Judge grants U.S. deserter's last-ditch effort to stave off deportation

Source: Canadian Press

TORONTO — A high-profile American war dodger won a desperate bid to stay in Canada on Monday as a judge refused to allow Canada to send him back to the United States to face prosecution for desertion.

Jeremy Hinzman's reprieve from scheduled deportation on Tuesday came after Federal Court heard an Immigration official had made serious errors in assessing the hardships the deserter and his family would face if forced back to the U.S.

"Of course, we're elated - we weren't expecting this much, so it's a nice surprise," Hinzman said moments after the decision was released.

"(But) we're not out of the woods at all. We just have a stay of removal."


Read more: http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iXiXERfSZmX3FKlhXl-NIp_cDWog

Little Stevie Blunder violated the will of 2/3 of the Canadian people and our duly elected Parliament by allowing this to happen. I know he wants a majority badly, and in the wake of the unpopularity of both Iraq and Afghanistan and some of Minister Ritz's comments about the listeriosis crisis, I find the timing of this ruling to be quite interesting...Perhaps the PM wants to take the heat off he and his party's lunacy and extremism. The Hidden Agenda charge is bullshit; anybody familiar with Harper's background and his allies know that we should be much more afraid of his "open agenda" (I believe it was either Jack Layton or Paul Martin that brought this up. :-)). Anybody who gives a fig about a few NDP candidates stuffing their face with ganja when Harper and his allies are the real problem does not deserve to be given a ballot.

The easier thing to do would have been to deploy with his unit and shutdown his moral and ethical compass.

We must support these heroes for it takes more courage to fight for peace than to kill for Wall Street.

Jingoistic fools, the lot of them.

to hear of this reprieve....hope it's permanent.

He may be trying to kick the can so that an Obama Administration (God willing their will be one) will cut him a break.

Well, yes, generally those who commit crimes and their families endure hardships during the person's punishment for the crime.

It is not a difficult, nor abnormal, concept.

Our invasion of Iraq is on the same moral and legal plane as Germany's invasion of Poland.

Any questions?

Kucinich is working hard on Bush. Now back to this soldier's crime of desertion.

UCMJ: "Any person subject to military law who deserts or attempts to desert the service of the United States shall, if the offense be committed in time of war, suffer death or other such punishment as a court-martial may direct"

The maximum 18 months he's likely to get is rather light considering the potential punishment.

I know pro-authoritarian jerkoffs don't understand that fact, so for anyone reading: it is every soldier's duty to defy illegal orders.

This occupation of a country that was not a threat to us and did not attack us is illegal.

The deserters are the real heroes among our soldiers. The rest are, at best, unwitting dupes whose love of country and desire to protect it are being abused by the criminals who launched this unjustified war.

Many troops are against the war but still go anyways. I have been against the war before it started but I still enlisted (primarily because of economic situation) and served in the war. Most don't know the reasons, many believe it is for oil but serve because there are other troops there. I choose to pick a non-combat MOS but it didn't matter as I could've been assigned to Gun Truck duty but I was just a M915A2 Tracktor-Trailor driver. The Army is a big tent, every kind of background, education, upbringing, and philosophy you can think of apart of one organization. In the Army you see 18 year olds playing pool with 40 year old troops, you don't see that kind of thing in the real world.

fully integrated institution in the United States.

I still can't find the part that applies here. You are also missing the point of illegal orders: He must be given a specific order to do a specific thing that is illegal under US law, the UCMJ or appropriate regulations. A deployment order doesn't qualify since "Show up here" is not a crime.

The military is about OBEYING ORDERS. You fail to do so at your own risk, even when the order is illegal. You could be shot on the spot for disobeying, hoping the one who gave the order will himself be brought to justice. But you would most likely face a court martial where you would try to prove exactly how the order was illegal. If you succeed you get off and the one who gave the order will probably be facing his own court martial.

But you don't just get to defy an order and then run away.

In the 90s Specialist Michael New thought it was illegal order to wear UN insignia and refused to deploy to Macedonia where he would be forced to wear it. Instead of deserting he challenged the legality of the order in court. He lost, but he did so honorably. He also only got a bad conduct discharge, no jail.

In this case there is Supreme Court precedent for an order from the President being illegal, so this deserter could have challenged it. Lieutenant Ehren Watada has a much better case, and got a mistrial on the question of the war's legality. But he volunteered to serve in Afghanistan, just not Iraq even at a desk job, so he wasn't trying to shirk his duty.

he has shown admirable restraint in the face of stupidity, he's a hero. Any man who allows orders/duty to override his consciousness of right and wrong, good and evil is not a man at all.

