Appeal court rules in favour of U.S. war dodger


Praxius
#1
Appeal court rules in favour of U.S. war dodger - CTV News

Quote:

TORONTO ó The Federal Court of Appeal says a Canadian immigration official failed to consider the hardships a high-profile American deserter in denying him permanent residence in Canada.

In a unanimous judgment Tuesday, the court called the immigration officer's rejection of Jeremy Hinzman's application "significantly flawed" and "unreasonable."

The court ruled that officials must take another look at Hinzman's application to be allowed to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Hinzman was the first U.S. Iraq War resister to seek refuge in Canada.

He, along with his wife Nga Nguyen and their son Liam arrived in Canada on January 3, 2004.

Their daughter Meghan was born in Toronto on July 21, 2008.

The Federal Court of Appeal noted that Hinzman holds "strong moral and religious beliefs" against participation in war.

The immigration officer "had the duty to look at all of the appellants' personal circumstances, including Mr. Hinzman's beliefs and motivations," the court said.

"This decision is important for all Iraq War resisters in Canada," said Michelle Robidoux, spokeswoman for the War Resisters Support Campaign. "The Federal Court of Appeal has clearly said that immigration officers can no longer ignore the sincerely held beliefs of these soldiers."

Hinzman, of Rapid City, S.D., was a former U.S. Army specialist from the 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, N.C.

Good for him and his family... hopefully they eventually become citizens because this country needs more people who can think for themselves rather then blindly follow orders like robots. Regardless of if one supports a war or doesn't, for me it has more to do with the ability to stand up for one's principles, and for his situation of not wanting to go fight in a war he and many others feels is unjustified, he should not have to face punishment and/or prison for not wanting to kill innocent or those trying to defend their own country from an invader who justified their actions based on lies.

And regardless if he wouldn't have faced jail time and only have to deal with a court martial with a dishonorable discharge, standing up for his beliefs is honorable and is a direct part of what our country's are supposed to be all about and are supposed to defend.

Even if he didn't face jail and he and his family were set free back in the US, what kind of life do any of us here expect he and his family would have down there surrounded by many who think they're traitors?

Regardless of one's views on Iraq and War Resisters/Deserters, everyone should be able to agree that their lives in the US are truly over and they'd have no future there, thus allowing them to stay here is the only fair and decent thing to do for them.

It's not like they were criminals who raped and murdered or dealt in drugs.... he chose not to go to another country and kill people he felt didn't deserve it and never did anything to his country.

Now that this decision has been made, I wonder how many more US soldiers may flood over our borders?
 
Machjo
#2
I do see an inconsistency here. It says he has a strong religious belief against 'war', not any specific kind of war. If that's the case, then why did he join the military?

And if this is owing to a change in beliefs after joining the military, then what about his beliefs with regards to keeping a contract?

If for example, the argument was about engaging in an illegal war, then I might see the point. But in that case, could he not have simply requested a transfer from Iraq to work under ISAF?

I'm just curious as to how these beliefs came about.

Now don't get me wrong. If he can meet immigration requirements like anyone else, I welcome him to Canada. But it would seem to me the honourable thing for him to do would be to go to the US, face the court marital, put that behind him, and then come back if he really wants to.
 
Cliffy
#3
During the Vietnam war we welcomed dodgers and deserters. It was our policy. I know many of them and they have contributed considerably to the well being of this country. The change in attitude here seems to coincide with the change in focus of our military from a peace keeping force to a more aggressive stance. I, for one would welcome all who would have the courage to leave their lives and loved ones behind for their moral convictions, to make a new life for themselves in a strange land. I would also, and have done so, discourage anybody I know who is contemplating a life in the military because of my moral convictions that might is not right and that killing in war is no different than killing on the streets of this country. Until Canada changes its focus back to peace keeping and humanitarian work (rescue and relief) I do not support our military intervention in other countries.
Last edited by Cliffy; Jul 7th, 2010 at 12:44 PM..
 
DurkaDurka
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

During the Vietnam war we welcomed dodgers and deserters. It was our policy. I know many of them and they have contributed considerably to the well being of this country.

