Comments on: Commentary: Bellingham, WA sanctuary effort needs our support and has local import http://tompkinsagainstwar.org/2009/06/commentary-bellingham-wa-sanctuary-effort-has-local-import/ Web log for Tompkins County War Resisters Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:12:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Cris http://tompkinsagainstwar.org/2009/06/commentary-bellingham-wa-sanctuary-effort-has-local-import/comment-page-1/#comment-2185 Cris Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:47:58 +0000 http://tompkinsagainstwar.org/?p=2198#comment-2185 Good question. To help clarify the question, I obtained the text of the proposed resolution from the Bellingham Peace & Justice Center. The 6th and 7th "Whereas" statement lay out the legal thinking: ... WHEREAS, when requests for discharge or reassignment based on conscientious objection are denied, servicemembers may be forced to deploy to, or remain armed in, a combat theater, leaving no conscientious choice but to go absent without leave, thus being labeled deserters and criminals, having committed no crime outside of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; and, WHEREAS, United States Code, Title 10, Section 808 authorizes civilian law enforcement agents to apprehend deserters, but establishes no requirement to do so; and, ... Certainly, it would be an enormous stretch to call this proposed ordinance treasonous, though I am sure some detractors would. No one advises, counses or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of service under this proposed ordinance; nor does it in any way constitute a conspiracy. It simply asserts a choice in a very limited case where there is no legal mandate to comply. The issue seems to be one of jurisdiction. I have uploaded the file of the proposed ordinance <a href="http://tompkinsagainstwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/proposed-ordinance-bellingham-6-09.doc" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Good question. To help clarify the question, I obtained the text of the proposed resolution from the Bellingham Peace & Justice Center. The 6th and 7th “Whereas” statement lay out the legal thinking:
…
WHEREAS, when requests for discharge or reassignment based on conscientious objection are denied, servicemembers may be forced to deploy to, or remain armed in, a combat theater, leaving no conscientious choice but to go absent without leave, thus being labeled deserters and criminals, having committed no crime outside of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; and,

WHEREAS, United States Code, Title 10, Section 808 authorizes civilian law enforcement agents to apprehend deserters, but establishes no requirement to do so; and, …

Certainly, it would be an enormous stretch to call this proposed ordinance treasonous, though I am sure some detractors would. No one advises, counses or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of service under this proposed ordinance; nor does it in any way constitute a conspiracy. It simply asserts a choice in a very limited case where there is no legal mandate to comply.

The issue seems to be one of jurisdiction.

I have uploaded the file of the proposed ordinance here.

]]> By: a.nonnymouse http://tompkinsagainstwar.org/2009/06/commentary-bellingham-wa-sanctuary-effort-has-local-import/comment-page-1/#comment-2183 a.nonnymouse Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:06:25 +0000 http://tompkinsagainstwar.org/?p=2198#comment-2183 I've read the Commentary and am unclear about the following piece of it: Federal law provides, under the category of Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities, that it is a crime for any person to advise, counsel or urge insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of service; to conspire to commit those acts; or to harbor any person who commits such an act. Does the city council’s involvement facilitate and abet treason? If the above is indeed the law, it seems to apply in the Bellingham case. I didn't see this being refuted; I assume I may be missing something? I’ve read the Commentary and am unclear about the following piece of it: Federal law provides, under the category of Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities, that it is a crime for any person to advise, counsel or urge insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of service; to conspire to commit those acts; or to harbor any person who commits such an act. Does the city council’s involvement facilitate and abet treason?

If the above is indeed the law, it seems to apply in the Bellingham case. I didn’t see this being refuted; I assume I may be missing something?

]]>