Was he told to shoot an innocent Iraqi? Maybe he would be sent over to pave roads and build schools for Iraqis.

"The war is wrong" is not an excuse. Soldiers do NOT get to make policy decisions. They can only make decisions based on their conscience for individual actions they are ordered to perform. Even if the war itself is illegal, an order to help build an Iraqi elementary school clearly is not. An order to engage armed insurgents in combat is not. An order to torture prisoners is illegal, so a soldier could refuse to do it, confident that he would prevail at his court martial if it even got that far.

What you do not do is run away. You make your objections and stand your ground.

Then hung until dead.

Then there'd might be one step toward justice re. the devastation and slaughter in Iraq.

In the meantime, I hope Canadian justice system does the right thing now, as was done during the Vietnam war, because US conscientious objectors are the best of the best. They contribute enormously to Canada over both the short and long haul.

He is a coward who deserted his fellow soldiers. He is a sham conscientious objector, as he's said he would fight in certain circumstances, just not this one. He enlisted voluntarily probably thinking he'd never have to fight, but I'm sure he wanted the paycheck and benefits paid for by us.

If he'd been drafted as it was in Vietnam he'd have some sympathy. Maybe even some sympathy if he were a true conscientious objector and asked for a discharge. But he's just a deserter. Give him his less than 18 month slap on the wrist, his rightful federal felony conviction, his dishonorable discharge, and be done with him.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and spout nonsense in public: learn some law.

I would fight in certain circumstances. I would not fight on the side of the US in Iraq in the present circumstances. I object, conscientiously, to the prosecution of an illegal war using illegal means. And I object, in my own entirely reasonable self-interest, to being exposed to the possibility that I will be participating in unlawful acts -- acts condemned by the international community, and by the US itself, by its adherence to international instruments defining torture as a war crime, for starters. And Hinzman's right to refuse to do so is protected by law. And what that actually means is that it is not permissible to punish someone for exercising that right.

Canada has adhered to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm

which defines a refugee as a person who has a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".

You can learn about interpretation of that Convention here:

http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3d58e13b4.pdf

and specifically, for our purposes, in articles 167 ff, "B. Deserters and persons avoiding military service".

168. A person is clearly not a refugee if his only reason for desertion or draft-evasion is his dislike of military service or fear of combat. He may, however, be a refugee if his desertion or evasion of military service is concomitant with other relevant motives for leaving or remaining outside his country, or if he otherwise has reasons, within the meaning of the definition, to fear persecution.

170. There are, however, also cases where the necessity to perform military service may be the sole ground for a claim to refugee status, i.e. when a person can show that the performance of military service would have required his participation in military action contrary to his genuine political, religious or moral convictions, or to valid reasons of conscience.

171. Not every conviction, genuine though it may be, will constitute a sufficient reason for claiming refugee status after desertion or draft-evasion. It is not enough for a person to be in disagreement with his government regarding the political justification for a particular military action. Where, however, the type of military action, with which an individual does not wish to be associated, is condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct, punishment for desertion or draft-evasion could, in the light of all other requirements of the definition, in itself be regarded as persecution.

Your concern for this man's military comrades is noted.

Your complete lack of concern for the people being tortured and killed and deprived of the basic necessities of life by the US government and military is also noted.

"I would fight in certain circumstances."

Then you do not qualify for conscientious objector status. You must be against fighting, period.

On 171 you ignored the sentence before your bolded text. Unfortunately, the action in Iraq hasn't been completely condemned. It's iffy at best. I point you to the following from the Canadian Federal Court:

"An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace ... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. ... "

His personal politics are simply irrelevant. Conversely, the claims that he could be held liable for participating in the illegal war are ridiculous:

"... Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper."

If a soldier has a say in where he fights, then he has criminal liability for the fighting. That is why the tradition of thousands of years is that the soldier has no personal liability in the fight in general, only liability for his individual conduct during the fighting.

"Your complete lack of concern for the people being tortured and killed and deprived of the basic necessities of life by the US government and military is also noted."

Where do you get that from? That is a completely separate issue that needs to be taken up with those politicians responsible, and I'd include the Democratic leadership for sidelining every attempt Kucinich has made to bring accountability. That is unless you'd like to charge each and every one of our soldiers with a war crime just for being there, even those whose every day jobs include helping the Iraqi people.

:eyes:

He did neither. He first tried to avoid duty by saying he was a conscientious objector, and that didn't work because he was lying. Then he tried the "war is illegal" tact although as a soldier that isn't his place to say. I'm not even sure if he thinks the war is illegal. He is just a coward trying to get out of his sworn duty by any means necessary.

