U.S. Military Deserters in Canada Megathread

[RangerRay]

They should be deported poste haste.  They are criminals in their own country.

 

[Canuckx5]

Personally, if by deserting the US Army they piss off the majority of Americans, then I say let them in lol.

 

[2 Cdo]

Personally, if by deserting the US Army they piss off the majority of Americans, then I say let them in lol.

Definitely ranks as one of the stupidest comments I've seen in a long time.

 

[RangerRay]

Definitely ranks as one of the stupidest comments I've seen in a long time.

I agree.

 

[Canuckx5]

You can call my comment stupid and dismiss it all you want, but the fact of the matter is there are a lot of people who feel the same way I do.

 

[48Highlander]

Yeah, I think it was around the age of 15 that I first realized that MOST people are fucking stupid...

 

[Canuckx5]

From the time that I was a little kid I remember watching American TV and hearing anti-Canadian gibberish, then as I got older i started learning more about history and hearing the American involvement in WWI & WWII and if you listened to most of what the yanks had to say you'd think it was solely their country against the world (even though they came into both wars late), they start ridiculous wars like the one in Iraq and base it off of WMD's and links to Al-Qaeda (and don't say that they didn't cause that's all I f****** heard about, out of that moron's mouth in the months leading up to the war) and once all that was disproved they turned it into a operation to 'liberate' the Iraqis.   That's just the military stuff to, then you read about all the stuff going on back at home such as the Softwood Lumber dispute which directly effects my province, every time the WTO makes a decision that benefits the USA, America makes sure they get what they are promised but when the WTO makes a decision that benefits Canada such as the US having to pay us a large sum of money due to the illegal tariffs they have set up on our lumber, they ignore it and don't own up to it.   And this is the dishonest, and disgraceful country you are expecting me to respect? that you want me to say good things about?   As far as I'm concerned, F*** the States!

I apologize for the off topic remark btw, just had to back up my original opinion because some people still can't accept that others may not think the same way they do, unfortunately.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Canuckx5,
I really wanted to ban you but instead I'll make it so you can "read-only". Maybe spend some time in Foreign Militaries and read posts from some of our American FREINDS and COLLEGES. You complain about softwood lumber, maybe you should Google bicycle tariffs......

 

[54/102 CEF]

From the time that I was a little kid I remember watching American TV and hearing anti-Canadian gibberish, then as I got older i started learning more about history and hearing the American involvement in WWI & WWII

Oh Juicy target!

For your info - the USA provided a massive industrial base for the Allies while they got their large scale manpower ready to go in both wars.

In post VE DAY 1945 the Canadian markets were all oriented to the UK - which had no cash - and so when the Marshall PLan came around - to re-juvenate European industry the USA provided the contracts through the Marshal plan to keep Canadian industry afloat - hardly the picture you paint.

 

[RangerRay]

Canuckx5,

Regardless of your Mikey Moore inspired rant, the fact of the matter is that these people signed a contract with Uncle Sam and swore an oath to serve their country's miltary voluntarily.  That makes them deserters, which makes them wanted criminals.  Canada should not be letting criminals into the country.

Last I checked, the US was a democracy and was not gang-pressing people into their military like some other countries in the world.  These deserters do not have a leg to stand on and should be deported immediately

 

[paracowboy]

Jan Brady Syndrome. A highly advanced case, I'm afraid.

 

[Glorified Ape]

They're not cowards because they refused to go to war, they're cowards because they ran away to Canada.  That's been stated numerous times already.  If you want to desert that's your decision, but stay in the country, take responsibility for your actions, and try to fight for what you beleive is right.

So they're cowards for trying to avoid prison time, but they're not cowards for not fighting. They can just as easily spout whatever rhetoric they want to spout (and much more comfortably) from Canada as they can from in a US prison, thus why would anyone in their right mind NOT at least make the attempt at avoiding prison? The outcome, if they fail, is the same - they go to prison. If they succeed, they avoid prison. They have nothing to lose by trying it. If they succeed, they set a precedent which, in their minds, would "liberate" others like them.

And what the heck was that about commies and guatamala?  Your point got lost somewhere in the rest of the gormless diatribe.

It was pretty obvious that I was addressing the statements regarding Guatemala/central & south America/US foreign policy et al. which others had posted. In fact, I even quoted the points I was responding to, which I'm sure you saw. Of course, simple acceptance of that fact wouldn't allow for making inane and peurile jabs, would it? On the brighter side, I learned a new word (gormless).

 

[48Highlander]

So they're cowards for trying to avoid prison time, but they're not cowards for not fighting. They can just as easily spout whatever rhetoric they want to spout (and much more comfortably) from Canada as they can from in a US prison, thus why would anyone in their right mind NOT at least make the attempt at avoiding prison? The outcome, if they fail, is the same - they go to prison. If they succeed, they avoid prison. They have nothing to lose by trying it. If they succeed, they set a precedent which, in their minds, would "liberate" others like them.

