• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

US Soldiers Seek Asylum in Canada

Status
Not open for further replies.

sirenia

Sub Nuke's Wife
This really bothers me. One of the soldiers is being interviewed on 60 minutes right now and so far I have heard nothing that sounds even remotely convincing from him. Sure, every war has seen its share of deserters, but how can the claim be that the war is illegal when congress declared it? Sorry for the huge post.


US Soldiers Seek Asylum in Canada
by Marty Logan

MONTREAL - Canadian leaders, not the country's refugee system, should decide the fate of soldiers who have deserted the U.S. military to apply for asylum in their northern neighbor, according to a support group.

One of those soldiers, Jeremy Hinzman, will go before Canada's refugee board Monday for a hearing on whether he qualifies for asylum. The adjudicator who will decide the case has already announced he will not consider the argument that Hinzman did not have to serve because the U.S.-led war on Iraq was illegal.

"While that may provide good grounds of appeal, if an appeal is necessary, Jeremy would have preferred to be able to bring that up," said Lee Zaslofsky of the War Resisters Support Campaign. "It's a disappointing and obviously mistaken ruling," he told IPS from Toronto.

At the same time, "this is a political question," added Zaslofsky. "This is not simply a question of 'can we get the refugee board to agree that Jeremy and the others are refugees under the definition?' The issue here is, will Canada let these guys stay?"

Hinzman arrived in Canada on Jan. 3, 2004 with his wife and child, fleeing his Army unit, the 82nd Airborne Regiment, just days before it was to depart for Iraq. The Army specialist, who had already served in Afghanistan, had applied to be discharged or reassigned as a conscientious objector (CO), but the military denied his request.

Going through the CO process can take up to a year, says Bill Galvin of the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Conscience and War, a member of the GI Rights network.

"That's a year during which you have officially gone public saying you cannot in good conscience do this, and yet you are required to [serve]," he added.

Galvin told IPS that despite years of submitting Freedom of Information Act requests, the center has yet to receive official figures from the Defense Department on the number of applications being made for CO status.

But he says his group is now processing a "couple dozen" submissions and estimates that another 10 organizations countrywide are doing similar work. Some soldiers apply independently, he noted.

But Galvin, himself a CO during the Vietnam War of the 1960s and 1970s, cautions soldiers who have left their units without permission (making them absent without leave, or AWOL) to think hard before heading to the U.S.-Canada border.

"Hundreds of people go AWOL every day; being AWOL is no big deal. [But] desertion is a specific intent and crime. If your intent is to never return or to avoid war ... that is much more serious."

"Part of the problem is, when folks go to Canada and apply for asylum, they provide the government with evidence," adds Galvin, "so by going to Canada they actually make their situation with the U.S. military worse."

Two recent conscientious objectors who deserted, Camilo Mejia and Stephen Funk, each were sentenced to one year in jail by military courts-martial earlier this year. "The fact that these guys [in Canada] have not only gone AWOL but gone to Canada, applied for asylum, and talked to the press, that's going to really hurt them" if they return to the United States, Galvin argues.

Galvin says that despite those risks it is estimated that a dozen other U.S. soldiers are already in Canada "underground," awaiting the outcome of Hinzman's refugee hearing.

Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) grants asylum to people who can prove they are "in need of protection," meaning that to remove them from Canada would create a danger of torture, a risk to their life, or a risk of cruel and unusual punishment or treatment.

It also grants asylum to those who fit the definition found in the United Nations Refugee Convention; that is, they have a "well-founded fear of persecution" based on: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

A decision from next week's hearing is not expected until February, says Zaslofsky. It could be appealed to the Federal Court of Canada and then to the immigration minister.

"I think there are many others who would be very encouraged to come north if there was such a ruling or if there were a policy decision by the government," he adds. - I'm not saying a flood ... but there are certainly many guys in the military ... who are very very demoralized and unwilling to go to Iraq."

Canada accepted tens of thousands of "draft dodgers" in the Vietnam era, but many people believe taking such a stand today would irritate already tense relations between the world's largest trading partners.

Prime Minister Paul Martin hosted U.S. President George W. Bush on his first official visit to Canada this week, one year after he replaced former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who decided last year to keep his country out of the Iraq war, a decision that chilled relations between the neighbors.

