Hinzman denied asylum.

Bodacious

Bodacious

Newbie
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
0
http://www.cjad.com/content/cp_article.asp?id=/global_feeds/CanadianPress/NationalNews/n032427A.htm

U.S. soldier who deserted to dodge 'criminal' war in Iraq loses asylum bid
Updated at 14:16 on March 24, 2005, EST.

TORONTO (CP) - An American war dodger who fled the U.S. military because he believed the invasion of Iraq was criminal has lost his bid for refugee status in Canada in a case closely watched on both sides of the border.

In a written ruling released Thursday, the Immigration and Refugee Board said Jeremy Hinzman had not made a convincing argument that he faced persecution or cruel and unusual punishment in the United States.

There was no immediate comment from Hinzman but his lawyer Jeffry House said he would ask the Federal Court to review the decision.

"Mr. Hinzman is disappointed," said House.
Click to expand...

Sucks for hinzman. Looks like being anti-war isn't paying off.
 
Bodacious said:
Sucks for hinzman. Looks like being anti-war isn't paying off.
Click to expand...

What the **** is that supposed to mean? That being pro-war would make me a "winner"?
 
he's appealing it in federal court ..canada's not sending him home anytime soon ...oh btw there's 6 more
 
Why dont he go to Mexico or something?

what punishment could he get?
 
KoreBolteR said:
Why dont he go to Mexico or something?

what punishment could he get?
Click to expand...

Mexico isn't the place to be for a family with no money.

Imprisonment in a military brig for desertion. Not to mention leaving his family fatherless.
 
Bodacious said:
Mexico isn't the place to be for a family with no money.

Imprisonment in a military brig for desertion. Not to mention leaving his family fatherless.
Click to expand...

he shudda just went to Iraq, despite his personal morals. :|
 
Bodacious said:
Not to mention leaving his family fatherless.
Click to expand...


that's his reasoning for not going to iraq, well that and the fact that he didnt want to commit wartime atrocities as he (as do many around the world) believes the US illegally invaded Iraq. But why take my word for it let's hear what he has to say about it:


"I object to the Iraqi war because it is an act of aggression with no defensive basis. It has been supported by pretences that cannot withstand even elementary scrutiny. First, before the U.S. dropped the first bomb, it was quite evident that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Second, the Bush administration had the gall to exploit the American public's fear of terrorists by making the absurd assertion that a secular Baathist government was working with a fundamentalist terrorist group. There was never any intelligence to substantiate this. Third, the notion that the U.S. wants to export democracy to Iraq is laughable. Democracy is by the people, not an appointed puppet theater.

If the Iraqi people were to choose their own government, it is inevitable (by demographics alone) that the government would be Shia. A Shiite government would probably be quite un-open and even possibly hostile to the U.S. and its aims. It just so happens that Iraq is also the home of the second largest known reserve of oil in the world. America is notorious for its insatiable thirst for cheap oil.

Perhaps I made a mistake by enlisting in the Army, but the U.S. is putting the lives of its soldiers in jeopardy in order to the line the pockets of big money. I will not get blood on my hands or put my life in danger for such an endeavor"

source
 
I'd have thought Canada would be the first place to offer this guy assylum for life, no questions asked.

He should take his family and go to France. It's nice there.
 
That is what he gets for going into the military just for the money.
 
First off, you are retarded if you join the military and then don't want to go to war. Ill tell you what this guy is, a coward and a deserter. If your country calls upon you (and especially if you ENLISTED) then you go fight. There were people during WWII that though it was wrong to fight Hitler (until they saw what he was doing to the Jews). Yet they still put thier lives on the line.

If he didn't want blood on his hands, he should have became a medic. Or better yet, STAY OUT OF THE MILITARY.
 
Isn't the punishment for desertion death?

Yeah, Kebean PFC is absolutely right. If you *volunteer* to do something, and you're called to do it, there's no backing out. It's a legal promise, which has serious consequences if you back out. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, even if you don't like it. I would give him some slack if he didn't fight to defend himself legally; he knew what would happen to him if he did it, the consequences are obvious.
 
seinfeldrules said:
I think it is the maximum sentence, but doubt he would receive it.
Click to expand...

France would probably let him in thier country, and a prize of 30 million Euros. what a hero eh?
 