The word "exasperated" doesn't even begin to describe the way I'm feeling after numerous repeated attempts to explain this.  However, one more try won't kill me.  Try this example:

Your section commander orders you to shoot an unarmed prisoner.  Or to help him steal a car.  Or to go take a lolipop away from a baby.  Whatever.  In any event, you're given a direct order to do something which you feel is wrong.  Do you:

A)  Carry out the order.
B)  Say "I think this is wrong", and then do it anyway.
C)  Say "I think this is wrong", and refuse to do it.
D)  Run away to Canada and claim to be a refugee running away from oppression.

For me it'd be C.  Personaly, I think anyone who choses any of the other 3 options is a coward.  In the case of "A" and "B", because you're not willing to stand up for what you beleive in, and in "D" because, well, that one should be obvious.  Jeremy Hinsmen and his ilk picked D.  If they had picked C, I would have had nothing but respect for them.  I'd still think they were WRONG, but I'd respect them for standing up for their beleifs.

It was pretty obvious that I was addressing the statements regarding Guatemala/central & south America/US foreign policy et al. which others had posted. In fact, I even quoted the points I was responding to, which I'm sure you saw. Of course, simple acceptance of that fact wouldn't allow for making inane and peurile jabs, would it? On the brighter side, I learned a new word (gormless).

Actually, I was really confused about what the hell you were trying to say.  You didn't phrase it very well.  I'm pretty sure it was irrelevant anyway, so forget it, and I'm glad I was able to teach you something new

 

[Infanteer]

No, they are cowards because they refused to fight. They signed on the dotted line (and this Jeremy Numbty-F*** did it for education money) and when the poo hits the fan they run away like scared little rabbits. They are cowards and traitors pure and simple.

Was he asked to mow do children? No.

He was asked to fight he was for his country.

He refused to fight. Therefore he is a coward seeing as he had no good reason to refuse.

Tough talk - have you been in his shoes?   The guy did deploy to Afghanistan.

Hinzeman (along with the other deserters) have their motives for not wanting to to partake in the war and in a free society we respect that - I read his FAQ on his page and he has his own views; whatever floats his boat I guess.

I come down hard on them because they are deserters, not because I believe them to be cowards running from the battle.   I haven't been bloodied in combat, but I have some friends who have, so I ain't going to cast stones at Hinzeman's thought process on why or why he doesn't want to fight.   However, I have had responsibility in my lap, and I expect Hinzman or any other person who signs on the dotted line to live up to their responsibilities.   If it means going to war or going to jail, than live with it.   Going AWOL and leaving your teammates hanging in the breach is despicable; for that, I think all of them should be sent South ASAP and dealt with severely.

Prosecution shouldn't attempt to send the lesson that one must agree with the policies of their nation, but it should send out the message that we expect citizens to honour their obligations and fulfill their responsibilities.

 

[x-zipperhead]

There is a difference between being asked to do something obviously illegal (i.e murder) and being asked to do something that may conflict with your moral values (something easily chnaged in many people).

I believe this guys whole case was that the war in Iraq was illegal.  Now, I understand he lost that case but that was his argument.  Did he truly believe that or was it just a belief of convienience so he didn't have to serve.  I think it would presumptuous either way to say any of us knew what he truly belived.

The word "exasperated" doesn't even begin to describe the way I'm feeling after numerous repeated attempts to explain this.   However, one more try won't kill me.   Try this example:

Your section commander orders you to shoot an unarmed prisoner.   Or to help him steal a car.   Or to go take a lolipop away from a baby.   Whatever.   In any event, you're given a direct order to do something which you feel is wrong.   Do you:

A)   Carry out the order.
B)   Say "I think this is wrong", and then do it anyway.
C)   Say "I think this is wrong", and refuse to do it.
D)   Run away to Canada and claim to be a refugee running away from oppression.

For me it'd be C.   Personaly, I think anyone who choses any of the other 3 options is a coward.   In the case of "A" and "B", because you're not willing to stand up for what you beleive in, and in "D" because, well, that one should be obvious.   Jeremy Hinsmen and his ilk picked D.   If they had picked C, I would have had nothing but respect for them.   I'd still think they were WRONG, but I'd respect them for standing up for their beleifs.

I agree with you whole heartedly in that I, too, would choose C ( at least I like to think I would ).  However, is there a difference in carrying out an illegal/immoral order from your section commander and one from your President.  Now before everyone lines me up in their crosshairs I am not commenting one way or the other on the legitimacy of the Iraq war. I am talking about what Jeremy Hinsen believed or claimed to believe.  What I am saying is, by your logic Hinsmen and his ilk would have been cowards by following orders and going to Iraq ( assuming these were their true beliefs ).

Maybe it's easier to see things black and white even if they are not.

