Soldier Fights Extradition in Canada

07/16/2004 10:24:54 AM · #1

I thought this was an intersting story and am curious what other people think about it.

Soldier Fights Extradition in Canada

This is his personal website.
Here is another site by a conscientious objector.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/16/2004 10:42:12 AM · #2

Personally, I get disgusted when I see something like this. Now before you jump all over me, remember that now, unlike the vietnam war era, there is no military draft. The United States Military is made up completely of individuals who actively enlisted or joined. These individuals knew that someday they might be called upon to fight. In exchange, they voluntarily and willingly accepted all of the salary, training and benefits of the military.

Now, after having accepted and received all of these benefits, they have decided that they do not want to keep up their end of the bargain. I'm sorry but this is unacceptable. If a private company contracts for you to do a job, and they pay to train you, house you and provide a salary, and you accept all those benefits, do you then get to just decide to change your mind when you suddenly "don't agree" with the underlying princples?

If you ask me, these guys joined the military seeking to get all of the benefits it had to offer, but when it came time to hold up their end of the bargain, they just decided to cut and run. They can stay where they are for all I care, but as a taxpayer who paid for their training, housing and salary, I would like to see them have to reimburse the U.S. for all that they took.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/16/2004 10:50:13 AM · #3

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Now, after having accepted and received all of these benefits, they have decided that they do not want to keep up their end of the bargain. I'm sorry but this is unacceptable. If a private company contracts for you to do a job, and they pay to train you, house you and provide a salary, and you accept all those benefits, do you then get to just decide to change your mind when you suddenly "don't agree" with the underlying princples?

Perhaps you should ask this of a college football or basketball coach ... they seem to find it perfectly fine to "move on" whenever a better offer surfaces, regardless of the commitments they made to their school or recruits.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

07/16/2004 11:02:13 AM · #4

Perhaps President Bush should return the money paid to him by his so called "military service" when he went awol from the National Guard and lying about his service to the American public.

jab119

Canon EOS-70D

07/16/2004 11:08:22 AM · #5

what a weenie, I really hope that the US can get him back in the states and court martial him according the UCMJ. For those who dont know the UCMJ is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the laws of the US military.

When he took the oath he knew there may be a chance he would be involved in a war. That's the whole reason Militaries exist in the first place. AM I righ or am I wrong??

Now this guy will lose all his VA Benefits and any monies he contributed to the GI bill (the college fund), if he did that.

I may not agree with what is going on over there as many other people do not either, but still thats no excuse for a soldier to tuck his tail between his legs and head to Canada.

I really hope his wife has a good job wiht benefits to take care of their child.

James

07/16/2004 11:20:46 AM · #6

Originally posted by SoCal69:

I respect that way of looking at it. Normally I would probably agree with you but..

this is not a situation in which the war was not necessary (at least in Iraq). One of the stipulations of the US gov is that they will only send troops to die if its the last option and absolutely necessary. I think we all know now this is not the case.

Also, he had already spent over 8 months in Afghanistan. But again, Afghanistan was the real war, Iraq shouldnt be happening.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

07/16/2004 11:21:00 AM · #7

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Perhaps President Bush should return the money paid to him by his so called "military service" when he went awol from the National Guard and lying about his service to the American public.

Perhaps he should, you may be right...it depends on the specific facts of that case. But that isn't the issue that was raised here. The question that was asked involved this particular case. Why is it that people always like to turn the tables and say something to the effect of "Well, did it too!" Does that make what he did right? I don't think so. If you don't want to fight, don't join the military. If you don't want to play basketball, don't accept an athletic scholarship. IMHO, people have gotten into the bad habit of not taking responsibility for the commitments they have made. Similarly, if a basketball player or any other person makes a contractual commitment, they should honor it or suffer the consequences. The biggest problem in society today is that no one seems to want to take responsibility for their own actions... they want to blame everyone else for their situation.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

07/16/2004 11:21:51 AM · #8

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Right on! You sign a contract, you are made aware of what will happen if you break the contract. When you break the contract you pay the price.

But I don't understand how this can be turned into a Bush bash? I guess the Bush haters just can't pass up a chance to preach their conspiracies.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

07/16/2004 11:23:34 AM · #9

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by SoCal69:
Now, after having accepted and received all of these benefits, they have decided that they do not want to keep up their end of the bargain. I'm sorry but this is unacceptable. If a private company contracts for you to do a job, and they pay to train you, house you and provide a salary, and you accept all those benefits, do you then get to just decide to change your mind when you suddenly "don't agree" with the underlying princples?