Soldiers are here for defense of the country. If soldiers are used improperly by the government (as they are being used right now), why should they have to hold up their end of the bargain? Their job isn't to do anything and everything they're told to do by the heads of government; their job is to defend the constitution of this country. If they're told to go off on a little escapade in Iraq to invade a country that poses absolutely no threat to this nation they've sworn to protect, why shouldn't they be allowed to question that? Jeremy served in Afghanistan, had a serious problem morally with war in Iraq, and decided to take matters into his own hands rather than risk death for something he didn't believe in. Yeah, that's horrible.
 
When somebody joins the Army, how does he should know that the country which he should protect, will start an illegal war.
So I see nothing wrong in his quitting. If the most soldiers had done this, then the U.S. government had to go to Iraq itself ;) . Wouldn´t it be amazing?? That would be the most fair thing: If you want to maintain an illegal war, then go and fight it yourself.
 
qckbeam said:
Soldiers are here for defense of the country. If soldiers are used improperly by the government (as they are being used right now), why should they have to hold up their end of the bargain? Their job isn't to do anything and everything they're told to do by the heads of government; their job is to defend the constitution of this country. If they're told to go off on a little escapade in Iraq to invade a country that poses absolutely no threat to this nation they've sworn to protect, why shouldn't they be allowed to question that? Jeremy served in Afghanistan, had a serious problem morally with war in Iraq, and decided to take matters into his own hands rather than risk death for something he didn't believe in. Yeah, that's horrible.
Click to expand...

You just read my mind.

This isn't a matter of him pussying out of conflict (something that you seem to think, Kebean). He served in Afghanistan. It's a matter of him refusing to take part in an unjustified and unnecessary war.

If I ever join the military, it will be for the protection of my country. And if I were sent to attack a small country that posed zero threat to my country, I'd say that my services were being abused.
 
I dont care if he put 5 tours in Nam too, the fact is regardless of what you believe, if you are in the Army, you do. I would not like to serve next to him, what if he decides in the middle of combat the the war is unjustified and "quits." If you have never been close to the Army, you really should think things through before replying.

This guy should not have joined, if your country calls on you, regardless of how you feel towards it you go. The time to think is after. He should have fought, served his time, and got a honorable discharge out of the service.
When somebody joins the Army, how does he should know that the country which he should protect, will start an illegal war.
So I see nothing wrong in his quitting. If the most soldiers had done this, then the U.S. government had to go to Iraq itself . Wouldn´t it be amazing?? That would be the most fair thing: If you want to maintain an illegal war, then go and fight it yourself.
Click to expand...
When you join the Army, you sign an agreement that says YOU WILL SERVE YOUR COUNTRY IN A TIME OF WAR. Maybe that just sounds wrong to you, sitting at home in your chair, but if I was in his unit id be embarrassed as hell. You don't just "quit" during war.

If he was caught i would support the death penalty. He is not a civillian, he SIGNED his name and by doing so stated that he would serve his country, both in peace and in war. Now that there is a war on, he decides it is wong. Well, should have though about the possible implications of that contract before he signed.
 
Kebean, I think you're simply speaking crap. He knows his role. He joined the army to protect his country, not to kill and capture civilians in something that can barely be called a war. He's what some of these idiots go on about all the time.

Let's draw a rough comparison. Are you saying that by joining the German army in the early 1930's, the soldier agreed without question to invade the rest of Europe, and murder millions of Jews, even if you found that morally despicable? Are you saying that soldier should face punishment for acting on his conscience and trying to hop it to Switzerland?

Of course, I'm not saying invading Iraq is even comparable to Hitler's actions, but I am hopeful you get what I'm actually saying.

Donnie: Okay. But you're not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here. Like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else!
Click to expand...

See. Donnie Darko tells it like it is.
 
Pesmerga said:
Isn't the punishment for desertion death?
Click to expand...
abolished wasnt it?i know if 1 soldier during ww2 who was executed for desertion but i think that was the last
 
alright you patriots hypothetical question for ya: who here would knowingly bomb civilian targets? if your mission is to bomb the iraqi water treatment plants, would you follow orders without question? knowing full well hundreds of thousands of civilians (80% being children) would pay the ultimate price
 
You know, Canada and the united states aren't as estranged as some of you might think. The government and their military work very closely together.

