Canada Rules U.S. Army Deserter Not a Refugee

I think they made the right decision in this case
which is not to say I agree with the war in Iraq, but I think when a person voluntarily joins the army and voluntarily takes that oath, they should not be able to run off to the nearest country and expect to be taken in as a refugee.
He broke the law. He ran, he deserted. He could should have stayed and taken responsibility for his actions, but he didn't, and I'm glad Canada won't take him.

A U.S. soldier who deserted because he opposed the war in Iraq does not qualify as a refugee and would not face excessive punishment for his actions if sent home, Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board ruled on Thursday.

Jeremy Hinzman, 26, was the first of several U.S. deserters to file asylum claims in Canada. He fled from the 82nd Airborne Division two years ago and sought refugee status in Canada.

Hinzman had maintained the U.S.-led war in Iraq was illegal and he feared committing atrocities if he was sent there.

The ruling said Hinzman's reasons for refusing to fight in Iraq were "inherently contradictory" because he was willing to serve but only in a non-combat role.

"Surely an intelligent young man like Mr. Hinzman, who believed the war in Iraq to be illegal, unjust and waged for economic reasons, would be unwilling to participate in any capacity, whether combatant or non-combatant," the refugee board said in its decision.

"The Federal Court ... clearly sets out that one cannot be a selective conscientious objector."

The ruling also noted that Hinzman was also not opposed to war given that he supported U.S. actions in Afghanistan.

More Here

Maybe Iran or North Korea can offer him refugee status. The only thing I have to say in defense of the guy is he may have been mislead when he enlisted, but it his own fault for not looking at the situation before joining.

Good.

All those treasonous deserters should rot in Ft. Leavenworth.

[edit on 3/24/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by jrod
Maybe Iran or North Korea can offer him refugee status. The only thing I have to say in defense of the guy is he may have been mislead when he enlisted, but it his own fault for not looking at the situation before joining.

Don't t hink he was mislead. According to the article, he was supportive of the war in Afghanistan. Sounds like he changed his mind and fled.

It's not quite that easy in this instance. First of all, this adminstration doesn't have a clue in how to plan or prosecute a war. Their policies are wreaking havoc upon our men and women in uniform. During the Vietnam War, a soldier was sent to Vietnam for ONE (usually 12 month) tour. They were NOT required to turn right back around and deploy back. For very good reasons. ONE tour was it - unless you VOLUNTEERED for another tour. No one was EVER forced back. And no one got stop-loss orders as they are now. Like back then, NO soldier should be forced into back-to-back tours in theater. EVER. It's a travesty.

The current policies are terribly unhealthy mentally, forget about physically. The men conducting this war have proven they have absolutely NO business in the war business.

You wanna attack something or someone? Attack the architects of this absurdism. They are responsible for the current insanity within our ranks.

as posted by ECK
Their policies are wreaking havoc upon our men and women in uniform. During the Vietnam War, a soldier was sent to Vietnam for ONE (usually 12 month) tour. They were NOT required to turn right back around and deploy back. For very good reasons. ONE tour was it - unless you VOLUNTEERED for another tour. No one was EVER forced back.

Wrong.
My father served three tours in Vietnam, ECK.
You are correct on the 1 year [12-month] rotation, but wrong in that it was always volunteer to return. My father served with the 4th Infantry. He was ordered the 1st time, ordered the 2nd time, and volunteered for the thrid tour.

What you mention may have been deemed the 'norm', but in no way was it across the board, so to speak.



seekerof

When people sign up for the military they've signed away their rights as a citizen to a certain extent. It's not their place to decide whether a certain action is right or wrong or whether the leadership is good. They are sworn to take orders from their superiors, the ultimate of which is the President of the United States. They don't have the right or luxury to walk away from their agreement when it is inconvenient for them or they don't agree with the policy or leadership.

He got what he signed on for. If he cannot stand the heat well tough luck buddy, if he was a Draft Dodger then I would have a different opinion but he was a volunteer you reap what you sow.

Yeah, well, unfortunately for this guy, the oath of induction does not goes as follows:

"I, Jeremy Hinzman, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God....unless, of course I change my mind and decide I really don't like working hard, or my political convictions change, or I see and experience things that are horrible, unjust, and frightening, in which case I reserve the right to back out of my responsibilities, which I freely accepted in the first place, but I will still expect the government to provide for me, and protect me, despite the fact that I walked out on these same people, which I now have come to loathe".