You like skipping over important details, don't you? You do see the difference between willingly signing up for the armed forces opposed to being conscripted?

I have empathize with this guy's situation but do we really need new wards of the state who run away from their contractual duties under the guise of religions BS? This guy is a coward, he's no hero or conscientious objector.
 
Cliffy
#5
Many who join the military do so to escape extreme poverty and or dead end lives. We have no way of knowing all the details of this man's reasons, but it looks to me like he thought he was trying to make a life for himself and his family when he was thrust into a war he could not support and run the risk of his children growing up without a father. Whatever, I do not judge him for his actions but I do support his willingness to start a new life without retribution. Wanting to live is not being a coward and cowardice is not a crime.

If you are out in the streets of TO and a gun fight breaks out, are you going to charge in and try and stop it? Would you be a coward if you just stood by and watched people get gunned down? Try and put yourself in his shoes.
 
SirJosephPorter
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

During the Vietnam war we welcomed dodgers and deserters. It was our policy. I know many of them and they have contributed considerably to the well being of this country. The change in attitude here seems to coincide with the change in focus of our military from a peace keeping force to a more aggressive stance.

I think there has been a significant sea change since Conservatives came to power. Harper has taken a hard line against deserters from USA. I assume his refugee application was denied by a Conservative administration. During Vietnam era, Trudeau was in office; he never got along with USA and never missed a chance to poke one in the eye of USA.

Anyway, the court decision is to be welcomed. Iraq war was an unjust war, and deserters should be considered in a favorable and lenient light by Canada. Besides, many of them bring skills in short supply in Canada and as such should be welcome here. I would much rather have an American deserter as an immigrant, rather than an Arab of doubtful beliefs, somebody who could become a tool of Islamic terrorists.
 
DurkaDurka
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Many who join the military do so to escape extreme poverty and or dead end lives. We have no way of knowing all the details of this man's reasons, but it looks to me like he thought he was trying to make a life for himself and his family when he was thrust into a war he could not support and run the risk of his children growing up without a father. Whatever, I do not judge him for his actions but I do support his willingness to start a new life without retribution. Wanting to live is not being a coward and cowardice is not a crime.

If you are out in the streets of TO and a gun fight breaks out, are you going to charge in and try and stop it? Would you be a coward if you just stood by and watched people get gunned down? Try and put yourself in his shoes.

His reasons are irrelevant, he shows poor character by abandoning his duties & his contractual obligations. Anyone with an IQ over 40 would realize that joining the armed forces will probably result in them doing things they do not like. If he was a man, he would have completed his contractual duties then immigrated here.

Your analogy between TO & Iraq/Afghanistan is nonsensical. I'm not a police officer or a soldier, therefore I wouldn't be expected to put my self into the middle of a gun battle.

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

I think there has been a significant sea change since Conservatives came to power. Harper has taken a hard line against deserters from USA.I assume his refugee application was denied by a Conservative administration. During Vietnam era, Trudeau was in office; he never got along with USA and never missed a chance to poke one in the eye of USA.

Anyway, the court decision is to be welcomed. Iraq war was an unjust war, and deserters should be considered in a favorable and lenient light by Canada. Besides, many of them bring skills in short supply in Canada and as such should be welcome here. I would much rather have an American deserter as an immigrant, rather than an Arab of doubtful beliefs, somebody who could become a tool of Islamic terrorists.

So we should just be a garbage dump for cowards unwilling to fulfill their contractual duties? These are professional soldiers here, not some teary eyed hippies from the 70's who were conscripted into a war.
 
Praxius
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

I do see an inconsistency here. It says he has a strong religious belief against 'war', not any specific kind of war. If that's the case, then why did he join the military?

I first thought that but then re-read through before posting the report..... they said "strong moral and religious beliefs" against participation in war. The quote ends after beliefs and doesn't say he's actually against participation in war. That's the report stating those beliefs are against participation in war (ie: CBC swaying public opinion by how they word the report) This is mere assumption on my part, but I am assuming he has strong moral and religious beliefs towards How he participates in a war.

Though if he is indeed outright against participating in a war, then yes.... I'm also confused as to why he'd join up.

