home

U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 06:11:07 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by Last Night in Little Rock

Jeremy Hinzman, a U.S. soldier who deserted and fled to Canada rather than go to Iraq accusing the U.S. of war crimes, sought and was denied asylum by the Canadian government because he was not a conscientious objector.

The Canadian Federal Court granted review of the case Friday. See articles in the National Post and Globe and Mail.

The Google link on Hinzman's website also provides a glimpse of the Canadian press view of the War in Iraq.

Remember, Canada provided sanctuary for thousands who fled the draft rather than go Vietnam. It wasn't until the late 1970's that the Carter administration gave amnesty to try to get them back.

This is a chance for the Canadian courts to expand its Charter of Rights to reach asylum issues involving alleged war crimes and not just concientious objector status. It is doubtful that the war effort would even be noticably hampered by disaffected soldiers fleeing to Canada claiming we are war criminals for our conduct in Iraq, even if the Canadian government buys into the argument, which seems unlikely. Will Canada risk pi**ing off its greatest ally [but the UK is fighting alongside us in Iraq, not Canada] and trading partner? No telling how this will come out.

I have lawyer friends in Canada I regularly talk with, and I've been there three times since the war started. Frankly, they think George Bush is a dangerous man. Luckily, they only lump Bush voters with him.

< Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson | Jordan Bombers Identified, Wife in Custody >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing | 52 comments (52 topical)
    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    It should also be noted that besides being a beautiful country, Canada did make make some money in Vietnam:
    economy profited from the war by the sale to the American military between 1968 and 1973 of $2.7 billion worth of war materiel from guns to grenades to aircraft engines to military vehicles to boots to berets to napalm.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    As a Canadian, I agree. The majority of us scratch our heads when watching BuchCo's latest imperialistic neo-con tactics...however, I frequent many Blogs (ie AmericaBlog, TalkLeft, Corrent, HuffPo, ThinkProgress etc) and definitely DO NOT lump all of you together (in terms of etics, values, political ideologies etc). With that said though, I think that Bush and the Republisham party are, once again, solidifying our desire to extricate ourselves from such a dependant relationship...ie we are currently expanding trade relationships with other countries (trade blocs) and enjoying a nice surplus while south of the 49th, well, a trade deficit would be putting it mildly...anyway, I digress, my point is we still like most Americans, but the country as a whole is becoming radioactive...

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#3)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    Now what on Earth does that have to do with anything Wile?

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#4)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    He's a political refugee. Wile, Nice hijack attempt. "I am troll, hear me wimper!"

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    "He's a political refugee" Actually, I was thinking more in terms of him being a coward and deserter. He voluntarily joined the armed forces. It is ridiculous to think that our service personell can pick and choose their assignments. The guy is an insult to all of our active and honorably discharged soldiers and he should go to prison. Although I, like this soldier, am opposed to this war and its creator, who sadly is our Comander in Chief, that does not give any service person the right to break his oath.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    BB-So the nazi's are innocent in your book too? 'I was just following orders' defense, sounds right to you? All the nazi's who fled Germany so that they would not be part of an unjust war should be hunted down and prosecuted for desertion? Hahaha you put a different spin on nazi hunters. How sad for you and your children. In my book the guy is a hero for standing up to an illegal and unjust war.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    Billy Boy doesn't really believe in freedom. He only believes in following orders and marching in a straight line like the loyal citizen of a totalitarian regime. In a free country, BB, it IS YOUR DUTY AS A FREE CITIZEN to stand up for what you believe in and say NO, whether you are a civilian or partial military slave.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    BB, How can you personally disagree with a war and then force a fellow citizen to go along? If you are in the military and you are the victim of political fraud, which today's service people are, then that oath you took is moot, the contract you sign has been violated by the government, and you have every right and duty to stand up and actually defend freedom by saying no, not simply march in line and carry out orders you KNOW are immoral, counterproductive, and just plain stupid. This is still America, and freedom requires risk. A soldier saying no is risking more than any of us ever will in engaging in a act of freedom. Doing what your government says does not require a lick of freedom. In fact, it is the opposite of freedom. What I think makes you uncomfortable about this is that it IS discomforting. But freedom means nothing in the arena of the safe and tidy and harmless.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    Johnny, Che: If you click more, you will see Vietnam was addressed in TL's posting. No hijack or troll invovled.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    sorry boys, but the guy breached his voluntarily entered into contract. if he truly had any integrity or honor, he'd do his job, then come home and protest. he doesn't get to decide where and when he will serve, he abrogated that right the moment he signed on the dotted line. if he feels so strongly that the war is illegal, he has an option: he can refuse to follow what he considers to be an illegal order. of course, to do that means he has to stay here and probably go through a court martial proceeding. clearly, he isn't ready to do that. don't forget, he didn't get drafted, he enlisted. big, huge difference.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    Squeak - Another Leftie equating America with Nazi Germany. How easy you make if for the Right to defend their positions. Dadler - Come on. Is "political fraud" the best you can do? TT:FD - I agree. Less contact between the US and Canada would be great. Now, would you please quit whining about your economy?