Reportedly, Bush has asked Martin to provide experts for a controversial election scheduled for January in occupied Iraq, while the prime minister wants Washington to reopen the border to Canadian beef, blocked since a "mad cow" was exported south in 2003.

Also a resister during the Vietnam War, Zaslofsky says, "When we came there was no refugee process for us ... we were simply allowed to apply as landed immigrants ... at the time tens of thousands of people came to Canada [via that process]."

"We would prefer some kind of provision like that ... we're not looking for [a process where] every single refugee case of every war resister who comes from the [United] States will be successful – you can see that that's not a very reliable or pleasant process."

Two other U.S. soldiers have applied for asylum in Canada. David Sanders will have his hearing Jan. 28, while the case of Brandon Hughey is likely to come up after that date, says Zaslofsky.

He adds that the Canadian public largely supports the asylum seekers, noting his organization has collected 15,000 signatures on a petition calling for the men to be permitted to stay in this country.

According to Zaslofsky, "It's getting very close to the time when the government will have to make a decision on this. These are actual human beings; it's not a theoretical issue any more. Are we going to offer up these guys on the altar of making nice with President Bush ... or is Canada going to do the right thing?"
 

airpirate25

Grape Ape...Grape Ape
Sirenia, you sure know how to pick 'em :) Seriously, this is a clear question of desertion. As with the last post on a similar issue, I'm not jumping on the "the war is great" wagon, but at least the guys suing had the backbone to face the music.
 

VetteMuscle427

is out to lunch.
None
Dude, thinking of those guys sicken me. I just dont have the words for it. Well, maybe one word. Cowards.

Let the flaming begin.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
They signed the dotted line. Now they break the rules, they need to pay the price.

The best part was when the interviewer asked him why he did not go to jail for his beliefs. His response. "Why should I carry out and illegal order?" Yeaahhhh, riiiight.
 

Broadsword2004

Registered User
I was reading some of the stuff the soldiers said to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield. I dislike what he said when asked why don't the vehicles in Iraq have proper armor, but I guess he was in a snag with that one.

But I dislike how they were complaining about the stop-loss policy. From what I have learned the stop-loss simply keeps you in until your total service time is up. They signed the dotted line. So they shouldn't complain. The military has the Inactive Ready Reserve for another 4 years.

I also don't get why the media is giving that soldier who asked the armor question such attention. They make out like he was so brave to ask it, his ex-wife saying he'd ask it to the President even. What's the big deal!? He's not taking all that much risk in asking something like that. Yet everyone falls for that old trick it seems.

As for Rumsfield, his reply about the armor was that vehicle armor protects you only sooo much; that you can be in a fully-armored tank and it can still be blown up. Which is kinda B.S. there I think because a modern U.S. tank pretty much is unstoppable to the Iraqis unless they could bomb it with their own aircraft, or if they can somehow get an RPG fired into the one small area in the back of the tank; most tanks are driven by trained crews that watch for that, and even if you do disable the tank, the ammunition is kept separate so that the whole thing doesn't blow; so I mean if you are driving a tank in a convoy in Iraq, you are very, very safe. If you are driving a lightly-armored Humvee there, it is not very safe. But I read one soldier who said that he did patrols in Iraq in two-Humvee patrols without doors on the Humvees (don't know how true that is).
 

VetteMuscle427

is out to lunch.
None
Broadsword2004 said:
As for Rumsfield, his reply about the armor was that vehicle armor protects you only sooo much; that you can be in a fully-armored tank and it can still be blown up. Which is kinda B.S. there I think because a modern U.S. tank pretty much is unstoppable to the Iraqis unless they could bomb it with their own aircraft, or if they can somehow get an RPG fired into the one small area in the back of the tank; most tanks are driven by trained crews that watch for that, and even if you do disable the tank, the ammunition is kept separate so that the whole thing doesn't blow; so I mean if you are driving a tank in a convoy in Iraq, you are very, very safe.

Just remember, the Iraqis knocked out an Abrams early in the war; and it wasn't clear how they did it. Some sort of penatrator if I remember... but it was in the street.

Anyone know if they ever figured that one out?

//End Threadjack.
 

Fly Navy

...Great Job!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
Most Abrams casualties, as far as I know, are mobility kills. If you put an RPG-7 through the exhaust of an Abrams, it's not going ANYWHERE. However, the weapon systems were still operational in many instances and they became fixed artillery pieces, for all intents and purposes.