Perhaps you should ask this of a college football or basketball coach ... they seem to find it perfectly fine to "move on" whenever a better offer surfaces, regardless of the commitments they made to their school or recruits.

I would ask the same of any individual. By the way, if you contract to coach at a particular college and then "move on" to a better offer, you will have to pay for the damages sustained by your breach of contract. You don't just get to walk away, as this soldier is trying to do.

jimmyn4

Canon EOS-7D

07/16/2004 11:30:19 AM · #10

Originally posted by GeneralE:

In the words of Dr. Evil "Riiiight"

Coaches have these things called clauses in the contract that allow them to do such things. Anyways, back on subject.

In the end, these guys are the losers. They have completly flushed away the last few years of their lives as well as the rest. They'll never get their VA benefits including college money. I think both of these men made a huge mistake by joining the military. Like SoCal said they have been waste of taxpayers money. They're entitled to their opinion and beliefs but they shouldn't have put the uniform on.

07/16/2004 11:38:56 AM · #11

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

this is not a situation in which the war was not necessary (at least in Iraq). One of the stipulations of the US gov is that they will only send troops to die if its the last option and absolutely necessary. I think we all know now this is not the case.

Also, he had already spent over 8 months in Afghanistan. But again, Afghanistan was the real war, Iraq shouldnt be happening.

This is a frivolous argument and opinions on this will vary from person to person. The fact that someone may not agree with the country's policy does not give them the right to simply ignore their obligations. There are other methods of challenging their obligations. Personally, I think that if this soldier truly is a "conscientious objector" he would have stayed in the U.S. and sought other avenues of relief. Running to another country and hiding just belies his lack of character.

07/16/2004 11:42:41 AM · #12

Yeah, let's court martial (sarcasm here) a young father who is a CO because he doesn't want to kill innocents and because he realizes that this war in Iraq is unethical and wasn't needed to begin with. Accountibility has to start with the higher ups as well and that doesn't seem to be happening. Leadership starts with the proper role modeling.

07/16/2004 11:44:51 AM · #13

Hey, how old are the Bush daughters? Shouldn't they enlist and be eligible to be sent off to war?

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

07/16/2004 11:45:51 AM · #14

Originally posted by SoCal69:

There are other methods of challenging their obligations. Personally, I think that if this soldier truly is a "conscientious objector" he would have stayed in the U.S. and sought other avenues of relief. Running to another country and hiding just belies his lack of character.

If you read the article or any info on his page you will see he tried other avenues and was denied.

If in business you had a contract that you signed but then the other party dramatically changed the definition without you having a say in it, would you still have to fulfill that contract?

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

07/16/2004 11:55:37 AM · #15

I am unable to follow the link to the original article.

Can someone who is able to access it please copy and post it here?

Thank you.

Fascinating responses as I can see merit in the points made by both "sides".

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

07/16/2004 12:21:25 PM · #16

Original link not working now but the article is from Democracynow.org article:
//www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/15/1357241

Thursday, July 15th, 2004
Echoes of Vietnam: Soldier Fights Extradition in Canada

Listen to: Segment || Show
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We speak with U.S. Army conscientious objector Jeremy Hinzman who fled to Canada to avoid being deployed in Iraq. He is believed to be the first U.S. soldier to file for refugee status in Canada for refusing to fight in Iraq. [includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since October of 2001, when the US began its massive attack on Afghanistan as part of the Bush administration's so-called war on terror, Democracy Now! has spent extensive time airing the voices of military families, of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and documenting the stories of the soldiers, like Camillo Mejia, who have refused to fight in a war they consider illegal or immoral. Today, we will hear another of these stories. This is how independent journalist Patrick O'Neill tells it:
On Dec. 20, 2003 Jeremy Hinzman, a U.S. Army specialist stationed at Ft. Bragg got the news he had dreaded. His unit - the 504th brigade, second battalion - would be shipping out to Iraq shortly after the new-year for an indefinite deployment in the war on terrorism. Last year, Hinzman, who is the father of a 1-year-old son, was deployed for more than eight months to Afghanistan. When he left, Hinzman's son, Liam, was just seven months old. When Hinzman returned, Liam was walking and didn't remember his father.

