• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. Military Deserters in Canada Megathread

The only 'signal' Paul Martin is sending is that he has dithered himself into a bad corner â “ surrounded by rocks and hard places.

Missile Defence was, is and will remain a contentious issue.   Jean Chrétien, crafty old political hack that he was, laid all the groundwork for an unpopular, but strategically essential decision to join up â “ then he left it to Martin to announce the bad news to a sceptical but, all the same, compliant and prepared Canadian populace.

Martin dithered.

Opposition grew â “ especially in the leftish, anti-American, Toronto based Parrish/Godfrey wing of the Liberal Party and in French speaking Québec.

Martin dithered.

George W. Bush very explicitly asked Canada to join.

Opposition grew, more and faster ... Martin dithered more and more.

Well, you get the picture.   Martin needs to improve relations with Washington â “ desperately needs that; Washington wants Canada's open, public support for missile defence â “ expressed by joining the programme.   Martin must hold Toronto and make big gains in Québec if he ever wants to form a majority government ... Toronto and Québec hate missile defence.   The Bloc hates missile defence, too, and if Martin says 'No!' the Bloc will claim, and get, most of the credit.   Jack Layton will use missile defence to try to steal Liberal seats in Toronto.

Talking about deserters in the same breath as legitimate immigrants is even more dithering.   Paul Martin is pathetic.

Dithering doesn't pay ... not in politics, not in army operations, either, by the way.
 
Is it just me or is Martin turning out to be even more idiotic than Chretien?  He won't contribute to ABM with either money or by allowing them to build facilities on Canadian soil...he uses the "weponization of space" blurb to justify it, which clearly shows he has no clue what he's talking about....then he goes on to say (in a roundabout way) that we're willing to take in deserters....and finaly he tops it off with this little blurb:

"....but finally decided same-sex weddings were a right entitled to all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation."

I couldn't help laughing at the last one.  I'm just wondering if he actually said it that way or if the reporter goofed.

Anyway, I'm starting to see a pattern here.  Both Martin and Chretien started off their terms as PM's seeming fairly intelligent, and then degenerated into utter imbecility.  Maybe someone should check the office for asbestos and lead-based paint.
 
S_Baker said:
If people want to emmigrate to Canada from the US, more power to them, however if they are members of the US military and are trying to get out of doing their commitment . . .
I don't see how he could conscionable make such an invitation unless:

A) he thinks the US is still fighting Vietnam and drafting soldiers, or

B) he believes people should be allowed to join a military of their own free will for a free ride and not be expected to live up to any commitments (like military duy) in return.


 
I would guess from the dithering he is doing and statements that appear that he is inviting signed up US soldiers to the north - as very poor staffing of his inside staff - and possibly Steven Harper should pay attention - let Martin talk - the more the better!

That pre-supposes there is a defence vote - which there isn't.

So - does the US hurry things along?

If so - how would that be?

In the early sixties the Pearson Liberals and political staff from the Democrats used the duncery of Diefenbaker against him at the polls see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SAN303D.html (this ref tags the time rather than the all view content)   - and with that was before the Autopact was announced in 1965

My point is many jobs came to Canada with the Autopact when we decided that the USA and Canada had mutual interests. At the same time we were the closest place that an expanding industrial Auto industry could rationalise its plants.

A well-equipped military that does not deploy a lot - still indicates mutual interests.

An under funded and stripped down military that - by its own admission needs a well earned break - may not if the auto industries have to rationalise again.

My readings say its only a matter of time until major offshore actions happen that move auto production to lower wage areas of the world.

You think it can't happen? Chevy Avalanche trucks come from Mexico... and they are very good looking trucks.

If we don't show some respect one way being a pumped up Army/Navy/Air force - GM can now email plant drawings anywhere in the world as a gesture of goodwill and foreign aid to help redress the lack of jobs in those areas which grow freedom fighters as well as they grow poppies.
 
Acorn said:
If Hinzman truly had courage of conviction he would face the consequences of his nation's legal system.
Che said:
As I see it he's had three chances to take the upper road:
...
3) Doing what Muhammad Ali/ MLK Jr. etc. have done and stood their ground and faced the consequences which is what civil disobedience is as far as I know.
CBH99 said:
Did he demonstrate courage in regards to his unit and fellow soldiers? No. But did he demonstrate courage in regards to standing up for personal beliefs? Perhaps.

CBH99,
I would say that the answer to both your questions is the same:  No.  He did not demonstrate courage in regards to his fellow soldiers or standing for his personal beliefs.  As was stated in the other to quotes, standing for his beliefs would have involved allowing a US court to decide (not Canadian refugee systems and Canadian courts). 

If his religious rights are being impinged on because he adopted a new religion & cannot get conscientious objector status, then why did he not choose to fight this issue in a US court?  Why did he not choose to fight in a court which could make a finding that would lead to change for himself and everyone else in his position? 

His desertion was about getting what he wanted for him.  It was not about making a stand. 
 
