Talk:Kyle Snyder (soldier)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

This article was nominated for deletion on May 9, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 youtube item on him 2 Childhood 3 Arrested without warrant 4 Reorganization proposal 5 Pre Deployemnt 6 WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia'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)

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)

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)

The police went to this house to arrest a man. In Canada you need a Feeny warrant to do that. Many reliable sources report that they did not, and that the Chief of Police stated that they did not. Not one source has questioned this, that they had no Feeny warrant not in dispute. When Rklawton this edit (edit summary "later sources make it clear they were officers and they had a warrent. When citing sources, it's important to use up to date sources and not the early, sensational, and least reliable sources") he either is mistaken, or he means something else. A reasonable candidate for the something else is that he means that the officers were enforcing a detention order on behalf of the Canada Border Services Agency (per Maluta's original statement, "We got an order for detention which was our authority to hold that subject until he was dealt with by CBSA" quoted in Nelson Daily News. Nelson, B.C.: Feb 28, 2007, his backing down from that claim is the subject of the Nelson Daily News. Nelson, B.C.: Mar 2, 2007) piece. That the Nelson Police were ordered to release him by a Citizenship and Immigration Canada official because there were no legal grounds for holding, him argues against there ever having been such an order to detain That was released following an interview with Canada Border Services Agency suggests that they did not order his detention. That CBSA said that Nelson Police contacted then, not the other way around, and the fact that they have never said they issued an order to detain suggests that they didn't. Subsequent press coverage uses sentences like "According to a Canadian Press report, the order came from the Canadian Border Services Agency"eg and are clearly based on reports of the Chiefs initial claim, and an unwillingness to endorce the statement as fact. If there had been a detention order from CBSA there would not be an Abbotsford Police investigation into the Nelson Police's actions in this matter, or calls for a Parliamentary inquiry[1]. So, no source contests that Nelson Police lacked the required warrant to arrest, and no source has established that there ever was an order to detain, but many reliable sources contest that there was. Put a disputed tag on the article if you want, but it's pretty damn clear: there was no arrest warrant. Pete.Hurd 05:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

might you all possibly solve this impasse by saying he was arrested without a Canadian warrant? that much seems indisputable. DGG (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That sounds like the best course possible. Either that or briefly clarify the technicality of a Canadian "Feeny Warrant." But either way, to claim there was no arrest warrant at all is facutally inaccurate. Equinox137 (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So Equinox, something like "while there was an arrest warrant for him in the US, there was apparently no Canadian arrest warrant" (followed by something like the existing text on the Feeney warrant etc. later in the text, like it is now) would be ok by you? I was hoping to have a bash at revising the article along the lines of Rklawton's suggestions below sometime soon. A sentence like the one above works for me. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it would work. Or maybe even a short section about the whole "warrant controvsery" which gives the details. Equinox137 (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that certainly seems warranted. I'll put it on my ToDo list, there's some science stuff higher on the priority list, so it may be a while. You want to see a draft first, or should I just drop you a note after I make any revisions I wind up doing to the extant article? Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your call. Equinox137 (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

1. Synder's military history and desertion events (as background to bigger issues)
2. The U.S. code of military justice (UCMJ) as it applies to Snyder (also background)
3. American foreign policy affected by Snyder's case
4. Canadian due process issues affected by Snyder's case
5. 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)

[edit] Pre Deployemnt

I was in the 94th at the same time that Kyle was. He was in asphalt platoon prior to the deployment. I recall him wanting to be deployed, because he was not originally going to because he was on medication. I also recall telling him that it was a bad idea and that he should stay on Rear D, because deployment sucked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.173.123 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)