While he didn't see any combat in that first deployment, Hinzman said he had a bad feeling about going to Iraq. In Iraq, Hinzman said he felt like he would have to do some things he'd regret. His application for Conscientious Objector status was rejected by the military.

During Christmas leave, Hinzman and his wife, had discussed their options. He could go to Iraq - an option both he and his wife rejected. He could refuse the deployment order and face court martial and a likely prison term, or he could follow a plan of action that thousands of young men like himself had taken during the Vietnam War - he could flee to Canada.

Option three was a go, and on January 2, Hinzman and his family packed up their small car with a few essentials, leaving almost all of their possessions behind. They left under the cover of darkness for the 17-hour drive to the U.S.-Canadian border. Quakers living in the U.S. made contacts in Ontario, and the family was set up with places to stay until they moved into a Toronto apartment on Feb. 1.

Hinzman is believed to be the first U.S. soldier to file for refugee status in Canada for refusing to fight in Iraq. Soon another soldier, 19 year-old Brandon Hughey, followed him and fled to Canada. Some say this is the first echo of the 12,000 deserters and 20,000 draft resisters who went north more than 30 years ago to escape the Vietnam War.

Last Wednesday, Jeremy Hinzman appeared before Canada"s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) in Toronto, supported by Brandon Hughey. The Board set a hearing date for Hinzman in late October.

Jeremy Hinzman, a US Army conscientious objector. He is currently in Canada where he is seeking asylum.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, Jeremy.

JEREMY HINZMAN: Good morning.

AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Can you talk about how you made your decision?

JEREMY HINZMAN: Pretty much what it came down to was-- I mean, I won't go into the false pretences and everything that we know about, but being in an illegal war, it would be being complicit and a criminal enterprise, and you may say that, oh, well, you're not a policymaker or a general or whatever, that the Nuremberg principles wouldn't apply to you. But in light of what's happened since Abu Ghraib, when they scapegoated like the lower enlisted soldiers for simply carrying out what the policy was from the upper echelons, I think it's pretty fair to say that we made the right decision. Because I was in the infantry and there is a good chance that I would have-- I would have been pretty active in a negative way. And so I'm-- that's why we came here pretty much is that I wasn't-- I don't want to shoot people. I would have been happy to go to Iraq as a port-a-potty janitor or operation human shield. I just don't want to shoot people.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about your application as a conscientious objector to here in the United States that was rejected, on what grounds was it objected and what did you tell them?

JEREMY HINZMAN: I applied for a conscientious objector status in August of 2002. When I initially submitted the application, I was almost immediately reassigned to duties commensurate with what I stated in the application, until it could be evaluated. And then I would like to add we didn't know we were being deployed anywhere. So, three months later on Halloween, my First Sergeant, the same person I gave the application to, looks at me with this sparkle in his eye and he's like, well, Hinzman, you are a conscientious objector, we need the paperwork. At that point, we had known for about two weeks that we were being deployed. So, I had to resubmit it on the eve of a deployment and to a third party who didn't know the history of it or whatever. Of course, my motives fell under a cloud of suspicion and in the hearing, I was asked a hypothetical question being what-- if your camp was attacked, what would you do? And when we left for Afghanistan, I was given an M-4 with a scope and infrared laser and everything and I asked, why do I have this? I'm a conscientious objector. I don't want to shoot anybody. And they have said you have the inherent right to self-defense and yada yada yada. So, in the hearing, they said what would you do if you were attacked and I said, well, given the context I'm in, and beings that I'm human and I can probably overcome my fight instinct, I'd probably shoot back. I really would not rather be in that position. But if someone broke into my house, I might make efforts to restrain them. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to-- that I'm going to use the same logic to be a premeditated murderer, which is what we do in the infantry, for better or worse. You don't just go on a raid one day, you rehearse it for three or four days in advance, over and over again. And so in the summation, the investigating officer stated that there was no difference between defensive and offensive operations and combat is combat and, therefore, I'm not a conscientious objector. However, if I had said no, I'll go hide in a hole, I would have been shirking my responsibilities as a soldier and found to be negligent in my duties and that would have been enough-- a whole other episode. It was kind of a no-win question. So, I had to answer it honestly. Which I'm not ashamed of doing.

AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Hinzman, can you describe your experience in Afghanistan?