I remember we had a thread here about this guy when it first hit the news.   Comments were pretty much the same then as they are now.

He made a decision. Not one that I would make but i guess it's something he felt he had to do. He refused to follow his country to war and perform his duty as a soldier.   I don't know if he's afraid of dying, is afraid of committing war crimes or wants to simply enjoy free health care. He's the only one that can actually answer that. If he's religious then he might have some explaining to do when he dies.

In any case, he chose to run away and hide from the aftermath of his actions instead of accepting responsibility for them like a soldier. I don't care what his shitty justification for it is. He ran away instead of being an adult.   If he wants to claim this objector status then let him do it in the states. When you make a decision in the army, possibly wrong with consiquences, you accept it and carry on. Not run and hide from the platoon warrant and not come out until he promises not to be mad.

I remember   the previous thread making mention of people sending him threatening letters. Death threats and all that stuff. Frankly I couldn't be bothered to write the kid. If you send him a support letter he's going to post it for everyone to see (and piss us off). If you send him a hate mail he's going to delete it or post it and get sympathy and paint him self like a victim. Guys like this LOVE hatemail and they love playing the victim card.  
I have to admit, it does look bad for us soldiers as a whole when you have soldiers (or people signing their names as soldiers) threatening to rape the guy and his wife or murder them. (I remember there was a sort of anti-hinzmen type web page full of hate mail).   It paints the perfect picture of monsterous soldiers who will kill this guy if canada sends him home.

In the end I would much rather a soldier who wants to desert hiding in Canada rather then covering my ass in Iraq of Afghanastan.

edit: I should be more clear. I don't mean to say sending people like this "I think your wrong and heres why" kinda emails is bad. I sent one like that myself when this whole thing hit the news the first time to him, friends friends website and the opposing website.
I ment the over the top graphically violent stuff thats all.
 
U.S. army deserter denied refugee status in Canada
Last Updated Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:09:38 EST
CBC News
TORONTO - An immigration panel in Toronto has denied refugee status to a former paratrooper who fled the United States to evade the war in Iraq.

Jeremy Hinzman is seen as a deserter by the American military, but his supporters say he is a war resister who should be given refugee status in Canada.

Hinzman enlisted in the U.S. army three years ago as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division. He deserted last year, rather than go to Iraq, and moved to Canada with his wife and small child.

"It's a disappointing decision," Hinzman's lawyer, Jeffrey House, told CBC Newsworld after the panel made its ruling Thursday afternoon.

Hinzman sought refugee status because he was morally opposed to the war in Iraq and thought the U.S. invasion violates international human rights.

But the panel decided that Hinzman was not a conscientious objector.

Hinzman is now considering an appeal of the decision, House said.

In an interview several months ago Hinzman said he enlisted "for pragmatic reasons, because I wanted a college fund."



Its about time.....


 
While I applaud the decision, you just know this one ain't over. I can guarantee that the appeal has already been filed. Knowing our byzantine like Immigration structure (and I do) appeal(s) could last years before we get to toss this guy.
 
What bothers me the most is that wonderful appeal (and the original refugee claim) will most likely fall on the Canadian Taxpayer to boot...  fantastic.

T
 
  Now that the story has hit the media, I wouldn't be suprised if the granola eaters started petitioning our mr dithers to keep them here.
 
What an arse. If he was pragmatic, he would've applied for scholarships and bursaries. He ran away from the duty he swore to do. He promised legally to do as he was told, to be a soldier. You play the game, you take the pain, Cliches ad nauseum.
 
People like that disgust me. They enlist in their countries army take an oath yet run away when their country needs them. i would do anything to get into the CF and would go to war proud to be a soldier. Sure you'd probably be scared to go but it's in the job. That guy was just taking up a place that another person deserved.


my thoughts
 
"To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice." Confucius.

Off ya go to gitmo bro  :salute:
 
Hopefully this will disuade similar cowards from coming here. Personally I would make sure he spends as uch time as possible breaking big rocks into little rocks.

Island Ryhno said:
Off ya go to gitmo bro   :salute:

He's not a terrorist, so he'll go to San Quentin.

 
Caesar said:
Hopefully this will disuade similar cowards from coming here. Personally I would make sure he spends as uch time as possible breaking big rocks into little rocks.


He's not a terrorist, so he'll go to San Quentin.

Actualy since he is a military deserter he wil most likely go to Ft. Levenworth.  But realy , who cares as long as he gets the hell out of my country
 
Morally opposed to the war in Iraq? Heh, funny he wasn't morally opposed to the education money, the health care benefits, the pay or any of the other perks he was getting.

But it isn't in the job description to decide what orders to follow and which to not follow. He's there to do the job his government pays him to do, nothing more and nothing less. If he isn't willing to do that, he shouldn't have signed on the dotted line.

P.S. Another desserter just turned up in Toronto. Hallelujah! 
 
Hope Jeremy enjoys the cell he's got waiting....
 
Back
Top