Appeal court rules in favour of U.S. war dodger
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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?
I couldn't care less about my credit rating.
Another example I can think of is death penalty. We don’t 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 don’t know.
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. :roll:
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
Well, let's flip the tables, shall we.
If a Canadian soldier decided to seek asylum in the US, how would you expect the US to handle him?
Personally, I'd go with the following:
Were the orders the military gave to him in any way in conflict with either Canadian or international laws? If not, then send him back to Canada to face justice. If so, then still send him back to Canada to defend his case in court, unless he should claim that he does not trust that he'd get a fair trial in Canada.
If that's the case, then I'd expect the US authorities to send him to the Hague to defend his case before the international court of justice. After all, if a Canadian cannot trust to have a fair trial on Canadian soil, then the international community should certainly investigate. If in the end, it's found that his claims are totally unfounded, send him back to Canada to face trial. And if his claims are found to be legitimate, then by all means the US would have a humanitarian obligation to grant him asylum and to express its concerns to the UN over Canada's human rights violations.
Am I missing anything here?
So overall, I'd apply the same principle to this soldier. Does he have any legitimate case before either US or international laws? If not, send him back. If so, have have him take the US to court at the Hague. If he's not willing to do that, then send him back.
if he's convinced he's in the right, he'll have no fear of facing justice.
I've just started this as a spin-off thread:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/philosophy-discussion/94112-soldier-deserts-now-what.html
This is a revealing video too:
YouTube - American soldier "I killed innocent people".
If a Canadian soldier decided to seek asylum in the US, how would you expect the US to handle him?
Personally, I'd go with the following:
Were the orders the military gave to him in any way in conflict with either Canadian or international laws? If not, then send him back to Canada to face justice. If so, then still send him back to Canada to defend his case in court, unless he should claim that he does not trust that he'd get a fair trial in Canada.
If that's the case, then I'd expect the US authorities to send him to the Hague to defend his case before the international court of justice. After all, if a Canadian cannot trust to have a fair trial on Canadian soil, then the international community should certainly investigate. If in the end, it's found that his claims are totally unfounded, send him back to Canada to face trial. And if his claims are found to be legitimate, then by all means the US would have a humanitarian obligation to grant him asylum and to express its concerns to the UN over Canada's human rights violations.
Am I missing anything here?
So overall, I'd apply the same principle to this soldier. Does he have any legitimate case before either US or international laws? If not, send him back. If so, have have him take the US to court at the Hague. If he's not willing to do that, then send him back.
if he's convinced he's in the right, he'll have no fear of facing justice.
I've just started this as a spin-off thread:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/philosophy-discussion/94112-soldier-deserts-now-what.html
This is a revealing video too:
YouTube - American soldier "I killed innocent people".
They'll have to request him to be extradited from Canada in order to do that.... oh wait.... :lol:
I think that would be reasonable unless again he could prove that he was given a direct order in violation of the Geneva Convention. That might be a reasonable compromise.
Canada could possibly host a court case on Canadian soil if his argument is that he doesn't trust he'll get a fair trial in the US. But if in the end he fails to prove any violation of international law, back to the US he goes.
I guess your lofty position in the graphic arts industry, doesn't expose you to Civil and Contractual Law in North America. All the US military has to do, if so inclined, is to serve him with their Statement of Claim. Then he can either respond or ignore it. If he responds he will have to provide a lawyer to appear on his behalf in a US Court. If he ignores it, it's an automatic loss for him.
In either case, if he loses, there are legal statutes between the US and Canada that will allow the US to collect on that ruling.
Your example is false. We still extradite murderers facing the death penalty to the US, case in point is serial killer Charles Ng. I'll grant that it was 10 years ago but that was still in ol' Chretien's regime and I haven't heard about changes in the interim. MEXICO doesn't grant extradition if the death penalty is in play.
This idiot should not be offered sanctuary in this country: I hope the US gov't appeals and this appeal court is overturned. As others have said there is a lot of difference between draft dodgers in the Vietnam War vs volunteers who desert today. I'll agree with those who say the Iraq invasion should never have happened but that possibility is still something that should have been taken into account when he voluntarily joined his country's military.
I will defend the deserters on one point though: they joined in good faith expecting never to be given orders in contradiction of the Geneva convention at the very least.
I'm not saying such orders have ever been given, but merely saying that if they have been, then that would be a breach of trust to a degree. Contracts ought to be entered into in good faith I'd assume.
He deserted because he found a new version of God. His case has nothing to do with orders, other than to report.
The Army even gave him the non combat position of Armorer, within his Regiment.
There are no grounds for accepting this man on humanitarian grounds. He broke a contract, that he voluntarily agreed to.
If that's the case, then he ought to be sent back of course.
I was just talking hypotheticals there to give him the benefit of the doubt. But from the article in question, you're right, it does seem he has no valid case, and if he does, then the onus is on him to prove it.
I was simply trying to preempt any comments suggesting that deserters ought never to be accepted no matter what. In some cases (not necessarily this one granted) there may be some valid reasons and so we should not close the door on their faces unconditionally.
It is to bad he took this route, still my not be to late, but usual punishment is a discharge on other than honorable conditions worst case is a dishonorable discharge. Your right this is not like the Vietnam war where most were drafted, today we have a all volunteer military. This time he will need a Presidential pardon to get his U.S. citizenship back sometime in the future.
PS:
Canada is involved in Afghanistan, the 101st Airborne is in Afghanistan. No conscripts soldiers at all. Hinzman is deserting Canadian troops also.
I know of no average 18-20 year old who joins the military that even gave the Geneva Convention a thought. That was something out of WW-II to them if they heard of it at all. Geez, kids today have trouble finding Switzerland on a map.
Last edited: