Last night I had the privilege of meeting an American hero.

His name is Chuck Wiley, and he spoke to a small group of Canadians who believe that George W. Bush should be arrested when he steps onto Canadian soil next Friday.

Bush, along with another well-connected American, Bill Clinton, is scheduled to speak in Toronto on May 29. For sharing bits of their wisdom with the Canadian corporate elites, the two former presidents will walk away with $200,000 each.

A gag-worthy display of obsequiousness … but of course, not all Canadians believe George W. Bush (or Bill Clinton, for that matter) deserves a handsome reward for his record in power. Some of us believe that Canada has a legal right, and a legal obligation, to begin proceedings based on the extensive evidence of war crimes apparently authorized or excused by Bush. (Crimes whose victims include at least two Canadian citizens.)

That’s why the Canadian elite really should be paying $250 each to listen to Chuck Wiley talk about the “war on terror.” For one thing, unlike either Clinton or Bush, Wiley has actual military experience – 17 years’ worth.

At last night’s meeting, at the Steelworkers’ Union hall in downtown Toronto, Wiley distilled his military career into a 30-minute narrative. For several years, he said, he served as a nuclear engineer, working far below deck in the power plants of large naval vessels. His job didn’t require him to know anything about the aerial missions being launched from the ships. The months and the tours of duty rolled by, and he had only a few years left before he could retire with a military pension.

But then he got promoted. In his new role, he was in charge of providing power up on deck, ensuring that the activities on the ship’s surface went smoothly. Now he saw the planes take off and land again. He couldn’t help but wonder where they were going, what they were doing, how and why they were carrying out their missions. And he started to think he had a responsibility to know something about the sorties he was directly facilitating, and to know that they were following the internationally established rules of engagement.

So he asked a few questions – and he didn’t get answers. Instead, he was told to just shut up and do his job. He asked for a transfer, and eventually one was granted – to another ship that was just about to deploy for Iraq. Again, he saw and heard things that seemed to him to violate the rules of engagement he had been taught to uphold.

He told last night’s gathering about a few examples that worked away at his conscience. Air strikes, in theory, should be at military targets, and should take precautions not to harm civilians. But in some cases, he was aware that empty buildings were being destroyed, simply to prevent “insurgents” from using the buildings in the future. As “collateral damage”, of course, this often meant that civilians had no homes to return to, once the fighting in their home towns had stopped.

In other cases, he said, intelligence was woefully out of date. Buildings were destroyed, based on month-old reports that terrorists were in those buildings. “Even before the war, Iraq had a large transient population, and after a couple of years of war, the transient population was that much larger”, he explained. So when the intelligence is not really current, “there is no way of knowing who is in the building being bombed,”

Finally, there was a mysterious type of mission he was told were “presence missions”. The claim was that many flights were done simply to show people that the Americans had not left that area of Iraq, that they still had a “presence”. But Wiley said that he gradually learned what was really happening: F-18 fighter/bombers would swoop down low over an area repeatedly, in a frightening, intentionally threatening fashion. People in the area might make a panicked attempt to escape – and if they run, they must have a reason for running: they must be terrorists! so they can be struck. To Wiley, this was either intentional attacking of civilians, or simple disregard for the status – civilian or combatant – of the people being attacked. Whether intentional or careless, the acts violated the rules of engagement.

I haven’t been to Iraq, and I can’t vouch for the truth of his claims. But he was sufficiently bothered by what he was hearing that he made some very courageous moves, at great personal cost. Just a few years from a comfortable retirement, he questioned the chain of command, sought advice from military lawyers and chaplains about what he should do – and finally left his post for an uncertain fate in Canada.

Unlike in the Vietnam era, US war resisters today receive no official welcome here. The current prime minister, Stephen Harper, was one of George W. Bush’s most stalwart backers. Before he became prime minister, he argued vociferously (though unsuccessfully) for direct Canadian participation in the Iraq war. To this day, he is unique among Western leaders in not requesting the return of his citizens held by the Americans in Guantanamo. (A few weeks ago, a Canadian court ordered the government of Canada to formally request the return of Canadian citizen Omar Khadr; Harper promptly announced he would appeal the ruling, rather than interfere in what he terms the “legal process” at Gitmo.)

Two US war resisters have already been deported from Canada and are now serving jail terms in the US. So Chuck Wiley’s stay here is anything but secure.

“The country I come from has gone completely out of its mind,” Wiley says, before adding “and you’re coming right behind us … you’re hot on our heels. But what happens to us [US war resisters] is a reflection of what will happen to you, and to Canadian soldiers who ask questions about their responsibilities.”

The Vietnam War, he said, was brought to an end partly because large numbers of soldiers began to openly question the justice of their actions. But back then, there was a place for soldiers of conscience to go – Canada. If Canada says no to war resisters now, it will be much more difficult for military personnel to question what they are being told to do.

The past week has brought depressing news. Barack Obama said his highest duty is to keep Americans “safe”, and to him, that necessitates a “legal framework” for the indefinite detention of people who have been neither charged with nor convicted of any crimes. Meanwhile, dozens of other political “leaders” are scared witless by the prospect of terrorists being held in maximum security prisons anywhere within the United States.

After a week like the past one, it was a breath of fresh air to spend Friday night in the company of a clear-headed, brave American like Chuck Wiley.