Quote:

And if this is owing to a change in beliefs after joining the military, then what about his beliefs with regards to keeping a contract?

IMO, a contract is not as important as someone's life..... the life being those he'd take by remaining obligated to said contract. Also, from past threads about this topic, many have disputed if the contract in question was actually valid to the war in question.

Quote:

..... Now don't get me wrong. If he can meet immigration requirements like anyone else, I welcome him to Canada. But it would seem to me the honourable thing for him to do would be to go to the US, face the court marital, put that behind him, and then come back if he really wants to.

Obviously he doesn't think he is in the wrong, shouldn't be punished for his decision based on the participation in an illegitimate war and because of this belief/position, he also believes he'd never get a fair trial in the US..... and I believe he wouldn't.

If you already know the outcome, then why jump into the fire? He doesn't seem like an idiot to go against his personal beliefs of participating in this war, so why would he be an idiot to participate in a military legal process that he already knows will find him guilty and already consider him guilty before the process even begins?

Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

You like skipping over important details, don't you? You do see the difference between willingly signing up for the armed forces opposed to being conscripted?

Very little difference.

When you're drafted it usually means a war is already going on and you have no choice but to serve, kill and possibly die...... the difference here is that most of these people who don't agree with the war probably signed up freely before the war began and figured they'd be put to use in legitimate conflicts that would be justified in defending their nation, home and loved ones..... but then the war starts and they already signed up..... therefore they have no say, just like those who were drafted.

To me, what these people are going through compared to those who were drafted in the past are only different by a few minor technicalities.

Those drafted into the military to serve an already existing war and who fled to our country didn't believe in the war, just as these people who signed up before the fact do not believe in the war they're currently being forced to fight in.

Quote:

I have empathize with this guy's situation but do we really need new wards of the state who run away from their contractual duties under the guise of religions BS? This guy is a coward, he's no hero or conscientious objector.

Well if citizenship in this country revolved around someone's obligations to a contract, then there'd be a pile of us being shipped out of the country for breaking contracts with cable companies, cell phone companies, marriages, business agreements, etc.

I wouldn't allow these guys to serve in our Canadian Forces, but I wouldn't ban them from being a citizen because they broke a contract..... that's just silly and full of personal bias that really doesn't matter.
Last edited by Praxius; Jul 7th, 2010 at 02:50 PM..
 
Cliffy
#9
And how many contracts (treaties) did we break with the original inhabitants of this country? Durka, you seem to have a slight deficiency in our own history.
 
Praxius
#10
Besides.... Rules (Contracts) are made to be broken
 
Curiosity
#11
Regarding military service during war

I belive for the COs there are jobs in medical - technical - clerical - mechanical - food service - religious teaching and compassionate service in many areas - which can substitute for active fighting. There are and were choices for that person - he chose to abstain and while I think he should be allowed that choice - many service people now are opting to belong to the military to "earn" their right to stay in the U.S. legally - whether this will make a good fighting force or not remains to be seen.

I understand Canada's sympathy in this man's fight - however I can't refrain from being disappointed when Canada feels it can create options for a citizen of the U.S. to break the law and receive asylum.

But it your right and I can't do anything about it.

Some day the two nations need to sit down and talk real talk about their differences and future support whether agreed with or not. It would be in the best interests in future friendship understanding and a valuable commodity these days PEACE between the two nations who share a border.
Last edited by Curiosity; Jul 7th, 2010 at 03:10 PM..
 
DurkaDurka
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

And how many contracts (treaties) did we break with the original inhabitants of this country? Durka, you seem to have a slight deficiency in our own history.

Having problems staying on topic, Cliffy?

Quote: Originally Posted by Praxius View Post

Very little difference.

When you're drafted it usually means a war is already going on and you have no choice but to serve, kill and possibly die...... the difference here is that most of these people who don't agree with the war probably signed up freely before the war began and figured they'd be put to use in legitimate conflicts that would be justified in defending their nation, home and loved ones..... but then the war starts and they already signed up..... therefore they have no say, just like those who were drafted.