Hell, Canadian and American personel work side by side in NORAD, and that place has VERY sensitive information etc.

Whether you like it or not, the US and Canada are still very close-knit buddies.
 
Kebean PFC said:
I dont care if he put 5 tours in Nam too, the fact is regardless of what you believe, if you are in the Army, you do. I would not like to serve next to him, what if he decides in the middle of combat the the war is unjustified and "quits." If you have never been close to the Army, you really should think things through before replying.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But your accusations of him being a coward are no longer appropriate.

This guy should not have joined, if your country calls on you, regardless of how you feel towards it you go. The time to think is after. He should have fought, served his time, and got a honorable discharge out of the service.
Click to expand...

Wow. So you have no problem with the brave men and women that enlisted in the army being abused by their government.

I recall a certain fascist that made his army swear unwavering alliegance to himself and fight no matter the context. I also remember the atrocities and bloodshed that it led to.

I'll be quite honest here. I think you're disgusting if you think this man deserves the death penalty.
 
Well i am disgusting then. If you sign up to defend your country you better damn well do it! What if during the 1940s, masses of US soldiers decided that the war against Germany was wrong? What would you say then? Yes this man is not a coward (fine) but you have to understand that by doing this, he has violated what it means to be a US soldier.

I don't think you folks quite understand this. It is a little thing called obligation. I guess that you all feel that contracts mean nothing now, right. Oh, and that the moment you find fault with something it is alright to just walk away from it.

He is no dimwit, he knew what he was getting into, and if he didn't want to fight US wars WHEREVER THEY MAY BE AND FOR WHATEVER REASON he should not have signed his name on that paper. Do you know what he has just done to US morale? An actual soldier derelicting his duty. As I stated before, he is an embarassment to the US Army, and to all it stands for.

EDIT: CptStern, that is a totally different issue. That is not deriliction of duty, as a matter of fact a question like that is on the OCS test. (Officer Candidate School). The question reads something like this... "You are under the command of Cpt. Jones. He has recently been in prolonged combat with the enemy and lost many of his close friends and soldiers. In an emotional state, Cpt Jones orders you to poison a nearby well. You know that by doing this you will cause numerous civilian casualties, what is your response?" The correct one is "You will tell Cpt Jones that you will not poison the water becuase doing so violates the Geniva Convention, Clause Blah Blah.

What this man did was walk away from the conflict altogether, not refuse to take on a mission. Oh and nice, the "Water Plant" has infected this thread too? Can you please use another example, or is that the only valid one you have? (No offense)
 
qckbeam, I suppose it would've been OK to let Hitler kill millions of jews, blitzkrieg tanks into the heart of Europe, dominate those countries and reform Europe as we knew it.
 
Absinthe said:
You just read my mind.

This isn't a matter of him pussying out of conflict (something that you seem to think, Kebean). He served in Afghanistan. It's a matter of him refusing to take part in an unjustified and unnecessary war.

If I ever join the military, it will be for the protection of my country. And if I were sent to attack a small country that posed zero threat to my country, I'd say that my services were being abused.
Click to expand...
Are you saying Iraq posed no threat to the US at all? Or are you just saying if that was the situation.

Germany was no threat to the US at all, absolutley zero threat.
 
Kebean PFC said:
EDIT: CptStern, that is a totally different issue. That is not deriliction of duty, as a matter of fact a question like that is on the OCS test. (Officer Candidate School). The question reads something like this... "You are under the command of Cpt. Jones. He has recently been in prolonged combat with the enemy and lost many of his close friends and soldiers. In an emotional state, Cpt Jones orders you to poison a nearby well. You know that by doing this you will cause numerous civilian casualties, what is your response?" The correct one is "You will tell Cpt Jones that you will not poison the water becuase doing so violates the Geniva Convention, Clause Blah Blah.

What this man did was walk away from the conflict altogether, not refuse to take on a mission.
Click to expand...


it's nowhere near the same situation ..the order to bomb the treatment plants came from central command ..your example is that of one person issuing the order
 
It is the same situation, it is a moral question. Regardless of who is comes from. Also, you are avoiding the issue.
 
what am I avoiding? the difference is that in your scenario you're asked to make a decision in the heat of battle which isnt part of the mission. In my example the enitire mission is planned in advance leaving little doubt as to where it sits on the morality scale
 
Pesmerga said:
qckbeam, I suppose it would've been OK to let Hitler kill millions of jews, blitzkrieg tanks into the heart of Europe, dominate those countries and reform Europe as we knew it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but what does that have to do with anything?
 
