Deserters of the Storm

Found this in the local rag here yesterday and thought it would be interesting to see what others have to say.

[u][b]It’s not his war

U.S. deserters put their faith in Canada [/b][/u]
By Jason Botchford, Toronto Sun

[b][i]"Hundreds of American soldiers are preparing to come to Canada if this country again opens its doors to war resisters.
Toronto lawyer Jeffry House, who is representing Jeremy Hinzman’s landmark refugee case, said 200 have contacted him alone, mostly since George W. Bush was re-elected in November, looking for a way out.
Darrell Anderson knows why.
Seven months in combat
After serving in combat in Baghdad for seven months, the 22-year-old Kentucky-bred soldier turned his back on his home, his family – including his 4-year-old daughter – and his country to come to Toronto two weeks ago so he didn’t have to go back to Iraq and train his gun on one more innocent child.
He is the most recent soldier to desert the American army and come to Canada…

An estimated 5,500 men and women have deserted since the invasion of Iraq, reflecting Washington’s growing problems with troop morale…

During the Vietnam War, Canada had one of the most open immigration policies in the world. People who showed up at the border were given “landed-immigrant” status on the spot…

The United States Army treats deserters as common criminals, posting them on “wanted” lists with the FBI, state police forces and department of homeland security border patrols…"[/i][/b]
canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSu … 13848.html

I, for one, hope the present govt. would issue a Trudeau-like decree and roll out the welcome wagon for those wishing to conscientiously object to fighting for something they have stopped believing in and a president and an administration they no longer hold credible.

I must also add that some of the most incredible teachers I’ve known were Vietnam era conscientious objectors–those that had the guts to cross the border–so I am, perhaps, a bit biased on this issue.

At the core of this issue, I think, is the right of a govt. to force its soldiers to fight when they have lost the will to do so. There should be a provision to grant dishonourable discharges to soldiers who have lost the will to shed blood, shouldn

Old news, already discredited. The number you quote is the lowest since 2001. Most of those who desert have done so because they are wanted on criminal offenses.

The Canadians are more than welcome to them.

2004 US Amry deserters: 2,376
2001 US Army deserters: 4,597

2004 USMC deserters: 1,297
2001 USMC deserters: 1,603

washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking … -3476r.htm

[quote=“Wookiee”]After serving in combat in Baghdad for seven months, the 22-year-old Kentucky-bred soldier turned his back on his home, his family – including his 4-year-old daughter – and his country to come to Toronto two weeks ago so he didn’t have to go back to Iraq and train his gun on one more innocent child.
[/quote]

How bankrupt, morally, intellectually, and spiritually, must this guy be to only see his choices in these terms?
.
.
.
Or, is that just the way the writer sees it? In which case the writer is bankrupt, morally, intellectually, and spiritually.

OOC

how many children did he train his gun on? was he ordered to or did he do it on his own? :unamused:

U.S. Soldiers Head North To Seek Asylum reported by KNTV-TV

I don’t blame them in a way. Pearl Harbor was the only time that US soil was actually invaded. WW1, 2, Grenada, the contra thing, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan—all those were wars fought by some excuse. If military people run away to Canada, I’d say they’re making a smart move. If the US government would simply leave other countries alone, there wouldn’t be all this strife.

You don’t see Norway invading Namibia, do you? We’re not hearing a lot from Brazil on the subject. What’s the latest from Myanmar??? Not a god damn thing, because those countries have little to do with the US and never bother others.

The saddest thing, in my opinion, is that US taxpayers are actually PAYING for this stuff. That means (as terrorists have said) that US people are targets of terrorism wherever they go in the world. This is because they are funding the invasions AND some are responsible for voting for the president. This means that “people of the earth are free to travel, except for US citizens.” Was the US supposed to be a country founded on …i don’t know…something related to “freedom”.??? It’s very ironic that all this war, destruction, death, and killing should somehow be in the name of “freedom”.

Canada may be too damn cold for me, but I don’t blame any US people for going there. At least they’ll have a sense of security.

Good riddance to the cowardly little shits.
If they are unable to summon the personal responsibility needed for US citizenship then let them scuttle off to where their sorry selves are welcomed.
No reason for them to be in the military in the first place.
Old military expression - “Garbage in - Garbage out.”

At least they are saving the lives of any fellow Soldiers who may have had to depend on them in times of battle.

(and yes, that phrase was around long before personal computers hit the scene)

[quote=“Wookiee”][quote]U.S. deserters put their faith in Canada
By Jason Botchford, Toronto Sun
. . .
Jeremy Hinzman’s landmark refugee case. . . .[/quote][/quote]

I think that’s an interesting case. It’s an administrative law case being heard by Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division. Hinzman’s initial argument, or prospective initial argument, was that he deserved refugee status because the war in Iraq is illegal. (Please note that that was Mr. Hinzman’s argument, not mine, nor am I asserting that the war was legal). It appears this argument was not accepted (perhaps not even allowed, but I’m not sure) by the hearing officer.

Here’s some more information (hopefully accurate), from a reprint of a November 4, 2004 Toronto Star article:

[quote]Government lawyers argued at Hinzman’s immigration hearing that the entire question of the war’s legality was “irrelevant.”

Earlier this month, the federal immigration officer adjudicating the case agreed. He ruled that Hinzman may not use the legal basis of the Iraq war to justify his still unresolved claim.[/quote]
commondreams.org/views04/1130-29.htm

This is from the (Glasgow) Sunday Herald, December 5, 2004:

[quote]Unable to argue that the Iraq war is illegal, Hinzman and his lawyer have another plan of attack.

Just FYI, in the strictest sense, Pearl Harbor was not an invasion but an attack. No Japanese ground soldiers were sent to Pearl Harbor. This is beside the point, but it is worthy of note to prevent misinterpretations.

Just FYI, in the strictest sense, Pearl Harbor was not an invasion but an attack. No Japanese ground soldiers were sent to Pearl Harbor. This is beside the point, but it is worthy of note to prevent misinterpretations.[/quote]

Also, I believe Japanese ground forces did invade some of the Aleutians Islands during WWII. While Alaska was not a state at the time, it was a protectorate I believe and we did have US Army troops fighting them there.
This technically qualifies as an ‘invasion of US soil.’

The refugee board will make a decision sometime in February, but it probably won’t be the end of the matter.

Apparently, in his claim for refugee status, his lawyers argued that if he and the other deserters return to the US, they

Yeah, I saw the site. In the parts of the transcripts (from another site) that I read, Hinzman comes across as a good witness for himself, at least in my opinion.

Just my opinion, but it might have been a tactical mistake to call former Staff Sergeant Massey as a witness. Not that he was a bad guy or anything, it just didn’t seem all that relevant to Hinzman’s case.

On a trivial note, I noticed that counsel in the hearing referred to each other as “my friend,” which I think is an interesting, maybe a good, practice. Also the judge was nice.

Unless I misread, Hinzman testified that he applied for conscientious objector status–not to get out of the Army, but to get out of playing a combat role–back in the States, then went to Afghanistan and then Iraq (with the 82nd Airborne). I think the Army said his first application was lost. I think he applied a second time and was turned down.

Counsel for the Crown asked him why he didn’t appeal, etc. I think that in doing so, she was hinting around at a “failure to exhaust appeals” sort of position. Not sure whether that would fly with that particular judge.

I read somewhere, and I think you mentioned, that if he loses as a refugee, there’s still a chance he can get in under some other status. I’m not clear on that, but I read something like that somewhere on the 'net.