To me, what these people are going through compared to those who were drafted in the past are only different by a few minor technicalities.

Those drafted into the military to serve an already existing war and who fled to our country didn't believe in the war, just as these people who signed up before the fact do not believe in the war they're currently being forced to fight in.

Well if citizenship in this country revolved around someone's obligations to a contract, then there'd be a pile of us being shipped out of the country for breaking contracts with cable companies, cell phone companies, marriages, business agreements, etc.

I wouldn't allow these guys to serve in our Canadian Forces, but I wouldn't ban them from being a citizen because they broke a contract..... that's just silly and full of personal bias that really doesn't matter.

Very little difference between joining voluntarily and being conscripted? Are you serious? Take note of the "Armed" in Armed services, especially when it's the US military. Also, his reasons for signing up are irrelevant, you do not get to pick your battles.

So Praxious, in your esteemed & enlightened opinion. People should be able to walk away from their duties & contracts without any sort of penalty?

Quote: Originally Posted by Praxius View Post

Besides.... Rules (Contracts) are made to be broken

I bet you have an amazing credit rating.
 
Cliffy
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

Having problems staying on topic, Cliffy?

No. In my mind it was right on topic. We seem to be very selective about whose contracts are to be honoured or not honoured. The Iraqi war was not honourable. It was entered into under false pretenses as anybody could tell. If I was ordered to kill innocent people in a land that had not harmed me or my country in any way, I would get the hell out of there too.
 
DurkaDurka
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

No. In my mind it was right on topic. We seem to be very selective about whose contracts are to be honoured or not honoured. The Iraqi war was not honourable. It was entered into under false pretenses as anybody could tell. If I was ordered to kill innocent people in a land that had not harmed me or my country in any way, I would get the hell out of there too.

Regardless of whether the war is legal or not, soldiers do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which battles they'll fight in. That's one of the risks one takes when joining the armed forces... fighting battles they don't necessarily believe in. Joining the armed forces under some naive assumption that they'll only fight wars they approve of is stupid at best. He had a choice and apparently he chose wrong. Why does Canada have to waste money and resources on this coward now?
 
Cliffy
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

Regardless of whether the war is legal or not, soldiers do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which battles they'll fight in. That's one of the risks one takes when joining the armed forces... fighting battles they don't necessarily believe in. Joining the armed forces under some naive assumption that they'll only fight wars they approve of is stupid at best. He had a choice and apparently he chose wrong. Why does Canada have to waste money and resources on this coward now?

I think he was very brave and honourable to his family. As for wasting money, I don't know. Is he and his family on welfare or something? It must be hard to hold a job with the government harassing you all the time with threats of deportation.
 
DurkaDurka
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

I think he was very brave and honourable to his family. As for wasting money, I don't know. Is he and his family on welfare or something? It must be hard to hold a job with the government harassing you all the time with threats of deportation.

Think legal costs. Cliff.
 
Cliffy
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

Think legal costs. Cliff.

Well if they didn't harass him and just let him in, there wouldn't have been legal costs, would there? Seems to me the blame for that lies with immigration being dickheads.
 
DurkaDurka
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Well if they didn't harass him and just let him in, there wouldn't have been legal costs, would there? Seems to me the blame for that lies with immigration being dickheads.

Since when did we just have an open-door immigration policy?
 
SirJosephPorter
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

Since when did we just have an open-door immigration policy?

We don't. My understanding is that even after this court decision, deserters from USA will still be considered on a case by case basis. The only difference is that now the standards of evidence are substantially different, as a result of the decision.
 
ironsides
#20
And another coward heads to Canada. Good riddance.

There is no draft and this coward did volunteer. Just another who cannot honor a contract.
 
gerryh
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

And another coward heads to Canada. Good riddance.

There is no draft and this coward did volunteer. Just another who cannot honor a contract.


Really frosts your balls when they do this....doesn't it.
 
Praxius
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

Regarding military service during war

I belive for the COs there are jobs in medical - technical - clerical - mechanical - food service - religious teaching and compassionate service in many areas - which can substitute for active fighting. There are and were choices for that person - he chose to abstain and while I think he should be allowed that choice - many service people now are opting to belong to the military to "earn" their right to stay in the U.S. legally - whether this will make a good fighting force or not remains to be seen.