Foxtrot said:
Germany was no threat to the US at all, absolutley zero threat.
Click to expand...

The USA percieved Germany to pose an eventual threat if Hitler dominated over Europe.

Kebean PFC said:
What if during the 1940s, masses of US soldiers decided that the war against Germany was wrong>
Click to expand...

What if during the 1940s, masses of German soldiers thought that starting WW2 was wrong?

Your emphasis on obligations just shows how archaic the workings of your mind really are. Again, you pretty admit that you have no problem with US troops being abused. How you think you can sit on some moral high ground is beyond me.
 
how did a topic on American justice turn into a war over the morals of ww2?
 
My point was, America shouldn't just let other countries like Germany or Iraq to do horrendous things with humanity. We choose sides, we fight for them. We could sit on our asses, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show. But we've already declared ourselves keepers of the peace; whether that means invading a country to take down a bad leader or stopping a powerhouse on the brink of complete domination. I'm not saying it's the right decision, I'm saying it's the decision.
 
Pesmerga said:
My point was, America shouldn't just let other countries like Germany or Iraq to do horrendous things with humanity. We choose sides, we fight for them. We could sit on our asses, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show. But we've already declared ourselves keepers of the peace; whether that means invading a country to take down a bad leader or stopping a powerhouse on the brink of complete domination. I'm not saying it's the right decision, I'm saying it's the decision.
Click to expand...
you really believe bush invaded iraq to free the iraqi people?
 
What countries are we "taking over"? America will never expand its boundaries, and hasn't since Hawaii. We already have a presence in most countries, with at least one military base in larger countries.

Jimbo, it doesn't matter 'why' we went to Iraq, but the truth of the matter is that Iraq is a better place for people to live in now, and will be a hell of a lot better once we pull our troops out and Iraq has an organized military to protect itself. America is the father of the world right now, and like most fathers, their children often disagree with them on things. But I believe that we are doing a good job at keeping the world a better place to live in. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's already done. Hinzman chose to not fight for the war, that's perfectly OK morally, but in the U.S. military, commanders need troops organized and established, willing to fight for them.
 
Hinzman chose to not fight for the war, that's perfectly OK morally, but in the U.S. military, commanders need troops organized and established, willing to fight for them.
Click to expand...

I guess you all couldnt get that our of my first post, well stated Pesmerga.

US troops being abused. How you think you can sit on some moral high ground is beyond me.
Click to expand...
They arnt being abused, they are being given ordders, and in the military you follow those orders. You can't jsut get up a leave. See the above quote.
 
Pesmerga said:
What countries are we "taking over"? America will never expand its boundaries, and hasn't since Hawaii. We already have a presence in most countries, with at least one military base in larger countries.

Jimbo, it doesn't matter 'why' we went to Iraq, but the truth of the matter is that Iraq is a better place for people to live in now, and will be a hell of a lot better once we pull our troops out and Iraq has an organized military to protect itself. America is the father of the world right now, and like most fathers, their children often disagree with them on things. But I believe that we are doing a good job at keeping the world a better place to live in. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's already done. Hinzman chose to not fight for the war, that's perfectly OK morally, but in the U.S. military, commanders need troops organized and established, willing to fight for them.
Click to expand...
'father of the world",who do you think you are,the new roman empire,pls tell me your joking,thats incredibly offensive
 
Haha, America is Rome! And just like Rome, America will fall one way or another, but I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CptStern
The unclassified Report on Afghanistan the Pentagon doesnt want you to read
Replies
2
Views
1K
Maestro
Maestro
Shakermaker
Grand Theft Auto Tehran
Replies
8
Views
2K
Krynn72
Krynn72
No Limit
Rolling Stone Exposes Another Runaway General: "It’s not illegal if I say it isn’t!"
Replies
13
Views
2K
No Limit
No Limit
FrostedxB
Italian Mafia Patriarch Killed...
Replies
3
Views
487
ríomhaire
ríomhaire
RakuraiTenjin
Federal Government Sues Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Replies
6
Views
990
RakuraiTenjin
RakuraiTenjin
Back
Top