http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/08/deserter-hinzman060208.html

There is an American military deserter in Canada who has appealed a court decision to deny him refugee status in the country. Read the article, vote, and give us your opinion.

I will withhold my own opinion until later.

I say yes because I don't believe in this bloody war, but, and this is a big but, desertion is a different beast from draft-dodging.  If you desert, your azz is grass, and you better not do it unless you're prepared to either spend twenty years in Leavenworth, or the rest of your life on the run.

My question would be-
Why did he join the military if he wasn't prepared to follow Bush into war?
You can't exactly pick and choose when given orders!

I wish him the best, but I'm not sure.

So, you think he should be able to STAY in Canada ???

That's up to Canada, but if it was up to me, I'd let him stay.  Heck, I'd let him return to the U.S. with a full pardon.  I'd rather see the America and the world go after the REAL war criminals--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Blair, and all that lot.  I doubt Cheney would behave much better than Saddam if he was forced in the World Court to answer for himself!
::)

I think he should be allowed to stay in Canada, although it's a shame he has to. It seems to me that he did not agree with this war and he was unwilling to sacrifice himself for it and risk his family having to do without him. So I think out of a genuine fear he packed up his wife and child and fled to Canada for asylum. Could you blame him? I'm not willing either.

You can conscienciously object to a specific war without objecting to all war in general, no matter what the US government says.

If worse comes to worse, he can avoid deportation by seeking asylum in a church.

He knew what could happen when he joined the military.  Everybody who has more then 2 brain cells knows that if you join, you might have to fight.

And he hardly faces "persecution".  "Prosecution" maybe, because of the law he willingly broke, but not persecution.

    After digging deeper into this story, I learned that the unit he deserted from was none other than the 82nd Airborne Division, which is considered one of the Army's elite units and is the first unit to deploy in any conflict (with one battalion on constant alert and ready to go into action on 18 hours notice). Now, what I'd like to know is, why would someone with even the slightest hint of pacifism join the military in the first place, let alone such a gung-ho outfit? As so many sergeants liked to say to so many disgruntled privates, "No one twisted your arm when you signed the enlistment papers."  He made the decision to enlist, he made the subsequent decision to desert, and he should have to face up to the consequences of his actions.
 

   He made the decision to enlist, he made the subsequent decision to desert, and he should have to face up to the consequences of his actions.
 

If he had a friend in the Bush cabinet, he wouldn't have to, that's for sure!

Personally I believe that the so-called "international law" is irrelevant.

This is a matter of what Canadian Law says, and what its extradition treaties with the United States of America say, eh?

If Canadian Law and the treaties say that extradition is required, then extradite him.  Rule of Law, I say.

Any Canucks out there who can say exactly what Canadian Law says aboot all this?

[quote author=Ły

[quote author=Ły

Why should Canada hafta observe international law when the U.S. does not?

The kid should have fled to Venezuela instead of Canada.  They've got no extradition treaty with the U.S.  Then again, it's pretty hard to get by in Caracas if you don't habla Espanol.  There are a lot of American ex-pats in Costa Rica, that might have worked.  Maybe Cuba would have taken him.  He's gonna end up there anyway!
;)


"International law" is a joke and a haven for busybodies.

Why should Canada hafta observe international law when the U.S. does not?


Canada shouldn't.

Whether or not he joined the military out of choice, it's a person's prerogative to change his/her mind. If he didn't want to go to Iraq he shouldn't have had to go, whether he was in the military or not.

Whether or not he joined the military out of choice, it's a person's prerogative to change his/her mind.


Not once a contract is signed.  You're suppose to make up your mind beforehand.  Could anyone imagine what things would be like if people could just change their mind after signing any old contract?

[quote author=Ły

Not once a contract is signed.  You're suppose to make up your mind beforehand.  Could anyone imagine what things would be like if people could just change their mind after signing any old contract?


There is a clear difference, I think, between what basically amounts to a contract for your own life versus a contract in a monetary context. When it comes down to it, even you are too chicken to go to Iraq, so how can you blame someone else for chickening out when the time came to own up to a contract for his own life?

The thing is, though, when he signed up, he KNEW that it was a "contract for his own life".  I highly doubt anyone goes into the military without knowing that there is a chance they may have to go to war.  That's what the military does, they "fight".  If you have no intention of fighting, you shouldn't sign up. 


what happens, though, if the pretext of the war they sign you up to fight turns out to be a one hundred percent crock? bit disingenous to completely ignore that, don't you think? "here, go die to disarm iraq of the WMDs it turned out they didn't have anyhow."

i think there's a certain unwritten understanding that you sign up for the military, and if they send you to war, it will be to DEFEND THE COUNTRY, not for some ridiculous made-up-as-you-go reason.

there's a big difference between dying for a just cause and dying just cuz.

luv ya crazymom. i really do. :) i hate talking politics. but i can't stop!

