrounding the commercial products where the Teflon is bound to a surface, and the user would absorb trace amounts, if at all. As soldiers all but bathe in and eat for dinner their oil, I became somewhat more concerned than I would be for the Teflon surfaced pan my friends use to cook eggs. Furthermore, Teflon breaks down into poisonous substances at high temperatures (temperatures that may be encountered, say, in the chamber of a rifle). Among alarming facts I encountered were “At 680°F Teflon pans release at least six toxic gases, including two carcinogens, two global pollutants, and MFA, a chemical lethal to humans at low doses.” Naturally, I requested the health Canada report stating the use of Teflon in the manner soldiers would employ it is safe, but my command could not supply me with a copy (I was supplied with a copy of the report from the manufacturer of Teflon, but all it said was experiments do not suggest long term ill effects, which is a completely meaningless scientific statement, if the nature of the experiments are not explained).
5. Though I discontinued my training I did not request to be released, as the situation may resolve itself I thought, through further clarification of the science or some other means. For instance, three weeks later it was reported to me that the use of Teflon had been discontinued within the CF. Now, before I continue with why I did not then return, I would like to illustrate why it is the duty of the soldier to think and criticize, and not as my superior instructed me “to shut up and soldier”. If my actions had any affect on the decision to change the Teflon policy, and Teflon turns out to be a harmful substance in the way it was employed in the CF, then my actions may have saved some members of the CF from chronic or even fatal disease, and reduced the risk of birth defects in the babies born to members of the CF. And in general my actions would propagate, if only a little, an environment of critical thinking, which would lead to better policy, more effective missions, and less danger and stress to the members of the CF and there families. In any event most likely some soldier voiced a concern somewhere to reverse the Teflon policy.
6. Now I did not return to parading at this time over my further research into the reality in Afghanistan. As my intention when I joined was to volunteer for a mission to Afghanistan, it was then clearly my duty to research the culture and reality in Afghanistan that I may understand the situation and act effectively within it. Four things disturbed me: torture and other human rights violations by at least the British, American and Canadian forces; the use of depleted uranium ammunition; the strategy concerning the poppy crop of Afghanistan; the possible use of false flag operations to instigate violence between the groups in the Middle East; and the general nature of the war.
7. As these are complicated matters I wished to do as much research as possible on these things and the related Canadian law, for I reasoned I may become convinced that there is no foul play afoot, no need to trouble the chain of command, and grounds to return to more regular duties. However, now that I am threatened with involuntary release, and considering the weight of evidence I have collected, though my understanding of these matters is not perfect, I believe it sufficient enough to challenge this NES status and involuntary release.
8. During this time of research and contemplation, I also continued my concern in deforestation in the sub belt and low tech solar concentrators (a possible solution). The opportunity came up to go to Cuba to further this research and development. I may be charged with not notifying the chain of command. However, I believe my actions were justifiable. As my understanding at that time was very poor, I feared that if I voiced my concerns I would be flagged as a terrorist by the US; since I had to pass through the US to get to Miami, to get the Bahamas to get to Cuba, I thought it, improbable as I thought it perhaps was, an unnecessary risk.
I will also be arguing during or after my refutation of NES status and involuntary release that the pay I would have received had not the CF participated in activity
Ref B
Document: Wissenz Case Delineation
Author: Pte Wissenz
28 Aug 2007
1. The fundamental cause of this situation is that members of the CF, such as myself, are not contracted fundamentally to a person or group of persons, but to several ideals and principles. If my oath was “I promise to do what I’m told to do” then I wouldn’t have joined, and if I did join I wouldn’t have any basis to challenge negative actions brought against me if I fail to do what I am told. The law governing the CF transcends the orders (including policies and processes) that may be found with in the CF at any given time. In this respect, the CF is very unlike other corporations found within society, and with good reason: the members of the CF are invested with the power to destroy and kill on a massive scale, and are capable of at any time overthrowing the civil government and essentially any institution or group found within society. If other businesses are managed poorly, they go out of business, whereas if the CF became managed poorly Canada could fall under totalitarian rule. Due to this dichotomy of military force, certain societies, such as ours, have developed a new concept of the soldier, in which the soldier is bound, not to a specific person or persons (monarch, oligarch, committee or otherwise), but to the interests of all persons within the society.