I understand Canada's sympathy in this man's fight - however I can't refrain from being disappointed when Canada feels it can create options for a citizen of the U.S. to break the law and receive asylum.

Understandable, but what's the difference between people who break laws in the US compared to those who break laws in countries like Syria, China or Iran that we allow to stay?

If they were laws broken that are laws that exist in our own country, sure I can understand not letting them in.... but our own government didn't agree with this war and our PM at the time of the decision felt there were no justifications for this war, let alone sending en-mass our troops to fight in this war..... so if these people feel the exact same way and don't want to fight in this war our government felt was unjustified and lacked proper evidence, where's the sense in not accepting their claims and letting them stay, but rather helping the US force these people to fight in a war our country didn't believe in or else face punishment?

It's similar to our government permitting coverage of certain health procedures under our health plan for our own citizens, but denying that same coverage for 3rd world nations we're supposed to be sending aid to..... it's a contradiction of beliefs that permit one set of beliefs for one person but deny them for others based on what side of the border they're on.

Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

Very little difference between joining voluntarily and being conscripted? Are you serious?

Considering the specific situations we're discussing, yes I am serious.... generally speaking as a rule of thumb, no I would agree there are huge differences.... in particular, those who joined the military by their own choice to fight after the war was already established and knew they were going to fight in Iraq.... then I'd have to question allowing them to flee.... but those who joined prior to this war should be allowed.

In other words, let's say I joined the military today, got training and joined because I wanted to protect my country..... then three years down the road our government decided to declare war on orphanages and ordered me to go gun down babies in their cribs (hypothetically speaking)

Are you telling me that because I signed a contract to the military that I must blindly follow those orders and gun down babies in their cribs because my government said so?

Sure it's not the same thing as Iraq, but the principle of blindly following orders because of a stupid contract remain the same. I'd find the orders unjust and I would not co-operate, nor would I accept punishment for standing up for what I believe in.

Quote:

Take note of the "Armed" in Armed services, especially when it's the US military. Also, his reasons for signing up are irrelevant, you do not get to pick your battles.

In our country we can as far as I'm aware.... my cousin is in the forces and went over for a tour in Afghanistan..... afterwards she said she'd never go back there again, and she has the right to relocate to somewhere else and do something else. With this person's situation, from my memory, he was being forced to go to Iraq against his will, which was the whole point to why he fled in the first place.

Quote:

So Praxious, in your esteemed & enlightened opinion. People should be able to walk away from their duties & contracts without any sort of penalty?

Depending on the situation, yes.... and clearly in the above report, the Federal Court agrees with me that these decisions shouldn't have blanket decisions applied to all applicants and the situations for each case should be reviewed in detail.

By the way, you and I have been in these forums for how many years now and you still add an "O" in my name? Is that what you do when you get frustrated in a debate? You misspell people's names, or have you not yet learned how to spell my name?

Quote:

I bet you have an amazing credit rating.

I couldn't care less about my credit rating.
 
SirJosephPorter
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Praxius View Post

Understandable, but what's the difference between people who break laws in the US compared to those who break laws in countries like Syria, China or Iran that we allow to stay?

If they were laws broken that are laws that exist in our own country, sure I can understand not letting them in.... but our own government didn't agree with this war and our PM at the time of the decision felt there were no justifications for this war, let alone sending en-mass our troops to fight in this war..... so if these people feel the exact same way and don't want to fight in this war our government felt was unjustified and lacked proper evidence, where's the sense in not accepting their claims and letting them stay, but rather helping the US force these people to fight in a war our country didn't believe in or else face punishment?

It's similar to our government permitting coverage of certain health procedures under our health plan for our own citizens, but denying that same coverage for 3rd world nations we're supposed to be sending aid to..... it's a contradiction of beliefs that permit one set of beliefs for one person but deny them for others based on what side of the border they're on.