[quote author=?y

How many times has the US been involved in an "action" where we were not defending our country? 

If you've ever read the enlistment papers, they basically say that you'll do what you're told, serve where you're told, when you're told to.  It says nowhere that you will only go to war to defend our country or that you'll only fight the battles that YOU agree with.  If it was that easy to leave, then there probably wouldn't be many people IN the military.

Trust me, I think the "reasoning" behind this "war" is a crock of BS and I'd like to see all of our servicemen home safe.  However, under the contract you sign when you enlist, there's no option for "If I don't agree with the basis behind any order, I don't have to follow it".  So, unless someone is totally illiterate, they have no excuse for "chickening out".


well, i guess the bottom line is, if your life is at risk, the bylaws of the enlistment papers are gonna mean a$$dcik. if the cause is unjust, you're gonna see lots of people running off for one reason or another -- basically because there's not much to the idea of dying because a technicality of the fine print says you should.

that's an unwritten reason why wars shouldn't be started for stupid reasons.

When it comes down to it, even you are too chicken to go to Iraq


I'm 46 years old with a bad leg.  What's your excuse?

there's nothing noble about dying for an immoral war based on lies. the philosophy "my country right or wrong" just encourages your country to be wrong. refusing to fight unjust wars is one of the ways a country's people keep their government in check -- particularly when it's a government as eager to send other people's kids to fight wars as the current american government is.

Look, it is rather simple.

The men and women who join the military undestand what that means 98% of the time.  And they join for different reasons.

Some join to get ahead in life.  If I had the choice of living in South Central LA or Harlem, I would probably join the military to get outta that area.  And I knew a lot of kids that did exactly that.

Some join to travel, some join to learn a skill.  Some join to pay for college.  Some join because of family traditions.  Still others join for peer pressure, cause other friends have joined.  Some think it is a way to "Become A Man".

Then there are some that join because it is simply what they want to do.  Some boys (and girls) simply never outgrow the desire to "play soldier".

No matter what reason they join however, they join with the full knowledge of what is required of them.  And that is made ovbious in Boot Camp, where they are introduced to the Uniform Code Of Military Justice (UCMJ), and what is expected of them.

If they choose to break the contract, then they should expect to spend some time in Jail.  And they should expect to have a Bad Conduct or Dishonerable Discharge.

I served for 10 years, during 8 conflicts, and I never felt the desire to "run away".  In fact, if I found out somebody in my unit had tried to leave, I would not want him!  In the military, you rely heaviily on each other.  And if somebody has proven themselves to be a failure and not to be trusted/relied upon, then they are worthless.

And I do not give a flick about politics, just war, or any other of that garbage.  That is something said by civilians.  It is not their job to put their lives on the line.  And basically, everybody in the military knows that Civilians are nothing but an undisciplined mob anyways.  And who seriously listens to a mob?

After all, the mob was screaming for blood at the end of 2001, and demanding that the military do something.  Now the same mob is often screaming for them to stop.  Why on earth would you listen to something so fickle?

As for the trash that wants to run away, bring him home.  I can tell you roughly what will happen.  He will be Court Martialed, and get sentenced to something like 10 years.  Most of that will be waived, and he might actually spend 6 months to a year in a base prison.  After that, he will be processed and discharged, most likely with a Dishonerable Discharge.

He is hardly the first, and hardly the last.  I felt just as mad at those in 1990 who tried to do the same crap, stating that they joined to get money for college, not to fight a war.  Well, guess what boys and girls?  That is the US Military.  If they want free money for college without fighting, then join the Peace Corps, or some other organization.

But, who's to say what's an "unjust" reason?  I do, you do, many on this board do, but there are still hundreds of thousands of people who are fully in support of this war.  The bottom line is that they signed a contract when they enlisted that they would follow the orders given by the president and their commanding officers.  In this case, right or wrong, those orders are that they will be "fighting" in Iraq.  If they choose to break that contract, then they should face the consequences of their actions.
well, the point i'm making is sorta sideways to that. because so much is at stake -- namely, your life -- when a cause is unjust it gets harder and harder to get people to go. even if they sign up i think it's unwritten that the government is expected to make reasonable decisions regarding whether or not to go to war. so.... this guy, i personally don't think he should be punished although i imagine he will be; the point i'm making is that we'll probably be seeing a lot more of this sort of thing and after a while it's likely to become a referendum on the war, much as happened with the draft avoiders in vietnam.

this guy, i personally don't think he should be punished although i imagine he will be; the point i'm making is that we'll probably be seeing a lot more of this sort of thing and after a while it's likely to become a referendum on the war, much as happened with the draft avoiders in vietnam.