JEREMY HINZMAN: Yeah. It was pretty mundane. When I was there, because I had conscientious objector application pending, I did dishes for a few months until Kellogg, Brown & Root employees took over, which is a Halliburton subsidiary as you probably know. So, I had a presence there and I was made a cook, and prior to that I had worked long, long days, seven days a week, which was-- whether or not it was punishment for what I did, I had dug my own hole so I didn't have a problem with it. I wasn't going on combat operations. So then I was made a cook for a few months and life got a little easier. I had like a day off once a week. I only worked 12 hours a day as opposed to 16. And then that was unbeknownst to my First Sergeant and he came in one day on my day off and stated that I wasn't a cook. I was there to scrub floors and do whatever. And so I resumed my tedium. But, again, I had dug the hole, so, whatever. But as far as seeing much of the country, I didn't. I was in Kandahar and the furthest I left was a couple hundred yards out of the camp to dump garbage out. In fact, I often thought that I could have flown around in a C-17 for 31 hours and landed in the middle of Utah and I wouldn't have known the difference. Because the landscape is quite similar.

AMY GOODMAN: Why did you join the military?

JEREMY HINZMAN: That's the $64,000 question. I mean, for the reasons that most people do, I would say. I mean, I come from a fairly working-class background and I didn't have the means to attend a university without becoming saddled with debt. And so when you have $50,000 dangled in front of you, it's enticing. But also I wanted to be a part of something that transcended myself, I guess. I didn't really just want to go to work and just earn money for earning money's sake. It seemed kind of meaningless to me. And also I was at the point in my life where I was looking for some focus and structure and whatnot. So I joined and I chose the infantry. I wasn't assigned to it. And I guess-- like I wasn't naive as to what the infantry does. You go shoot things and whatever. But I guess what I wasn't quite aware of was, was how -- what an inhibition I would have to the taking of life. I knew that that's what we did, but I didn't realize how many barriers would have to be overcome and how they would have to be overcome.

AMY GOODMAN: What has been the response of the press, both here and in Canada? You spoke out at an anti-war rally in Canada.

JEREMY HINZMAN: I did. At an anti-war rally. Of course, the reception was warm. I haven't seen a lot of U.S. media. I mean, I know about heir O'Reilly's campaign on Fox to like boycott Canadian products or whatever, if we're allowed to stay or even now to extradite us, which is whatever. I wouldn't give him the time of day. But it's pretty evenly divided in Canada. I mean, it is a diverse country and I'm sure half the people would say send them back on the next bus. But there has been a lot of support as well. Whether I like it or not, I think this case is kind of becoming perhaps a microcosm for Canadian sovereignty, because what's at stake in our case is -- and it's to be ruled on before the hearing starts -- but whether or not the legality of the war in Iraq is relevant to my case. And the Canadian government intervened, which they don't usually do in refugee cases, to say that the legality is irrelevant. Well, that's the whole reason we're here is because the war was illegal.

AMY GOODMAN: What about what's been described as a kind of underground railroad? We certainly saw it in Vietnam. But now, to help you go up to Canada?

JEREMY HINZMAN: I think that would be an overstatement at this point. I think obviously if we're allowed to stay, it makes a better precedent, at least for this era, and I think it would be safe to say that a lot more people would come. But I think that's what Canada is trying to avoid, because if they have to say that the war was legal and Hinzman should have to go home, then the U.S. will be like well, why didn't you send troops? The more likely scenario is they'll have to actually state their opinion on the war, which they didn't do. They didn't send troops because the Canadian people didn't want to go, but also because they probably had some legal opinion in Ottawa saying that the war was illegal, and they're going to have to state that, and that's obviously going to drive a nail between Canada and the U.S. And they're trying to avoid that. And I don't blame them. In a sense, it is not an enviable position to be in as a government. At the same time, they are a sovereign country and shouldn't be ashamed of what they do.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, what was it like to cross the border after your 17-hour ride?

JEREMY HINZMAN: It was as dramatic as-- it was Canadian border security, it wasn't really a big deal. They asked for our ID. They said, what are we doing in Canada? We said we are visiting friends, which was a play on words, considering our involvement with the Quakers over the last few years. And we just drove through. Of course, in a sense a load is off because you never know what's going to happen at border crossing, however innocuous it may be. But it was-- it wasn't a big deal. But I mean, it was kind of a load off, at least for the day.

AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Hinzman, I want to thank you for being with us. What is your website?

JEREMY HINZMAN: www.JeremyHinzman.net, I believe.

AMY GOODMAN: Thank you for talking to us from Canada. Jeremy Hinzman talking about his decision to become the first U.S. soldier to file for refugee status in Canada, for refusing to fight in Iraq. This is Democracy Now!