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    cpniva, So when the government OBVIOUSLY violates that contract, a soldier is still screwed? Makes not a whit of sense. And would YOU trust a court martial system? Of course not, but understanding this kid's POV requires imagination. My family knows a kid who is being prosecuted for refusing to go back after being badly wounded, so pardon me for speaking from experience. The system is wretched, and a disgrace to freedom. That all-important contract is a two-way agreement, which you seem to overlook entirely, and it has been consistently violated by the side with power, the government.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    Jim, Fraud is fraud. And this is political in nature. Or do you think the military/government incapable of violating their "contract" with a soldier? The second they tell a willful lie about why they're going to war, which they have done time and time again and continue to this day, then that contract has been violated. Or is killing people on behalf of your nation not serious enough to hold the system to the fire? Again, we disagree entirely and completely. And I also have a family member being continually used and abused by this government and military leadership. Pardon me for considering them worthless sacks of sh*t, whom I wouldn't p*ss on if their hearts were on fire. Anything else?

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    cpinva-Knowledge and insight can change ones prior beliefs even if one "signed on the bottom line".
    if he truly had any integrity or honor, he'd do his job, then come home and protest.
    Do you really think that signing a contract requiring the killing of as many people as possible because Bush has decided that they are terrorists or enemies of democracy trumps saving lives by escaping to Canada. "Integrity or honor" is a fools game when it is only one side has it in their rulebook, or since the concepts are fluid it can be argued that the honorable position is to desert and flee. Adherence to a contract to kill when it becomes clear that it is murder for Bush is dumb and immoral.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ spewed: "Now, would you please quit whining about your economy?" I'm actually quite happy with our approach on full-employment, massive trade surplus, our recent ascension to #2 in oil stockpiles in the world, our strengthening dollar, jeesh I could go on...the only thing I am concerned about, is that we're tethered to a sinking ship a little too much still (metaphorically speaking of course in regards to the US economy)...well, actually, to be truthful I could still complain about your country's disregard for the rulings of trade org's it belongs to, in particular the on-going disregard of WTO, NAFTA panel decisions re the US and its unfair and punitive tariffs on our softwood lumber...but then again we're beginning to open up trade with the pacific rim and most recently with Australia for our lumber, which is excellent since it further distances ourselves from the US economy and the reliance that brings...

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    But president Bush hasn't changed the American foreign policy at all. After all, the United States has a history of over 200 years of imperialistic wars. If this soldier voluntarily signed the dotted line to become a paid killer it's a little late now to get cold feet.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    oh, one more thing... JimakaPPJ: "I agree. Less contact between the US and Canada would be great." Yes, that speaks volumes regarding the neo-con isolationist policies, just keep believing that and soon there'll be no one to dispute b/c no one will care what you have to say...isolation will do that eventually ;)