And there are rockets now that can kill an Abrams. The Russians have them. The Russians possibly gave them to the Iraqis. It uses a double penetrator design.
 

PropStop

Kool-Aid free since 2001.
pilot
Contributor
Let them run. Let all the cowards who only wanted money from the government for college, run. The sooner we have those low life, scum sucking, commie pinko bed wetting COWARDS out of my military, the better off the rest of us who actually believe in something greater than ourselves will be!

If canada wants a bunch of panty-waste wimps in their country, who will likely suck their social support system for all it is worth, let them have them. We've got thousands of immigrants trying to get into this country every day, many of them who would be happy to join the military because they know what it is like to NOT have freedom, they can fill the ranks of the willing. You ever seen how hard most mexican immigrants work? They bust their asses for a fraction of the pie, and they do so with a smile, because they know things are better here.

arg! i gotta stop ranting.....must stop!!!

okay, i'm spent.
 

Clux4

Banned
PropStop,
What a reply. Exactly my point. If someone does not want to fight again, let them go. I am sure those immigrants coming into the the U.S illegeally everyday die for a roof over their head and MRE's to eat.
But how do we make this happen. Change immigration laws. We are the same people that said we don't like immigrants because they take away from our jobs, now that our citizens are skipping out on us, the immigrants are now our buddies. One day we will figure everything out.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I agree with PropStop's sentiment, but not the execution. Bring them back and let them face the music. They signed on the dotted line and then reneged. If they truly believe what they're doing is just, let them face the music, not run away and hide. Does Canada have the courage to do what's right? I certainly hope so. But unfortunately for this Zaslofsky character that isn't what he thinks it is. It's to respect the rule of law and bring them back here.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Fly Navy said:
Most Abrams casualties, as far as I know, are mobility kills. If you put an RPG-7 through the exhaust of an Abrams, it's not going ANYWHERE. However, the weapon systems were still operational in many instances and they became fixed artillery pieces, for all intents and purposes.

And there are rockets now that can kill an Abrams. The Russians have them. The Russians possibly gave them to the Iraqis. It uses a double penetrator design.

I believe this is the M1 he was talking about. The Army Times got flack for printing the articel, a couple of letters to the paper accused it of giving too much info.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php
 

gaijin6423

Ask me about ninjas!
These people are total hypocrites and need to be brought to justice. I'm willing to bet that they're going to espouse some form of peacenik rhetoric at some point or another. And then I'm really, really going to get pissed off. Because I have the utmost respect for someone who is willing to stand and face the consequences of their actions and convictions, however misguided and/or distastefull I might find them. But I have NO tolerance for people who are so ready and willing to run and hide, shirking their responsibilities. I'd be willing to bet that, if you really sat these people down and put the screws to them, at least 90% of them have done it, just because they didn't want to do something. That kind of petulant, moronic attitude has no place in my military, and if that were the end of it, *poof!* convenience to the government discharge; failure to adapt. The problem is, if these people do not face appropriate, legal retribution for their illegal acts, then what precedence is that setting? I, for one, am worried and more than a little disgusted by these people.
 

thrillseeker121

Registered User
These people are total hypocrites! It makes me mad to here about these people. How can someone have such low character to commit to something and not go through with it. If you want the benifits the military offers you'd better be ready to go through with the whole contract. Sure, one can complain some that is understandable....but don't be a coward and run from it. People need to accept that there are consequences to one's actions. There is a good and a bad to every decision. We need to be better at accepting both the good and bad aspects of the decisions we make. We cannot run from the things we dislike....we need to face them.
Maybe it is better that these people leave the country.....but I still think they should be punished in some sort of way for deserting.
 

gagirl

Registered User
Can I just say I say what Propstop says? WOW! What a great post and I agree completely!

You sign the line and when you're called upon you run??? Let them go. Get out of my country. This country didn't become what it is by backing down. My ancestors starting in the Revolutionary War fought for their freedom. I don't understand how people can do that. Maybe it's just for attention.

They need to be left alone in a room with a bunch of the Marines that just got out of Fallujah and see what happens to them. I don't think they'd be hugging each other.
Whatever happens to them they deserve and I think that they should sit in Leavenworth(sp?) for awhile.
gagirl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top