Revision as of 03:18, 2 December 2007 editEquinox137 (talk | contribs)1,706 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:14, 2 December 2007 edit undoPete.Hurd (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers8,828 edits →Reorganization proposal: rNext edit → | ||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
:So you think the that says "The NDP are asking the federal government to look into the arrest of an American military deserter in Nelson, B.C. Alex Atamanenko, who represents the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior, told CBC News Wednesday he suspects the Nelson police were responding to a request from the U.S. army in February when they put Kyle Snyder in jail." ... "Atamanenko said Snyder should not have been arrested because being absent without leave from a foreign military is not an extraditable offence and Snyder has no criminal record." doesn't amount to Alex Atamenko expressing sovereignty concerns? Because it seems very clear to me. ] 18:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC) | :So you think the that says "The NDP are asking the federal government to look into the arrest of an American military deserter in Nelson, B.C. Alex Atamanenko, who represents the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior, told CBC News Wednesday he suspects the Nelson police were responding to a request from the U.S. army in February when they put Kyle Snyder in jail." ... "Atamanenko said Snyder should not have been arrested because being absent without leave from a foreign military is not an extraditable offence and Snyder has no criminal record." doesn't amount to Alex Atamenko expressing sovereignty concerns? Because it seems very clear to me. ] 18:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
::That is correct. I think that expressing his thoughts as a matter of "sovereignty concerns" would be putting words in his mouth, and that would be highly inappropriate. ] 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC) | ::That is correct. I think that expressing his thoughts as a matter of "sovereignty concerns" would be putting words in his mouth, and that would be highly inappropriate. ] 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::It took me a bit of time to find it again, but "As you can imagine, this case has serious implications for our Canadian sovereignty. Some questions need to be answered..." I'm not just making stuff up as I type on Mainspace pages. ] 05:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:14, 2 December 2007
Biography: Military Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Military history Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on May 9, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
youtube item on him
Hi. Don't have the link with me, but I did notice there's a youtube piece of his talk. Good luck. HG 19:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Childhood
How relevent is his childhood to the article and his notability? It seems rather out of place. Rklawton 22:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind. It's a biographical article, so a childhood section is relevant. Rklawton 14:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Arrested without warrant
Equinox137, The news media reports specify that he was arrested without a warrant, they do this because the police arresting him had no warrant to arrest him, or search warrant. He was arrested in Canada, by Canadian officers, who had no warrant as would be expected in Canada. That there may have been a warrant for his arrest in the US, which *is* another jurisdiction, is besides the point and does nothing to contradict the entirely factual statement that he "was arrested without warrant". Insisting that the supposed existence of a US warrant meant that he was not arrested without a warrant in Canada is like me insisting that my boot laces are not untied, when I'm wearing unlaced sneakers but, back at home my boots are laced up in the closet. The news articles specify that he was arrested without warrant, and you counter with a rhetorical argument why those sources must be wrong, the sources trump your original research. Pete.Hurd 02:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- The source used to support this line does not say "without a warrant". In fact, the source makes no mention of a warrant one way or the other. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say he was arrested without one. Upon further examination, it is clear from more recent sources that an order for his arrest did exist. Indeed, Canada appears to be rounding up other deserters as recently as this month, so one might guess they have a legal basis for doing so. I think it would be interesting if someone dug up a few expert sources in the field of Canadian law so we can learn from their discussion of this case. Rklawton 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- From two articles cited as sources in the article:
- The Calgary Sun: article "A month ago, he says police officers in Nelson, B.C. barged into his home much as U.S. soldiers violate Iraqi abodes, hauling him out in his underwear in cuffs without a warrant and valid legal reason."
- Toronto Star: "police in Nelson, B.C., arrested U.S. war resister Kyle Snyder last month. They didn't have a warrant."
Where are the sources demonstrating a warrant?oh there it is Pete.Hurd 05:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The sentence that reads "but released when Citizenship and Immigration Canada informed the police they had no legal basis for arresting him." appears to be sourced only by this blog entry, and seems to be based on the events described by this Member of Parliament's letter, which contradicts the statement by saying it was a CBSA, not CIC, that ordered him released.