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    "I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) 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 REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD."
    Notice the Constitution comes first. The army via his superiors have already abrogated their responsibility to the Constitution by only charging low level thugs with abuse when plainly it was ordered by their superiors, starting with the WH. bushco violated the constitution, his superiors violated the constitution thus his contract was voided.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    TT:FD I just might be applying soon. And I'm from Southern Cali. It's getting depressing here. Like a giant monopoly game that no one wants to remember the rules for, except the people getting screwed. But she's my country, and I love her. We both just need some quality time alone. Not easy to get in this glorious stew of humanity. We all may blow each other's heads off one day in mass rioting, but for the time being we can still wave the big foam "We're #1!!" finger. The weather's nice, tho. Too nice. I've become soft as cake.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    Dadler - You keep on promising, but never delivering. Reminds me of a girl I knew... ;-) BTW - I wish your brother well, but he joined. He wasn't drafted. For you to make false charges against Bush based on your stated concern for him is unseemingly. TT:FD writes:
    our recent ascension to #2 in oil stockpiles in the world,
    Now, if you could only get it to market without crossing US territory. ;-) And your unemployment rate is??
    The unemployment rate dipped 0.1 percentage points to 6.6%, the lowest in three decades.
    6.6% The lowest in three decades? And you are proud? Come on. We are around 5% and consider that, if I believe your US allies on this blog, barely acceptable. Funny. Very funny.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#21)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    sorry dadler and squeaky, you're both wrong, without question. the contract isn't really bilateral, in the commonly accepted sense of the term, it's unilateral. by design, the gov't holds all the cards. it's kind of hard to run a military any other way. this is explained before you sign up. it's been that way since day one, no surprises. if, after agreeing to the terms, you find you have moral qualms, you can go the conscientious objector route. again, that does require you to stay and fight for it. let's be blunt: no one is asking this kid to go to dachau and shove people into gas, or round up iraqis in the middle of the night and send them to concentration camps, though gitmo is coming darn close. he isn't being asked to be a nazi. simply put, he's being asked to follow legal orders. it just so happens that they're orders he doesn't like. anyone who enlists kind of knows this up front. same thing with the national guard and the reserves. what you think, versus the reality, may be two different things. oh well. canada has nothing to do with this, it's a matter of one person failing to honor his freely entered into obligation.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    cpinva-
    let's be blunt: no one is asking this kid to go to dachau and shove people into gas, or round up iraqis in the middle of the night and send them to concentration camps, though gitmo is coming darn close. he isn't being asked to be a nazi.
    (emphasis mine) By your logic even if Jeremy Hinzman was asked to do heinous things he would sill be wrong in deserting....or are you suggesting that there is a vindication line that has not yet been crossed?

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#23)
    by Rick B on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    cpinva, Even soldiers who voluntarily enlisted rather than be drafted are required to refust to undertake an illegal order. Iraq is itself a war crime. Following orders to attend that party is itself a criminal act.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#24)
    by Rick B on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    Mar, "If this soldier voluntarily signed the dotted line to become a paid killer it's a little late now to get cold feet." Why too late? He signed on the dotted line to defend America. The Bush administration changed the rules. The contract is broken by the invasion of Iraq FOR NO REASON THAT DEFENDS AMERICA!

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#25)
    by chris on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    On the "he signed up" issue: On conscientious objection, at least, the UCMJ and DOD directives are already quite clear: yes, people's beliefs do change. Both the main conscientious objector directive (DOD 1300.6) and the service regs (e.g. AR 600-43) acknowledge this, and case law has since established what the courts call as "crystallization point," when one's evolving beliefs go pop! and the member realized they're now incompatible with war and preparations for war. What doesn't exist yet are specific cases where war crimes are the reasons for the changed beliefs. It looks like, for better or for worse, there may be many more cases like Hinxman's (and Pable Paredes, and Kevin Benderman's, and Aidan Delgado's) coming down the line.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    yo yo yo, la chinois is taken my dad's job like your domesstic economy...good luck....and that's enuf'