Heck, I find nothing wrong with beating up a flag burner.  So should anybody that does that be let off without having assault charges filed?

When I lived in LA and San Francisco, I can't tell you how many times I would be stuck in traffic, because some protestor decided his right of free speech included blocking traffic.  So I should have the right to run them over because I do not agree with them, right?

This is the difference between a mob, and the Military.  Nobody forced this twit to join.  In fact, he approaced the recruiter because he wanted money for college.

"This was my experience in the winter of 2000-2001. I had been out of high school for nearly three years. Although my marks were not atrocious, they would not have put me in contention for many scholarships. When I explored the possibility of financial aid, I learned that my family made too much money for me to qualify -- but they did not make enough to help with tuition. I came from a broken home. Although I was able to hold down a job, it was leading nowhere. Walking into the recruiter's office, I told him to not bother with the sales pitch."  An American Deserter In Canada, by Jeremy Hinzman

Basically, he wanted a free ride.  Then he was upset because he realized that the cost might involve his actually doing something to earn it.  Poor baby.

Heck, I find nothing wrong with beating up a flag burner.  So should anybody that does that be let off without having assault charges filed?

When I lived in LA and San Francisco, I can't tell you how many times I would be stuck in traffic, because some protestor decided his right of free speech included blocking traffic.  So I should have the right to run them over because I do not agree with them, right?


well, these are cute examples but i'm all for holding the draft-evaders accountable if we're going to hold the administration accountable for starting a war based on lies. if anything's criminal, it's that. and obviously you want to let them off for that scot-free. so again, you ally yourself with the powerful against the powerless. it's a real pattern.

well, these are cute examples but i'm all for holding the draft-evaders accountable if we're going to hold the administration accountable for starting a war based on lies. if anything's criminal, it's that. and obviously you want to let them off for that scot-free. so again, you ally yourself with the powerful against the powerless. it's a real pattern.


So it is OK, as long as they agree with your point of view.

To me, actions have responsibilities and consequences.  He was a legal adult, and knew what he was doing when he joined.

So it is OK, as long as they agree with your point of view.

To me, actions have responsibilities and consequences.  He was a legal adult, and knew what he was doing when he joined.
no, to YOU it's okay as long as they're in a position of power.

The point is, though, that by signing up with the military, you are putting your life in the government's hands.  If you are unwilling to accept the choices they make, then you shouldn't join.  If you read the enlistment documents (which I have, although it was many years ago so I don't remember the exact verbage), it specifically says that there are no "unwritten promises".  My dad was in Korea and he has said many times that if he had had a choice, he wouldn't have been there, but once you sign up, you no longer have many choices.  If people are free to come and go from the military as they please, imagine how hard it will be to get people to fight even when the cause is "just"...
i suppose technically that's true but since people's lives are at stake you're just going to see this sort of thing if the powers-that-be start cooking up truly prespammersite wars. if you're confronted with the choice of dying for a truly and transparently bogus cause and violating a contract it's hard for me to blame people for choosing the latter. and even if i DID blame them i hardly think they'd care since it's their life on the line, not mine.

i think we're sorta agreeing by way of disagreeing.

there's actually a very good article in harpers this month presenting the case against the administration, listing some very specific misrepresentations they busted out to get us into the war. if congress weren't being run by a complicit political party i think we'd be seeing a lot more accountability than we're seeing. after all, clinton got hoisted up on his petard over that monica silliness; and that didn't actually get anybody killed.

OK, fine.  SO he has the right to refuse to go fight in a war overseas.

What if he refused to go and fight, because he hates people from Iraq?  What if he is a radical religious nut, who thinks everybody in Iraq gets what they deserve, so he refuses to go and fight for another country?

What if he simply refuses to fight for "rag heads"?  He thinks it is ok to go and kill them, but does not want to fight for them. Does he have the refuse to go then?

OK, fine.  SO he has the right to refuse to go fight in a war overseas.

What if he refused to go and fight, because he hates people from Iraq?  What if he is a radical religious nut, who thinks everybody in Iraq gets what they deserve, so he refuses to go and fight for another country?

What if he simply refuses to fight for "rag heads"?  He thinks it is ok to go and kill them, but does not want to fight for them. Does he have the refuse to go then?
i'm not necessarily saying he has the "right" to refuse to fight. i'm simply saying that if the administration doesn't get its story straight about why it decided to start this war, we're going to be seeing more and more of this. accountability doesn't just apply to the little guy.