"Mr. Atamanenko’s office made some phone calls to try and figure out why Mr. Snyder had been arrested for immigration reasons if he was here legally. After six hours of being detained, a Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) agent from Vancouver, who had learned that Mr. Snyder had been detained, called the Nelson City Police and had him released. At the time, Mr. Snyder was told by this agent that the US military had requested his arrest and deportation."
Pete.Hurd 06:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of round-about sources: a bunch of articles from the Nelson Daily News quoting Nelson City police Chief Dan Maluta covered in this blog posting here throw considerable doubt on the claim that NCP were acting at the behest of CBSA. I think this is important, because the notability of this article is based in large part on the political bru-ha-ha in Canada over the apparent actions of NCP at the behest of the US military (which were then countermanded by officials at CBSA and CIC when they became aware). The article presents the other version --the one implied, but not actually stated, by Maluta-- that CBSA ordered NCP to arrest, as fact. The sources are not available on-line via the Nelson Daily News, but the excerpts on the blog and the Alex Atamanenko letter make clear that much of the issue in Canada is this unresolved concern. Pete.Hurd 06:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Equinox137, The news media reports specify that he was arrested without a warrant, they do this because the police arresting him had no warrant to arrest him, or search warrant.
- So the news media is always correct?
- He was arrested in Canada, by Canadian officers, who had no warrant as would be expected in Canada.
- Wrong. Canadian police arrest on the basis of U.S. criminal arrest warrants all the time.
- That there may have been a warrant for his arrest in the US, which *is* another jurisdiction, is besides the point and does nothing to contradict the entirely factual statement that he "was arrested without warrant".
- Citing VVAW doesn't make it factual.
- Insisting that the supposed existence of a US warrant meant that he was not arrested without a warrant in Canada is like me insisting that my boot laces are not untied, when I'm wearing unlaced sneakers but, back at home my boots are laced up in the closet.
- That is a complete "apples and oranges" argument.
- The news articles specify that he was arrested without warrant, and you counter with a rhetorical argument why those sources must be wrong, the sources trump your original research.
- There's no OR about it. It seems to me that you need to refresh yourself with Misplaced Pages's OR policy. When a member of the U.S. military deserts, it is automatic that an arrest warrant is issued and entered into NCIC, which Canada also has access to and probably about how they learned about Snyder's arrest warrant. (http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps3213/ncicinv.htm). In the U.S., a law enforcement officer would obligated to enforce the warrant, however it's within the descretion of other nations if the deserter is within their borders. Obviously, the higher powers that be opted for political reasons not to enforce the warrant, but to say no warrant existed is flat out false and is POV. Equinox137 00:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Equinox137, The news media reports specify that he was arrested without a warrant, they do this because the police arresting him had no warrant to arrest him, or search warrant.
- According to Article 9 of the Treaty on extradition between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America,the requesting state issues the warrant and the requested state gives full faith and credit so long as the warrant meets the same requirements as the requested state. Simply, a Canadian warrant is not needed; he was arrested under full compliance of the US Canada extradition treaty, which comports with international law. A warrant is neither issued nor required for an arrest of a foreign national for non-native crimes while a fugative in a foreign state. The request is made through diplomatic channels. According to 28 CFR 60.1 (US Code of Federal Regulations), the US Department of Defense is required to obtain a warrant from the US attorney's office when appropriate. The UCMJ says that an arrest warrant from the proper Federal or civilian authorities is required while conducting an apprehension in a private dwelling. I sincerely doubt that the Canadian newspapers verified with the US Department of Justice that one of our many US Attorney's offices issued a warrant. Of course, if the owner of the dwelling let the Canadian police in, then a warrant is not required under the UCMJ regardless. The article is misleading because it implies that Snyder's civil rights were violated, when this is not evident by the absence of Canadian search warrant. Legis Nuntius 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks Legis Nuntius, I'm wondering if this is changes at all if the underlying offence, desertion, isn't an extraditable offence, which is true of most modern extradition agreements (see pg 9 of Extradition To and From the United States: Overview of the Law and Recent Treaties, CRS Report for Congress, Updated September 30, 2003 Order Code 98-958 A), Canada also had the customary military exemption during the Vietnam war (Hagan, John. Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada. Boston: Harvard University Press. 