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#27)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    sqeaky, i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're being intentionally obtuse. the fact is, he isn't being asked to do heinous things, he's being asked to follow lawful orders. again, if he feels they're unlawful, he has options, within the system. he can also apply for co status. again, this requires that he stay and do it within the system. i refuse to make this guy a martyr, and so should you. he enlisted, in the military. it's the military's job to kill people, that's what they do, when necessary. anyone who doesn't understand that is an idiot. he decided he could no longer, in good conscionsce do this. fine, i understand. he should have applied for CO status. instead, he ran away, leaving his buddies to pick up his slack. that wasn't fair to his buddies, his family or the rest of us. whatever you may think of iraq (and i think very little of it), he violated a trust placed in him, just as much as bush has. to let him slide would be a slap in the face to everyone who has, in spite of their misgivings, done their duty. i refuse to see this as an honorable course of action on his part.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    cipvna-OK we disagree. Hopefully he is an example for his peers. You can not take Iraq out of the soldier in this example but you can take the soldiers out of Iraq.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    Rick B My point was, the Bush administration didn't change the rules. Earlier American aggressive wars also have been about "defending America" if you define the term to mean "defending American interests abroad" in a very general sense (ie political and corporate interests included). The Iraq war fits perfectly into this American tradition.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    The lefties total lack of knowledge about how the military works and what it really means to abaondon ones duties is yet another sign of why Americans don't trust them on whole when it comes to running the military and defending this country. See 2004. It is very simple. When you ENLIST in the military you give up the right to pick your battles. I have a freind who recently was called up from ready reserve and is he excited about it? No. Does he wish he didn't have to go? Yes. Is he giong to Iraq? Yes. Is he proud to serve despite wishing he didn't have to leave is family? Yes. Is he going to run off to Canada? No. He hasn't been active in more then 5 years and has way more of a case to run scared then this guy but he isn't because that's not the hand he was dealt. This loser is in the active military and is now just figuring out that he doesn't approve of the way our military is run? What a joke. You can lay down all the lame "unjust war" "nazi" comments you want but that is no different then a lame defense attourney saying his mother made him do it. Just like in the law feelings don't matter when they run up against the rules. He signed up. He should go to jail. Or he can spend the rest of his life in another country. His choice.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    slad-the right, and you in particular, have a total lack of knowledge about the responsibility granted to the leaders of our country not to wantonly shed the blood of our citizens and endanger national security because of greed, personal revenge, and lust for world power, all criminal acts befitting a fascist dictatorship, not America as we know it.
    Americans don't trust them on whole when it comes to running the military and defending this country.
    Looks like your quote is outdated and it applies to the current administration. The american people are fed up with you and your mendacious repug party.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#32)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    Squeky We meet again. First of all your first paragraph is an opinion and based on nothing bur your own personal beliefs. Some feel as you doo, some do not and some don't care. Iregardless it doesn't matter becasue the pres and this administration are making policy decisions and are subject to the rath of the opposition party, opinion polls and elections. That's it. This soldier broke the law. This is a legal site and last time I checked it wasn't illegal to make policy decisions that 60% of the country (currently) don't agree with but it was illegal to break the law. Elections are the way to enforce your opinions on policy decisions. The legal system is a way to enforce the law.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    Dadler.... Billy Boy doesn't really believe in freedom. Typical remark from the loonie left LOL.. you've been reading to much stuff posted by LA LA Paulie... In my book the guy is a hero for standing up to an illegal and unjust war. It's a good thing the military isn't run by "your book"! You never did serve did you? Wonder how I can tell? LOL Hey, I have an idea... why not put any orders you receive in the military up to a vote? That way a soldier would never have to do anything he doesn't want to.. how about that? Wouldn't that be nice. Then, only the blood thirsty racist killers would want to actually go a shoot somebody. Sound good Dadler? LMAO!!!!! Do have any idea of how stupid you sound? sailor.... Notice the Constitution comes first. It's not the soldier’s job to interpret the constitution and then decide if he agrees with the order or not! It's the soldier’s duty to follow orders! bushco violated the constitution, his superiors violated the constitution thus his contract was voided. Actually ... you give Dadler a run for his money on this one!

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    BB, I did elaborate on my admittedly cranky comment, but you paid no attention. I'll take my lumps for a bad opening line, but you made no attempt to address the serious inquiry I gave you: the contract is two-way, but you seem to think it can only be violated by the soldier. I'll ask again: how does a war started on lies and deceit (and not a little Bush family dysfunction) constitute on the part of the government any good faith toward those contracted soldiers? Or is it simply not possible for the government to violate THEIR part of the agreement?