Iraq asside.  Assume your country went to war for something you really felt in your heart was wrong and you decided you were going to stand by your principles and just not take part and instead stand up for what you belive in and try to change peoples opinions.  You've also got a young family to support.  Do you think you could do that more effectively from a prison cell or take your chances in a neighboring country that has taken a stance more in line with your personal beliefs?  Honestly.

Now I don't know if Jeremy Hinsen is a coward or not because I don't know what is truly in his heart.  I think it is worthy to remember that this guy did serve his country in Afganistan.

 

[paracowboy]

there are many other options available to those in the US Army who choose not to fight. These scumbags chose an illegal one. They are cowards, because they chose not to follow the hard road, and fight for their professed, new-found "beliefs". They chose instead to run. That is cowardice.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I think it is worthy to remember that this guy did serve his country in Afganistan.

Right.  He did seven months duty in the Bagram kitchen...let's be up front here.  

Moreover, the fact that he served on one mission tells me that he picks and chooses the conflicts in which he's willing to serve.  It is not a soldier's lot - in a democracy - to determine the legality or illegality of a democratically elected government's actions.  A soldier has a duty to disobey an order that is manifestly unlawful.  That is, the order must be unlawful to a "reasonable person".  Hinzman cannot, in any reasonable sense, argue that the Iraq invasion was manifestly unlawful - the best he could argue is that opinions were murky.

So, what have we established?

1.  Hinzman did not receive a manifestly illegal order.  Therefore, he was bound to obey it.

2.  He was a volunteer in a volunteer army.  He had no objection to the use of military force, as his deployment to Afghanistan indicates.  Ipso facto, he is not a consciencious objector - at least in a traditional sense.

3.  The US is a democracy, with a democratically elected government - whether you agree with it or not.  There is no evidence that the constitutional process has been violated by the US policy in Iraq - to the contrary, the policy has (rightly or wrongly) been supported in Congress.

4.  His service in Afghanistan makes it impossible to determine if he's a "coward" or not.  It not really relevant to the discussion at hand anyway.

He hasn't got a leg to stand on legally or (really) morally.  Time for him to leave....

 

[Infanteer]

Right.  He did seven months duty in the Bagram kitchen...let's be up front here.  

Moreover, the fact that he served on one mission tells me that he picks and chooses the conflicts in which he's willing to serve.  It is not a soldier's lot - in a democracy - to determine the legality or illegality of a democratically elected government's actions.  A soldier has a duty to disobey an order that is manifestly unlawful.  That is, the order must be unlawful to a "reasonable person".  Hinzman cannot, in any reasonable sense, argue that the Iraq invasion was manifestly unlawful - the best he could argue is that opinions were murky.

So, what have we established?

1.  Hinzman did not receive a manifestly illegal order.  Therefore, he was bound to obey it.

2.  He was a volunteer in a volunteer army.  He had no objection to the use of military force, as his deployment to Afghanistan indicates.  Ipso facto, he is not a consciencious objector - at least in a traditional sense.

3.  The US is a democracy, with a democratically elected government - whether you agree with it or not.  There is no evidence that the constitutional process has been violated by the US policy in Iraq - to the contrary, the policy has (rightly or wrongly) been supported in Congress.

4.  His service in Afghanistan makes it impossible to determine if he's a "coward" or not.  It not really relevant to the discussion at hand anyway.

He hasn't got a leg to stand on legally or (really) morally.  Time for him to leave....

That's what I was getting at - I was just getting a little perturbed with the chest-thumping "he's a coward running from battle" comments.  He is a shirker and a coward for running from his responsibilities and should be prosecuted; but as you said, his reaction to fighting is irrelevent.

 

[Blue Max]

Good summation Teddy.  8)

Now lets kick these deserters out and get on with more important work, these guys are wasting everyone's time and money. :threat:

 

[x-zipperhead]

Good points from all.  I am not on a Jeremy Hinsmen defense crusade here.  I didn't know he served in a kitchen.... on the other hand I don't know how that matters.

I agree that he doesn't have much of a legal leg left to stand on.  But morally I believe there is an assumption here that this is a belief of convienence and again I think that is presumtuous. 

Yes he is a volunteer in a volunteer army but he volunteered before his country illegally ( his belief - not mine ) invaded Iraq.  I agree that it is not the soldiers place to determine the legality of wars but as a man/woman you have a moral obligation to do what you think is right.  If the cause truly violates your moral beliefs than "I was just following orders" is not going to cut it when dealing with your conscience. 

I'm not just trying to rattle the cage here and I don't necessarily disagree with you guys.  Legalities aside.  The word coward is thrown around a lot.  That may be because it fits.  That is on the assumption though that he is using this as a convienient excuse to escape duty. 

there are many other options available to those in the US Army who choose not to fight. These scumbags chose an illegal one. They are cowards, because they chose not to follow the hard road, and fight for their professed, new-found "beliefs". They chose instead to run. That is cowardice.

What are the other options?  Besides marching yourself straight to cells ;D  Agreed though, it hardly seems brave running to Canada.