you guys are beyond twisted....


Canadian held for deserting U.S. marines in 1968
Last Updated Sun, 12 Mar 2006 13:49:04 EST
CBC News

A B.C. man has spent the weekend detained at a military base in California after being arrested for deserting the U.S. Marine Corps four decades ago during the Vietnam War.

Allen Abney, who was born in the United States but became a Canadian citizen in 1977, was arrested at a border crossing on Thursday while trying to enter Idaho from southeastern British Columbia.
Allen Abney

Abney, 56, lives in Kingsgate in British Columbia's East Kootenay region, in a house about 100 metres from the Canada-U.S. border.

He and his wife were on their way for a holiday in Reno, Nev., when U.S. officials accused him of desertion and took him into custody.

In 1968, Abney was a 19-year-old marine when he fled to Canada because he didn't want to fight in Vietnam.

Charges on desertion can result in penalties ranging from a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military to a court martial and possible jail sentence.

U.S. military 'not saying anything,' Abney's wife says

His wife, Adrienne, said Abney was being held in a military prison at Camp Pendleton, Calif.

But she said she had no idea what will happen next.

"They're not saying anything to him yet," she told CBC News.

"I talked to him twice on Friday, just very briefly. He's in the brig."

Arrest came during routine crossing

Abney's wife said the trouble began when their passports were checked during a routine border crossing.

"After running them through some computer, they said we'd have to come inside," she said.

"They took Alan away into a room and locked him up."

Then customs officials confiscated several of Abney's personal items, she said.

"They took his belt, his suspenders, shoes, his wallet, his glasses, everything."

Abney said her husband's case has come to the attention of Lynn Gonzalez, a counsellor with the San Diego Military Counseling Project.

The group's website explains that it offers support to "active duty folks and their families who are having problems within the military."

Abney said Gonzalez is keeping in touch with her about the case.

"She phoned me yesterday and said, basically he's all right," she said.

"We're just waiting to hear what they are going to do."


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 60312.html

He'll get a DD and move on with his life.

pretty laughable...

He deserted, and eventually got caught. What's so outrageous?

I agree. Pretty stupid of them to go back into the US too

Um, I thought that President Carter granted all of them amnesty back in the 70's. Maybe it was only for draft dodgers, not deserters.

apparently they've vacationed in the US many times over the years....this was the first time they've had a problem.....arresting him is an extremely pointless measure that serves absolutely no purpose....

So you believe that after a long enough period of time, a criminal act shouldn't be punished.

Yes. It's called "statute of limitations".

I don't believe in the statute, sorry.
Just because you didn't get caught sooner doesn't make it ok.

I sold some pot 10 years ago. Arrest me.

I don't think a violator can intentionally run from the charges just long enough to escape the statute of limitations and then expect to walk scott-free.

The military has their own laws, no?

I guess if the charges have already been filed, and the guy is a fugitive, then the charges would stick and wouldn't be subject to limitations. But if they're just now filing charges I'd think limitations would apply.


Yes. I'm no expert in military law, but I'd guess that they have some statutes of limitations in their law as well.

But my point in bringing this up was to answer the blanket assertion that one must always answer for their crimes no matter how long it has been since the offense.

I see nothing wrong with this. All you've done is avoid having to answer for them.

So how do you feel about my previous response to your opinion?

"I sold some pot 10 years ago. Arrest me."



Why am I not surprised.

You're a lawyer, this shouldn't be hard for you to understand.

The guy left the military, meaning there's mountains of evidence against him and he obviously had some sort of warrant out.

If you walked up to a Maricopa County Sheriff and told him you sold grass when in college, he'd have nothing to build a case with other than your admission. But if you already had a warrant out for your arrest, then he'd arrest you promptly. There's no difference here.

Should law enforcement spend the time looking into old crime? Yes, it's still crime.

I was right with you up until that last sentence. Because the answer to that question, as far as I'm concerned, and apparently as far as virtually all courts and police departments are concerned is "it's a matter of degree". Murder has no S/L, as well it should not. But if a police department is still investigating a five year-old car theft, they better have NOTHING better to do.

Regardless, legislatures in every jurisdiction have made the determination that certain crimes cannot be prosecuted after a given amount of time has passed with no charges brought.

But if new evidence comes out, shouldn't they act upon it?