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    BB, Also, I didn't see in the constitution where it's a free country only for those NOT strapping on a rifle for the powers that be. You really don't in this way seem to want a truly free country, but a free country for some of us. What are you afraid of if soldiers have the right to say NO to their government like the rest of us? Or do you want a military just as brainwasheed as a totalitarian nations'? If our soldiers' mission is a just one, if it's really an effort to DEFEND THE NATION, then you have no problems -- hell, I'D ENLIST if it were clear OUR COUNTRY were actually threatened. When you lie again and again to your troops about what they're fighting for, when you leave them hanging, send them on pointless drop-in-a-bucket missions, how on earth can you expect you're not going to be confronted with terrible morale and a lot of deserting and refusing to fight? And it is justifiable.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    slad-Damn straight that this is a legal site, and Bush is a liar who broke the law by fixing intellegence in order to convince congress that America was threatened by Saddam Hussein. Bush regularly lies to the American people, is not that the biggest crime a leader can commit? Until we get enough elected officials to prosecute Bush's crimes, we will have to honor those who dissent by choosing not to participate in murder, even if they got it wrong at first.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    Dadler... but you made no attempt to address the serious inquiry I gave you Are you serious? You really do think that people in the military should be able to challenge thier orders??? You have to understand that NO military force in the face of the earth could survive that way... don't you? I don't know what else to say here? If you really feel this is plausable... I'm speachless!!!! I'll ask again: how does a war started on lies and deceit .... constitute on the part of the government any good faith toward those contracted soldiers? First of all, how the war started is what you all challenge here all the time..... and, as long as you chose not to believe the truth, we really can't get past that. The rest of this is moot. Bush made a speach last weak calling out all those Dems that are now changing their tune... If you chose not to beleive they had the same info as GW,...then there is no point on here. Most on the left put their fingers in their ears and chant 'NANANANA' so as not to hear anything that might take them away from the libs talking points.... Let me ask you something.. If you truly beleive that Bush was able to hornswaggle ALL of those Dems...why aren't you calling for their heads and praising GW as a genious? And why aren't there any impeachment procedings? Why aren't all these Dems that were severly fooled by GW standing up and calling for his head...why aren't they calling their own press conference and "proving" thier point? I'll tell you why...becuase it's all BS!! As far as the second part ... (the good faith contract) ... when you join the military , you follow orders. It's not your call as a soldier to 'second guess' your superiors and decide if you want to follow orders or not. You sign your life away and you belong to Uncle Sam at that point...period! You really don't in this way seem to want a truly free country, but a free country for some of us Ths ONLY reason this is a 'free' country is becuase the people in the military did what they were told to do. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Marines assigned to take back Iwo Jima refused to go???? If the B-17 pilots refused to fly boming missions over Germany??? C'mon dadler...you have to see this as it is! hell, I'D ENLIST if it were clear OUR COUNTRY were actually threatened. Well...you should go sign up then...because this country now faces as evil an enemy as it ever has!

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#39)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    Well my two cents are if the solider felt the country was in breach of contract he should have stayed here and fought. Running away is a guilty act if he feels he was justified in his decision.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#40)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    BB, The Constitution does come first, think Mai Lai. "It's Johnny this and Johnny that, and chuck him out, the lout; But he's hero of his country when the guns begin to shoot" -Rudyard Kipling The soldiers are always screwed, it's the nature of the beast

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    Squeaky... You are a liar.. Please refrain from childish name calling until you have proof that I actaully lied... Do you know the meaning of the word? Show me where I lied please.... BTW... Nice link to a lefty talking point site....it's BS and you know it. You are parroting lefty lies... does that make you a liar? I think by your definition it does! Again...where is the outry from all the Dems ... Where's their press conference to the American people 'proving' that they were completely tricked by Bush? I'm waiting squeaky.....