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (800) 881-2359.

Russell2566

07/16/2004 12:33:31 PM · #17

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Perhaps President Bush should return the money paid to him by his so called "military service" when he went awol from the National Guard and lying about his service to the American public.

If you have proof of this you should call the DNC... They are dying for something more than rumors spread by themselves.

jab119

Canon EOS-70D

07/16/2004 12:35:04 PM · #18

FACT: this guys is a deserter, plain and simple.

Action: he needs to be dealt with according to the UCMJ, plain and simple.

He needs to face that fact and take it like a man.

I feel the most sorry for the people taking his side in this issue. you are a bunch of softies and lemmings, just following the crowd, but you will be the very first people to run crying to the US Government when the shit hits the fan and we are under attack and want to know why they did nothing to stop it.

James

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

07/16/2004 12:40:20 PM · #19

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

If he tried those other avenues and was denied, then he's stuck, isn't he!?! When you lose a court trial, and you have exhausted your remedies, you don't get to just ignore it!

What is your basis, besides your opinion, for claiming a party "dramatically changed the definition"??? This is exactly what I am talking about... mere opinion and rhetoric do not change facts, circumstances and obligations. If you have some factual basis for this claim, then please cite it. Otherwise we can go around and around claiming whether the war in Iraq is "legal" or "justified." I do not necessarily know one way or the other, and I am not sure at this point whether it was necessary or not, but the fact remains that this soldier enlisted, took advantage of benefits (at my and other taxpayers' expense), and then when he didn't like what he had gotten himself into and couldn't get out of it, he ran and hid like a coward, spouting his principles and beliefs from a place where he couldn't be touched.

Message edited by author 2004-07-16 12:42:29.

awpollard

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/16/2004 12:41:08 PM · #20

How many conflicts does on have to watch on tv to figure out people die in the Military? Or are today's teens just idiots?

At 17 1/2 I knew quite well what joining the Marines was all about. I served for 15 years up and through desert storm. I did not join for the free meal ticket.

I got out early and honorable (5 years to retirement) because the US does not appreciate those in the service until there is a conflict or some little podunk town sprouts up due to all the service member's putting their cash into that local economy. Pay is not that great either after fifteen years I still qualified for specially financial aid programs. I got out and into "Corporate" and tripled my pay in 6 months.

From:
Active Duty 'Conscientions Objectors' On the Rise

An increasing number of U.S. military personnel who
enlisted prior to Operation Enduring Freedom are now seeking
conscientious objector status, claiming they were misled by their
local recruiter and military advertising, according to groups that
assist people in obtaining conscientious objector status.

Many of the enlisted personnel who are now seeking honorable
discharges argue they didn't sign up to defend America; they just
wanted to learn a trade or earn money for college.

Those seeking discharges based on conscientious objections to the
current war on terrorism and military action in Afghanistan insist
that military advertising failed to present the reality of military
conflict, focusing instead on money for college, job training,
leadership and disciplinary aspects of the military.

Whatever. They need to use their brains...yes the recruiters are a bit agressive (not as aggressive as when I joined) no one has to sign up.

Maybe when there is no conflicts in sight us parents even help the recruiters out a bit. Hmmm nothing going on why don't you sign up for the Air Force? I could use that bedroom my 18 year old is in right now.

Maybe we should not allow our children to play those computer war games because it seems to be affecting their ability to think and rationalize.

If you refuse to cook eggs don't become a chef.

I think I feel better now...

Ed: Spelling

Message edited by author 2004-07-16 12:42:06.

jab119

Canon EOS-70D

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

07/16/2004 12:48:45 PM · #21

read up on the UCMJ's defination of desertation and is possible punishments.

Desertation

James

Message edited by author 2004-07-16 12:50:31.

07/16/2004 12:57:01 PM · #22

Originally posted by jab119:

********
I think us "softies" are already questioning why our government didn't do anything to stop the WTC attacks when they had foreknowledge of the attacks.

07/16/2004 01:01:11 PM · #23

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

********
I think us "softies" are already questioning why our government didn't do anything to stop the WTC attacks when they had foreknowledge of the attacks.

Again with the rhetoric. I have yet to see anyone cite facts which show this claimed "foreknowledge." I don't have a problem with questioning or investigating whether they did or didn't, but if you are going to make an affirmative statement such as this, please back it up with facts which evidence it.