So, how do we hold the government accountable?"


when the republicans pretty much own congress and the courts, there's really not much of a way except to just refuse to go to their war. i guess that's the point i'm trying to make. same thing happened in vietnam, people decided not to go to war even if they knew they'd have to pay for it with twenty years in prison.

i'm not necessarily saying he has the "right" to refuse to fight. i'm simply saying that if the administration doesn't get its story straight about why it decided to start this war, we're going to be seeing more and more of this. accountability doesn't just apply to the little guy.


So if I think that we are being sent into a stupid war, like say Somalia, I can just walk away?

Maybe I just hate Asians, and do not want to take part in the aid being sent to the Philippines right now.  Do I have the right to simply walk away?

This is the difference between "The Military" and "A Mob".  A mob goes where it wills itself to go.  ANd you can will yourself out of a mob at any time, not so with the Military.

And remember, unless he gets a Court Martial, he will be able to leave the military, and now have the US Taxpayers pay for his college, and is eligable for all VA benefits and programs.  The only way to remove these is to give him a Bad Conduct, Other Then Honerable, or Dishonerable Discharge.

To give somebody like this the benefits of being a veteran is a slap in the face to everybody who has done their job, if they agreed with it or not.

aannnnnddd.... we keep talking past each other again! quelle surprise.

the whole racist thing is sorta amusing. if you hate middle easterners i dare say you'd be all about going over and killing them, and there certainly seems to be a fair amount of that sort of thing going on over there right now (*coughcoughabughraibcoughcough*) but if you want to sit it out because you think the war is "helping" the iraqis somehow, then sure, buy your ticky and take your chances. i rather think that in this instance the military is acting with a fair degree of discipline and the administration is acting like a mob, doing whatever it wills itself to do. the rest of us are the "reality based constituency"; the neocons 'make their own reality.'

that's pretty much textbook mob mentality. as is, of course, thinking it's okay to beat up people who burn flags.

I'm 46 years old with a bad leg.  What's your excuse?


Why should I need an excuse, as someone who is and always has been diametrically opposed to this war? I'm backing up my opposition by not signing up and discouraging others from signing up. To sign up would make me a hypocrite (not to mention a complete imbecile!).

Sorry about your leg, but I have no reason to believe that even if you were in perfect physical condition that you would enlist. My father is 49 with disablilty status because of back injuries obtained while serving 15 years in the military, and for the past 4 years he'd been trying like hell to get back in (they won't let him). It was the only reason he finally got naturalized. No excuses for him either, I guess...

I think many are forgetting that it is ultimately up to the Canadian authorities to decide whether or not he will be extradited. They will not need to consider US military traditions, contracts, etc... but only whether or not this man has a legitimate fear or returning to the US, and whether or not he had the right to change his mind.

Also, if he seeks asylum in a Canadian church, he cannot be deported as long as he never leaves there.

The difference is in Vietnam, people decided to avoid the draft.  I don't remember hearing of anyone who was already IN the military (and one of the elite units especially) who refused to go.  But if they did, you said it:  they knew they'd have to pay for it with twenty years in prison.  I'm not saying that the military shouldn't have the right to refuse to fight, but they should be willing to face the consequences if they don't.

Didn't pinko Jimmy Carter grant all those Vietnam draft dodgers amnesty so they could come home from Canada?  I'm trying to remember.  I'll have to google it.
???

I think many are forgetting that it is ultimately up to the Canadian authorities to decide whether or not he will be extradited. They will not need to consider US military traditions, contracts, etc... but only whether or not this man has a legitimate fear or returning to the US, and whether or not he had the right to change his mind.

Also, if he seeks asylum in a Canadian church, he cannot be deported as long as he never leaves there.


Actually, the term is Sanctuary.  And no, in Canada the Police have the right to enter a Church and deport somebody.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/immigration/sanctuary.html

Sanctuary is not a law, it is a tradition.  The only way a Church can enact legal asylum is in the case of the Vatican, where it is also a soverign state.

And the person in question here is not in any danger of returning to the country.  The only thing he will have to face is the consequences of his own actions.  And since he admitted he deserted, he can hardly claim he is innocent and being persecuted.


Didn't pinko Jimmy Carter grant all those Vietnam draft dodgers amnesty so they could come home from Canada?  I'm trying to remember.  I'll have to google it.
???


Yes, he did.  That was actually his first Executive Order after he assumed office.

And myself, I have no problem with that.  The was was over, and it was time to let it go.