2. This is embodied in The Constitution Act which states at section 52(1):
“The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”
Excerpts of the Declaration of Human rights
Preamble:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
3. Canada has made this declaration supreme law of the land, and I truly believed the Canadian Forces respected these principles when I joined. Specifically my argument will be that to actively participate in the CF will be, at the least, breaking Article thirty.
4. The CF is actively supporting torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment, arbitrary arrest and detention, and actively supporting the destruction of article 10, if not directly, at least through integration and active support for the US forces. And so, to actively participate in the CF would be to participate in this activity.
5. My case I think is pretty straight forward as the US has made torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment, arbitrary arrest and detention, barring access to a fair and impartial tribunal, and activity aiming at the destruction of most if not all the rights and freedoms embodied in the Declaration of Human rights, official policy. However, I will bring further evidence to prove that this is actually occurring.
6. I also may argue, if I believe my case is sufficiently strong, that the use of Depleted Uranium, the management of the poppy crop of Afghanistan, false flag operations, the general nature of the “war on terror”, are all breaches of the declaration of human rights, breaches of the Geneva Conventions, breaches of other international and national laws, or repugnant in and of themselves, to justify my actions.
7. I will also be arguing during or after my refutation of NES status and involuntary release that I have the right to collect the pay I would have received had not the CF engaged in any activity t aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration of Human Rights, or other laws.
8. I look forward to presenting my case before the law.
9. As I am not an expert in these matters, I request the exercise of my right to legal council and representation.
End note
For those unfamiliar with the depleted uranium munitions issue, often, on hearing it is not much radioactive, it seems then the issue is resolved, as it’s a true statement and the US military and media make large efforts to frame the discussion this way (i.e. deceive you).
Indeed, I remember, when this issue as controversial, a US commander or general on TV holding a depleted uranium round and basically saying “look see, not radioactive, totally safe, you can hold it in your hand” (I paraphrase from memory).
The issue with DU munitions is not radioactivity. There are other ways a substance can be dangerous other than radioactivity. Uranium remains a toxic heavy metal and, more problematic, combustible.
In itself, the combustibility of uranium with air is a good thing for a weapon, as it adds chemical energy to the kinetic energy of the round. The alternative for this kind of kinetic penetrator is tungsten, which is also heavy and good for delivering momentum, but is not toxic and does not combust (so delivers less energy in this regard).
It is the toxicity and combustibility of uranium that makes it a clear breach on the Geneva convention of overly harmful weapons; it is a de facto chemical weapon when enemy soldier breath in uranium smoke, but the covering of a large area with toxic dust is also a clear long-term hazard to civilians. The added benefits of the chemical energy are both marginal and also essentially non-sensical given the Taliban’s inventory of heavy armor.
There is no reason for DU munitions in warfare, other than that it is a waste substance and cheaper to procure and also a “good thing” from a “let’s commit cruel war crimes” perspective. Other nations shell out for tungsten for their kinetic armor penetrators to avoid this obvious fact.
Of course, other toxic materials, and even toxic heavy metals like lead, are used in many weapons (and, in the case of lead can lead to large costs to clean up contamination), however, in each case (that is not an obvious war crime) there are reasons justifying the use of the material: a lack of alternatives and the harms are not repugnant (lead is not combustible so isn’t prone to lighting on fire and spreading lead smoke and dust over an area that people may breath in or get on their hands and clothes; lead at least stays in pieces on the ground). The use of lead in munitions does not justify the use of DU. Depleted Uranium is simply the Agent Orange of the Afghanistan war: cruel and unnecessary and for sure did not contribute to “victory”.
On another note, terrorism is a threat, just not solved by occupying territory, nor it is a threat of such magnitude that a country like Canada is in imminent danger of invasion and takeover. It is a police and intelligence issue to try to uncover hopefully before or then investigate after the execution of any terrorist plot, and it is political policy issue in terms of the larger causes of terrorism and what to do about it.
Whenever there is a terrorist attack, no one ever says: “Oh Man! We didn’t occupy enough territory in the Middle East or wherever! we need to redouble our efforts!”.
