Canada decided that at least some American deserters don’t deserve a safe haven. Justin Long, who had received a reprieve from expulsion by Canada’s Federal Court, found himself back in the good old US of A when Federal Court of Canada Justice Anne Mactavish ruled that Long couldn’t provide clear evidence that he would suffer irreparable harm if returned to America. 

And just when I thought I’d have to apologize to the Canadian government and people, I’m relieved of that duty by the august Toronto Star, which published the followed editorial, reprinted in its full glory:

Canada has long opened its doors to refugees from violence and oppression in far-off lands. But what about deserters from the armed forces of our neighbour, the United States? Surely, it is said, we should draw the line there, no matter how much we might disagree with the American war effort in Iraq.

Actually, four decades ago we opened our doors to draft dodgers and deserters – more than 50,000 of them – who were fleeing participation in another American war, in Vietnam.

Today, there are barely 200 American deserters seeking asylum here. Still, the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq are telling. American involvement in Vietnam was based on highly dubious premises (the Tonkin Gulf resolution and the "domino theory"), as in Iraq (weapons of mass destruction and the "war on terror"). The prosecution of the war in Vietnam led to charges of war crimes or violations of the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of non-combatants, as in Iraq. In neither war was the American involvement sanctioned by the United Nations. And in each case, Canada stayed on the sidelines.

Finally, as with Vietnam, most Americans were supportive of the war in Iraq at the outset but have turned against it as the deception of their own government has become apparent. Indeed, the front-running presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has promised to end the war.

Yet this week we have deported a U.S. army deserter – potentially the first of many. Robin Long, who could face a prison term back home, sought refuge here because he was "morally" opposed to the Iraq war, just as his predecessors conscientiously objected to the Vietnam War.

The difference between then and now, we are told, is that the American forces in Vietnam were conscripted, whereas today it is an all-volunteer U.S. army. But is that really such a difference in the case of a war that is widely seen as illegitimate, even by Americans?

"A soldier who is told to fight (in Iraq) faces a conflict of values and loyalties," wrote Bob Rae, the Liberal foreign affairs critic, on our Comment page last week. "His president has told him things that he later discovers are quite untrue. His congressman and senator say they were misled and would not have authorized the invasion had they been given accurate information. He realizes that what he's being asked to do is in no way authorized by international law. Political support for the mission is drying up. Hence the refusal to serve."

Apparently persuaded by that argument, the House of Commons voted last month in favour of a resolution calling on the government to allow deserters from "a war not sanctioned by the UN" to stay in Canada. But the government has ignored the vote, and dozens of deserters – those who don't end up before a sympathetic judge or refugee panel – face deportation and possible imprisonment as a result.

It is time to reverse this process and recapture the spirit of the 1960s, when we welcomed those fleeing from a previous unjust war.

I’m going to let that editorial pass without comment. Well, maybe one comment: Does Canada let its soldiers, or its police or firefighters or sanitation workers, decide which orders they’ll obey and which they won’t? And that “Liberal (Party) foreign affairs critic,” whatever the hell that is, says it’s okay to go your own way because, for one, the invasion wasn’t authorized by international law – international law? Does that mean I get to drive on the left on the I-10 because that’s what they do in Europe?

And the Star wants to “recapture the spirit of the 1960s”? What spirit exactly is that? The SDS or the Peace Corps? The Black Panthers and the Weather Underground or the flower children? Abbie Hoffman or Richard Nixon? It’s lazy history, stupid sloganeering, unworthy of any newspaper, even one in Canada – wait, that’s more than one reason. Sorry.

For all the hoopla, Long got six months in jail from a military judge at Fort Knox after pleading guilty to absent without leave. He was reduced in rank to private, given a bad-conduct discharge, denying him veteran’s benefits, and denied pay.

A supporter from the group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, said the sentence was “quite a shock to everybody. We a’’ thought they were going to take it easy on him because he turned himself in, but it doesn’t look that way.”

Since when does getting forcibly evicted from a country constitute turning oneself in? And six months in jail is harsh, considering he would have spent at least six months more than that in the field in Iraq if he had served? Come on.

Just to put the cherry on top of the cake, the one-and-only Toronto Star reported that its hero got 9 months in the slammer, overshooting the facts by a cool 50%.

Is that symbolic, or what?