2001, see page 54), and I can find no evidence that it's changed recently). I tried looking for a military exemption in the link you provided via lexum.umontreal.ca, but the link didn't work for me. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 02:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe that desertion is a discretionary offense for the terms of the treaty. So, quite possibly, Canada was not obligated to return him, but chose to avoid a diplomatic incident. The treaty concerns procedure for extradition and the mandatory terms. The United States could not deny extradition for someone charged with securities fraud for instance. I'm not sure why the link broke almost immediately after I posted it. A search under the title of the treaty still lists it, as well as other sites which have another copy of the treaty. Foreign treaties have the same legal effect as our Constitution here in the US when they have been signed by the president and ratified by 75% of the senate. Under Article 4 of the treaty, extradition shall not be granted when the offense is of a political matter. Snyder could contest his extradition under this or other avenues. Legis Nuntius 02:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Vietnam era policies aren't relevant to this century, but they do serve as an interesting comparison. I'm pretty sure the agreement between the U.S. and Canada changed during the Carter administration after he granted the Vietnam era deserters amnesty. Of course my "pretty sure" doesn't mean squat without a source. Rklawton 14:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Under Article 4 of the treaty, extradition shall not be granted when the offense is of a political matter. Snyder could contest his extradition under this or other avenues. Yeah, he could try, but given that he voluntarily enlisted knowing that desertion is a breach of contact making him subject to arrest and imprisonment, I don't see that even the Candians will buy that, especially when the Canadian Supreme Court just rejected his and Jeremy Hinzman's arguments just a few weeks ago. Equinox137 02:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Vietnam era policies aren't relevant to this century, but they do serve as an interesting comparison. I'm pretty sure the agreement between the U.S. and Canada changed during the Carter administration after he granted the Vietnam era deserters amnesty. Of course my "pretty sure" doesn't mean squat without a source. Rklawton 14:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Hurd, let's make this simple, either we leave the "without warrant" remark removed or we put a accuracy dispute tag on the article. Please stop making this article your personal political soapbox. It has been clearly shown to you that a valid arrest warrant was issued on PFC Kyle Snyder, regardless of what the left-wing press in Canada says. Had he been anywhere on American soil, Snyder would have been instantly returned to military custody if located on so much as a traffic stop. Canada obviously has the discretion to return him, but an arrest warrant existed and still exists. Equinox137 02:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Reorganization proposal
Sovereignty concerns would be significant if they were expressed by a member of parliament. However, they weren't. They were expressed by a representative of a fringe group. Without this qualification, the sentence I removed regarding sovereignty was very misleading. What might be found significant with this biography is:
- Synder's military history and desertion events (as background to bigger issues)
- The U.S. code of military justice (UCMJ) as it applies to Snyder (also background)
- American foreign policy affected by Snyder's case
- Canadian due process issues affected by Snyder's case
- Canadian foreign policy affected by Snyder's case
Indeed, reorganizing the article along those lines might help make it clearer to the reader how Synder is notable (i.e., by the impact he is having). Without this, he's just another deserter who got some press. Rklawton 14:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- So you think the CBC article that says "The NDP are asking the federal government to look into the arrest of an American military deserter in Nelson, B.C. Alex Atamanenko, who represents the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior, told CBC News Wednesday he suspects the Nelson police were responding to a request from the U.S. army in February when they put Kyle Snyder in jail." ... "Atamanenko said Snyder should not have been arrested because being absent without leave from a foreign military is not an extraditable offence and Snyder has no criminal record." doesn't amount to Alex Atamenko expressing sovereignty concerns? Because it seems very clear to me. Pete.Hurd 18:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- That is correct. I think that expressing his thoughts as a matter of "sovereignty concerns" would be putting words in his mouth, and that would be highly inappropriate. Rklawton 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- It took me a bit of time to find it again, but Atamanenko writes "As you can imagine, this case has serious implications for our Canadian sovereignty. Some questions need to be answered..." I'm not just making stuff up as I type on Mainspace pages. Pete.Hurd 05:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- That is correct. I think that expressing his thoughts as a matter of "sovereignty concerns" would be putting words in his mouth, and that would be highly inappropriate. Rklawton 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)