Actually, the term is Sanctuary.  And no, in Canada the Police have the right to enter a Church and deport somebody.


You're right, I shouldn't have said "cannot" but if he does take sanctuary in a church the police probably would not arrest him unless they thought it was really important to separate a man from his wife and child so he can be sent off to a certain jail sentence for something many people would have done if they had been in the same situation.

There's a man in St. John's whose been living in a church for 8 months now to avoid deportation, his story was featured on CBC 1 just last month, and I don't see how this deserter should be treated any differently from that guy by the police. It's not like trade between the US and Canada is going to come to a screeching hault if he is allowed to stay, and it's not like it's so vitally important that the US prosecute this man and make an example of him.

The only thing this guy is really guilty of is changing his mind. Why should he go to jail for that? And furthermore, why should the American taxpayers have to pay for him to be kept in a prison for 6 years?

It is obvious he made a mistake by becoming a soldier. Self-determining people everywhere who are unwilling to let themselves be controlled and exploited by a corrupt government don't make good soldiers, and the kind of self-respect one gets out of being that kind of person cannot be replaced with the false sense of honour and importance that comes standard with membership in the U.S. Armed Forces.

You're right, I shouldn't have said "cannot" but if he does take sanctuary in a church the police probably would not arrest him unless they thought it was really important to separate a man from his wife and child so he can be sent off to a certain jail sentence for something many people would have done if they had been in the same situation.

There's a man in St. John's whose been living in a church for 8 months now to avoid deportation, his story was featured on CBC 1 just last month, and I don't see how this deserter should be treated any differently from that guy by the police.

The only thing this guy is really guilty of is changing his mind. Why should he go to jail for that? And furthermore, why should the American taxpayers have to pay for him to be kept in a prison for 6 years?

It is obvious he made a mistake by becoming a soldier. Self-determining people everywhere who are unwilling to let themselves be controlled and exploited by a corrupt government don't make good soldiers, and the kind of self-respect one gets out of being that kind of person cannot be replaced with the false sense of honour and importance that comes standard with membership in the U.S. Armed Forces.


*above edited for brevity*

Well, this once again falls under "You are responsible for your own actions", and "With actions come consequences".  He should have thought about that before he deserted.  There is no way he can claim that he was not aware of what would happen if he did this.

And there is a difference.  I bet the guy who has been in the church for 8 months is not a fugitive.  Because that is exactly what this guy is, a fugitive.  One is trying to avoid returning because he has fear of returning, or because he has a sincere fear of his life if he returns.  The other did something wrong and is trying to escape his responsibility for that action.  I support the first one, I oppose the latter.

As for "changing his mind", that is invalid.  What if I changed my mind about being married, and married another woman without divorcing my first wife?  Well, then I am guilty of Bigamy.  That is a crime, and nothing else matters.

The Military is not something you can just walk away from.  In a way, it is a form of Servitude.  You volunteer to give up 4+ years of your life, in exchange for many things.  You are taught a trade, you get 100% medical and dental for you and your family.  You get a very generous college package, which will pay for 36 months (3 years) of college.  If you have no insurance after you get out, you may be eligable for treatment free of charge through the VA.  You also get very low cost 0% down housing loans, and some states (like California) have even more benefits for being a veteran.

In exchange for all of that, you are mearly expected to do what is asked for 4 years.  Quite a deal if you ask me.  And unless he is court martialed, he will be eligable for all of those benefits.  As a taxpayer, I for one would not like to be footing the bill for all of this for somebody who "changed his mind".

Obviously you have no idea what the military is really like.  And that is OK, I find that most civilians really do not comprehend it.  They do not understand what makes people do it, and how they can put up with all that discipline and control.  But please, do not dispariage those of us that have made that choice in our lives.

Actually, the term is Sanctuary.  And no, in Canada the Police have the right to enter a Church and deport somebody.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/immigration/sanctuary.html

Sanctuary is not a law, it is a tradition.  The only way a Church can enact legal asylum is in the case of the Vatican, where it is also a soverign state.

And the person in question here is not in any danger of returning to the country.  The only thing he will have to face is the consequences of his own actions.  And since he admitted he deserted, he can hardly claim he is innocent and being persecuted.

Yes, he did.  That was actually his first Executive Order after he assumed office.

And myself, I have no problem with that.  The was was over, and it was time to let it go.

If you want sanctuary in Canada, don't go to a church, you go to a hockey rink, eh?

Carter giving reprieve to the draft dodgers botherered a lot of people at the time, you know, your Archie Bunkers.  Then again, Ford pardoned Nixon, so tit-for-tat!