How about a deal. He gives back our money that was used to train him, house him and fill his bank account. Then he can get a dishonorable discharge and get on with his life.

You seem to know an awful lot about Jeremy Hinzman. Your sources are ...?

None but having known some deserters. It's a single mold, a coward, who will use whatever excuse will get him out of duty. He found a good one since many will support him solely because the war itself is unjust and look completely past his crime.

Everyone who deserts is the same. Got it. You are something.

That is all I need to know. If they believe so strongly that they are right they can stand and challenge it in court like Ehren Watada. If they don't believe so strongly then they really just don't want to do their duty, using their supposed belief as the excuse.

Thanks for clarifying.

I can't believe you praise someone getting their life in the US severly affected for avoiding an illegal US invasion. As far as committments and oath, it surely didn't give back as much as I have given for the Army.

were/are your bank accounts filled being in the military? The active military I know don't have what I'd call "filled bank accounts", but maybe I just know the wrong types.

Got it. thanks for clarifying. You are something.

NT!

Then you do not qualify for conscientious objector status. You must be against fighting, period.

I did not suggest that I would qualify for conscientious objector status as defined in US law. Fuckin duh.


Just fyi, btw:

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/504056

The Rapid City, S.D., native joined the 82nd Airborne in January 2001. Three years later, he went AWOL and fled to Toronto just before his unit was scheduled to leave for Iraq.

After 2 1/2 years in the military, "I knew I wasn't a killer," he said. He was assigned to a non-combat role during a tour in Afghanistan.

The US had not invaded Iraq in January 2001, I believe. You might want to revise some of your comments.


You quote the Federal Court of Canada:
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2006/2006fc420/2006fc420.html

An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace ... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict.

Well, the FC has also held that someone convicted in Canada of drug trafficking is guilty of a violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations -- when the well-known fact (known, for example, to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers) is that only someone who wields state power can be guilty of violating the purposes and principles in the United Nations Charter. I wouldn't place huge stock in the ability of the Federal Court of Canada to interpret and apply international law. Especially given that what you are quoting, which goes on as follows, is in direct contradiction to the drug trafficking decisions:

I am of the view that a refusal to be involved in the commission of a crime against peace could indeed potentially bring a senior member of a government or military within the ambit of paragraph 171. A crime against peace cannot occur without a breach of international law having been committed by the State in question: ...

You may have missed that my point was somewhat different from the argument made by Hinzman's lawyer (whom I know). I had prepared a case based on the passage I quoted from the Handbook many years ago, when it had not yet been argued in Canada; fortunately, an amnesty intervened and I did not have to argue it, because my client would have made a very poor test case.

My point was that TORTURE, which we are all perfectly well aware the US has engaged in, and which is only one of its breaches of international law in Iraq (indiscriminate murdering of non-combattants being another), is "the type of military action, with which an individual does not wish to be associated", and IS "condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct". As is made very clear in international conventions to eliminate torture, for example, whether or not the international community has chosen to condemn this particular instance of the practice of torture or not.


If a soldier has a say in where he fights, then he has criminal liability for the fighting. That is why the tradition of thousands of years is that the soldier has no personal liability in the fight in general, only liability for his individual conduct during the fighting.

What is your point here?

The war itself involves multiple, grave breaches of international law.

Where, however, the type of military action, with which an individual does not wish to be associated, is condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct, punishment for desertion or draft-evasion could, in the light of all other requirements of the definition, in itself be regarded as persecution.

Your complete lack of concern for the people being tortured and killed and deprived of the basic necessities of life by the US government and military is also noted.
Where do you get that from?

Oh ... maybe the fact that you have expressed no such concern, and called someone whose own concern led him to refuse to participate in the war effort in question a coward and advocated that he be punished ...


That is unless you'd like to charge each and every one of our soldiers with a war crime just for being there, even those whose every day jobs include helping the Iraqi people.

If I were one of those soldiers, and it occurred to me that one day the Iraqi people might have a government of its own making, I must just be a wee bit concerned about just that happening.


But that is not the issue. The issue is that a member of the US military will be punished for refusing to participate in a type of military action that is condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct. I have not understood why Hinzman's lawyer chose a different tack, but arguing against that case with me is battling straw.

I'm sure his unit didn't really miss him, honestly one individual isn't going to make a huge difference considering there are way may troops in Iraq then there needs to be. I hate to see you feel so angry about someone who stood up to his convictions.

And prison.

For sending Americans to an illegal "supreme crime" war of aggression.

NT!