Another example I can think of is death penalty. We donít have death penalty in Canada; we consider it to be an inhumane, barbaric practice. As a result, if a murder suspect flees across the border from USA into Canada, Canada would not hand him over to US authorities, until an assurance is given that the prosecutor will not ask for death penalty.

At least that was the policy ever since death penalty was outlawed in Canada. Now with a US sycophant in charge in Canada, it may be different, I donít know.
 
Praxius
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

And another coward heads to Canada. Good riddance.

There is no draft and this coward did volunteer. Just another who cannot honor a contract.

Maybe you should join up and fight in his place if it bugs you that much.... put your money where your mouth is and show us how tough you are..... obviously you can't be a coward.... so head on over there to go shoot some Iraqis and set an example of a big tough guy why don't you.

Gotta love how people revolve their whole argument over a contract that was originally broken by the US government by creating this war, yet won't recognize the contract he made with his wife and his obligations to raising his children..... apparently a contract the US government doesn't believe in except when it benefits them is more important then any other contract.

IMO, my contract with my wife trumps any other contract out there..... my contracts to those I love and care about, as well as have responsibilities to are more important than any contract to the State and their corrupt conquests for resources and a president who's trying to make his daddy proud by taking out the guy his daddy couldn't.
 
Cliffy
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Praxius View Post

Maybe you should join up and fight in his place if it bugs you that much.... put your money where your mouth is and show us how tough you are..... obviously you can't be a coward.... so head on over there to go shoot some Iraqis and set an example of a big tough guy why don't you.

Gotta love how people revolve their whole argument over a contract that was originally broken by the US government by creating this war, yet won't recognize the contract he made with his wife and his obligations to raising his children..... apparently a contract the US government doesn't believe in except when it benefits them is more important then any other contract.

IMO, my contract with my wife trumps any other contract out there..... my contracts to those I love and care about, as well as have responsibilities to are more important than any contract to the State and their corrupt conquests for resources and a president who's trying to make his daddy proud by taking out the guy his daddy couldn't.

Exactly! Family before patriotism. "My country right or wrong" may work for you but why does it have to apply to everyong. That sounds very evangelical.

BTW, there is nothing patriotic about bombing the crap out of another nations infrastructure and killing a bunch of innocent women and children. Fighting in foreign countries is not defending your nation. Your country lied about Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. Those wars had nothing to do with patriotism, they were about capitalist aggression.
 
TenPenny
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

I do see an inconsistency here. It says he has a strong religious belief against 'war', not any specific kind of war. If that's the case, then why did he join the military?

He probably didn't have any strong beliefs against war until he experienced it. He suddenly discovered that it's icky and dangerous.

In my opinion, he has no valid claim to be a refugee, and shouldn't be allowed to stay.
 
ironsides
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Really frosts your balls when they do this....doesn't it.

Not in the least, they become your support base.
 
Machjo
#28
[QUOTE=Praxius;1300742]

IMO, a contract is not as important as someone's life..... the life being those he'd take by remaining obligated to said contract. Also, from past threads about this topic, many have disputed if the contract in question was actually valid to the war in question.[quote]

Sometimes a contract requires you to risk your life and the pay is commensurate with that. That being said, certainly if the war is illegal, then he may have a point. But if that's the case, then fight it in court.

Quote:

Obviously he doesn't think he is in the wrong, shouldn't be punished for his decision based on the participation in an illegitimate war and because of this belief/position, he also believes he'd never get a fair trial in the US..... and I believe he wouldn't.

If he does not believe he'd get a fair trial in the US, then bring it up at the Hague and have a trial there against the US legal system. No excuses.

Quote:

If you already know the outcome, then why jump into the fire? He doesn't seem like an idiot to go against his personal beliefs of participating in this war, so why would he be an idiot to participate in a military legal process that he already knows will find him guilty and already consider him guilty before the process even begins?

As a matter of principle. I've done things before knowing I'd lose even before going into it, yet I'd go into it anyway on the principle, and so in the end the opponent lost too. Essentially we both lost by being dragged into the case with no clear victory on either side, but at least I showed them I was not going to back down and so they'll think twice next time before trying to screw someone else over. That way, I've helped future persons who might have to deal with the person in question.