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    Squeaky.... I was laughing so hard I forgot to add this.... Don't ever let me hear you say that we are just repeating RNC talking points after reading this BS you linked.... "And when someone demands proof, you repeat: The president is a liar. Now, suppose they say, "But you've shown me no proof. That's just your opinion. Prove it." Now what? You say, "The president is liar." .... That's right...supply no proof...Just keep repeating it .... and then link to other sites that talk about the Plame leak when we are discussing the military... LOL..I can't stop laughing... Nice link... Talk about lemmings.. LMAO

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    “Bush is a liar who broke the law by fixing intelligence in order to convince congress that America was threatened by Saddam Hussein.” Right you are and I have no argument there, but let’s now try to be honest with ourselves. Do you, or anyone on this site REALLY believe Bush will ever be charged with a crime? WAIT! Before you answer, I know we can hope, pray and even vote the correct people into office in the future, but even with that I can’t believe that anyone who is really honest with themselves will believe that Bush will be criminally charged. There are a lot of attorneys on this site, what do you honestly believe the chances are of that happening? With that said, “…we will have to honor those who dissent by choosing not to participate in murder, even if they got it wrong at first.” Well, if the administration is never held criminally accountable and the “war” never LEGALY declared illegal by a court of law, then this soldier has broken the law and should not be honored but prosecuted. There are laws that say a soldier can not desert. There has been no legal decision by a court about a serviceman’s right to disobey orders because the Commander and Chief lied and is a criminal. He should have used the legal channels available through the military rather than deserting his unit. Besides, if the Democrats really think this war is illegal and the soldiers have a right to desert, Hilary will pardon them all in January 2009 anyway.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    oops, I meant Commander in Chief.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    The issue isn't so much that ONE person has done this, it is that MANY MORE should start doing it. I am torn on this issue, having voluntarily served myself. I would see this man as brave if he hadn't run off to Canada but had chosen to fight the power HERE first. Still, The Bush League has taken US military personnel for suckers - and for so much fodder. Maybe if the Iraqi Freedom Fighters become much more violent, we might see many more like him.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    Lacvocat... Maybe if the Iraqi Freedom Fighters become much more violent, we might see many more like him. Freedom fighters???? Jesus, how did all you on the left become so screwed up & jaded? These people are killing their fellow Iraqis by the score and you call them Freedom fighters...? I don't think the people in Jordan refer to them as anything but murderers....which is what they are!

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    BB, If you'll notice my posts about the Democratic party, you'll see I'm no fan of the party apparatus. There are a lot of people in this country, however, pols and citizens, who believed what the president was saying. The only problem is, Bush knew he was cooking the intelligence. Come on, bro, we all know the Iraq fiasco was about this dysfunctional son from a f'd up powerful family, trying to do what his daddy couldn't. That is as clear as the nose on both our faces. As for soldiers questioning orders, they have a legal obligation not to carry out orders they know illegal, so your point doesn't really make sense beyond the histrionics of your disbelief.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    dadler... Bush knew he was cooking the intelligence. No...he wasn't / that isn't 'clear' at all. There is plenty of info out there to suggest (prove?) otherwise. If you wish I can provide many links but I'm sure you have seen them.... wether you chose to believe them or not is up to you. The fact of the matter remains, nobody on the left has gotten on TV, called a press conference and tried to disprove/dispute what Bush said in his last week. Why is that you think? Because every major politician on the left saw what Bush saw and came to the same conclusions. In fact many, including Kerry & Hilary made many statements before much of the intelligence was in, agreeing that Saddam had to go. It's all there, irrefutable, no matter how hard they try & spin it now! they have a legal obligation not to carry out orders they know illegal The UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) states that the only order you can legally disobey (Ie - illegal order) is one that calls for you to either kill yourself or one of your fellow soldiers.... period! But let's just say you are correct.... they could legally refuse... The 'legality' of this war is very much in dispute at the moment by many on the left, so how is a soldier out in the field suppose to "know" what is legal or not? Is he suppose to refuse all orders and then hope for the best? What kind of military would that be? Each soldier allowed to decide what he 'thinks' is legal??? Think about it...

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    BB, It would be a military full of genuinely free Americans. What are you afaid of, that Americans won't actually fight to defend their nation WHEN & IF it is ever in genuine peril? As it is, we have the perfect military-industrial-complex setup. Soldiers as slaves ready to do whatever their commanders say. I hate to bring up a sad cliche, but explain to me how this does not exonerate the armies of every Nazi-type regime in history. We are supposed to be better. Islamic extremists are not going to invade and take over our country, just as communists never were. They are bad, but making them and the situation worse is no solution. We all have a survival instinct, not a destructive instinct. Except for a small minority of humans. To play to the destructive, rather than the survival instinct -- to use violence over imagination -- is nothing but gasoline on the fire. Outsmart, outthink, outsell. We're supposed to be the tolerant, imaginative ones, able to handle the toughest criticism and answer it honestly. Instead we're playing the other team's game. A loser's strategy, not to mention a blood-soaked one. We disagree as strongly as two Americans could. Peace, my fellow free citizen.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    dadler.... What are you afaid of, that Americans won't actually fight to defend their nation WHEN & IF it is ever in genuine peril? See...that's the rub. Many of us (dare I say most?) think this country is in great peril now. If we take something like this and put it up for debate (while Paris burns so to speak) it could be too late. No military on the planet could survive if soldiers were allowed to question their orders... can't you see how chaotic that would be? Islamic extremists are not going to invade and take over our country, Although they lack the means to do this full scale, you have seen how much havoc, death and destruction they can cause. Do you have any doubt that they would have used a nuke in NY if they had one? I don't. I want my president to make sure that doesn't happen again. While I don't agree with how the war is being run, I do agree we needed to go there. Our borders need to be more closly monitored too. Islamic crazies will strike us again...every chance they get... and I for one would rather fight them there instead of waiting for the Sears tower to go down. Disagreement isn't a bad thing.... as long as things eventually get worked out ..... Peace be with you too.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    BB, there are many things that can make an order unlawful and therefore obligate a military member not to follow the order. I'll be happy to provide examples of the range of unlawful orders for anyone who is interested. Dadler - " any free country that needs to use unchallenged force and power to enlist its citizens to "defend" it, well, that's clearly not a nation egaged in honest defense " This is a country defended by an all volunteer military. You must visit with a recruiter, take entrance exams and go to a regional Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) as a minimum. It takes effort to get into the military. At any point prior to raising your hand and taking the oath of enlistment/commissioning you can walk away from the military and resume a normal civilian life with no obligation to the government. Your equation of a military enlistment to a slave contract is completely out of line. I challenge you to provide an example when SLAVES took similar steps to those I outlined above to enter their bonds of slavery. As a military member, I have the right to free speech as I'm exercising here. (I find it ironic that I can't freely express my ideas on this site without first registering, but I digress.) I have all the rights that every free American citizen has; however, because I recognize there are causes greater than myself,I willing accept the limits that the good order and discipline that a functional military require. Slaves also didn't get to define the term of their enslavement. In addition to having to work to get into the military, the member also gets to specify the length of his service. All military obligations are explained prior to signing the contract and taking the oath. A military member can't declare CO status in regard to a specific conflict. You must truly be against war in any form for any reason. A military cannot allow its members to question lawful orders or pick or choose which orders they will obey. To allow such behavior would render the army combat ineffective and dramatically increase casualties. Hinzman is a deserter. He failed to live up to his oath - plain and simple. There has been no evidence put forth to support the government defrauding the terms of his contract in any way. Because of his cowardice, someone else's son or daughter, mother or father will have to pull an extra rotation they would otherwise not be up for. He has decided that it is too risky for him to live up to his obligation, but he's willing to risk someone's loved one. I find it difficult to believe that this is the example any American would honestly praise. With the Nazi-regime reference are you attempting to equate the American government and the U.S. military with Hitler's Nazi regime? I am hopefull that I misunderstood the intent of that reference.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    showme... With the Nazi-regime reference are you attempting to equate the American government and the U.S. military with Hitler's I said nothing about Nazis. I was in the Air Force during Viet Nam and am very proud of my service. The whole intent of my post was to try and make it clear to some that military personel cannot chose which orders to follow. The military wouldn't be very effective...and wouldn't last long if that was the case.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    BB, The Nazi reference was directed to Dadler. From your comments I guessed that you had been in the service and you have every right to be proud. We agree that militaries cease to function if their members question and refuse to follow orders they dislike. My offer to provide examples of unlawful orders was for the benefit of those who haven't served in the military.

    U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing | 52 comments (52 topical)