This soldier has the chance to help future soldiers by standing up and showing he's not a coward and that it's not just about saving his skin. By his behaviour so far, I'm not convinced.

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

He probably didn't have any strong beliefs against war until he experienced it. He suddenly discovered that it's icky and dangerous.

In my opinion, he has no valid claim to be a refugee, and shouldn't be allowed to stay.

You may be right about his change. But either way, either he respects the contract of he challenges its legality in court. Either option would be honourable. But running away to Canada? Nah.
 
ironsides
#29
If you join the armed forces of any country voluntarily, you cannot complain if they ask you to do what you signed up for. The guy is a fool and anyone or country who gives him sanctuary deserves him. What exactly are you signing up for when you join the Armed Forces? If Canada wants this low life then there welcome to him. Not sure if your aware of it or not, but the U.S. military pays very well compared to most civilian jobs being offered now. Hinzman took this job for a certain period of time, pretty sure we were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan when he signed up. Lets see what happens to him and his family on Canadian welfare. This is not about patriotism over family Cliffy, dropping out is not always the answer.


For the record Praxius, I fulfilled my contract with the U.S..



"It has been widely argued that Hinzman is not a prisoner of conscience because he has not been persecuted for his claimed new-found beliefs. In the United States military, desertion is a crime, specifically a federal offense under Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice , despite his claimed motivation. Hinzman's application for conscientious objector status was denied due to the fact that he was known to have made statements to the effect that he would consider participating in certain types of defensive actions. Conscientious objector status is only granted to those in the US military who object to all warfare, not to military personnel who object to a specific war or conflict.
Hinzman enlisted voluntarily in the Army, volunteered for infantry duty, and further volunteered for airborne training, a series of delibrate and conscious decisions on Hinzman's part which would practically guarantee combat duty[ citation needed ]. These circumstances cause critics to be skeptical as to the sincerity of Hinzman's recent claims to being a conscientious objector . Such critics have suggested that, if Hinzman were sincere in his beliefs, he would return to the United States voluntarily and accept whatever consequences his actions and beliefs might bring about. [48] "

Jeremy Hinzman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Last edited by ironsides; Jul 8th, 2010 at 01:19 PM..
 
Bar Sinister
+1
#30  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

If you join the armed forces of any country voluntarily, you cannot complain if they ask you to do what you signed up for. The guy is a fool and anyone or country who gives him sanctuary deserves him. What exactly are you signing up for when you join the Armed Forces? If Canada wants this low life then there welcome to him. Not sure if your aware of it or not, but the U.S. military pays very well compared to most civilian jobs being offered now. Hinzman took this job for a certain period of time, pretty sure we were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan when he signed up. Lets see what happens to him and his family on Canadian welfare. This is not about patriotism over family Cliffy, dropping out is not always the answer.


For the record Praxius, I fulfilled my contract with the U.S..

"It has been widely argued that Hinzman is not a prisoner of conscience because he has not been persecuted for his claimed new-found beliefs. In the United States military, desertion is a crime, specifically a federal offense under Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice , despite his claimed motivation. Hinzman's application for conscientious objector status was denied due to the fact that he was known to have made statements to the effect that he would consider participating in certain types of defensive actions. Conscientious objector status is only granted to those in the US military who object to all warfare, not to military personnel who object to a specific war or conflict.
Hinzman enlisted voluntarily in the Army, volunteered for infantry duty, and further volunteered for airborne training, a series of delibrate and conscious decisions on Hinzman's part which would practically guarantee combat duty[ citation needed ]. These circumstances cause critics to be skeptical as to the sincerity of Hinzman's recent claims to being a conscientious objector . Such critics have suggested that, if Hinzman were sincere in his beliefs, he would return to the United States voluntarily and accept whatever consequences his actions and beliefs might bring about. [48] "

Jeremy Hinzman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are in agreement here. What does someone who voluntarily joins the military think he is getting into? I do not approve of the Iraq war, but I do know that if soldiers continually question orders then there is very liitle in the way of discipline. And this is not similar to the Vietnam War in which almost all of the troops who headed to Canada for sanctuary were conscripted.