Deserter: Iraq war is 'illegal'

Argh! This could go on forever! (Especially w/Durden ) When's the verdict?

Well this is what is said in the article:

Brian Goodman, who is chairing the three-day hearing that ends Wednesday, indicated he will likely decide Hinzman's claim early in the new year.

But it would hardly be surprising if it'll take even longer...

@ Sour Grapes

What benefits do you keep talking about?
He deserted, he lost all his benefits as soon as he was marked as AWOL from his post.
The benefit sure wasn't financial.
Training he got is not much use anywhere but in the military.

What I meant by apples and oranges was you trying to compare a guy in the military who realizes the war he is in is wrong, and a firefighter putting out fires in his own town/city. How does that compare?

Nobody has yet been able to explain to me why they think this guy should be dead, other than he broke the law. The law of a system that sends young people, many too young to really know what they want and are capable of, to kill and die, for what? Name me one single war that was not for the benefit of those who reap the profit?
How many more young men have to die so the few can keep ruling the many?

Can't you'll see this war on terror is bogus. It's like the ultimate enemy for the government to hang over us. Because, unlike say the Russians, we don't know who they are. They could be anybody the gov decides it is.
They will get many more miles more out of this enemy than they did with communism. In fact it's pretty much infinite. I can see things changing now they don't have to invent a new enemy every few yrs. They can put terrorists in any country they decide to invade next.
It's all about advancement of their power.
I wish more American soldiers would wake up and realize how they're being used and lied to in order to gain more control for the ruling classes.

And no I'm not confused. I don't see the world in quite so black and white terms.
Many ppl start out doing something they later realize is not for them.
Why is that such a big deal?
OK dude joins the fire brigade, always wanted to fight fires.
First day on the job. He realizes he made a big mistake. What should he do? Keep doing it because he shouldn't change his mind?
Maybe you're one of those lucky ppl who makes the right decision the first time...Some of us have to shop around a bit.
But anyway Hinzman didn't just change his mind, he had good reason to jump ship IMHO.

" We are willing to accept lies if they make our lives easier. "
Producer from the TV series "People's Century", opining on why Americans tolerate unjust and inhumane U.S. government policies, at home and abroad.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
Abraham Lincoln, 1861

Originally posted by ANOK
@ Sour Grapes

What benefits do you keep talking about?
He deserted, he lost all his benefits as soon as he was marked as AWOL from his post.
The benefit sure wasn't financial.
Training he got is not much use anywhere but in the military.

Full 100% Medical benefits (very unlikely in any civilian job here in the U.S.), College Education (very expensive here), sign up bonus ($$ upto 30K)for 'dangerous' MOS

What I meant by apples and oranges was you trying to compare a guy in the military who realizes the war he is in is wrong, and a firefighter putting out fires in his own town/city. How does that compare?

He could have requested an 'Administrative Discharge' available to all military personal regardless of MOS, Duty, Station, etc. And, yes, they do know their rights. They are made FULLY aware of them when they are going through training. If he is a Paratrooper, that means he has been in the military for at least two years. He has had ample time to choose not to go to Iraq. My comparison to being a cop or firefighter is that you do your job and know that you may lose your life, but you do your job. He is not a prisoner, he still has rights. He chose not to utilize any of the tools he had, rather he chose to be a criminal.

Nobody has yet been able to explain to me why they think this guy should be dead, other than he broke the law.

If you read my posts to this thread, then you would know that I do not 'wish him dead', nor do I believe he should be put to death. That's crazy (IMHO)

Can't you'll see this war on terror is bogus.

We are not arguing the war in this thread. We are debating whether this man is a criminal, in our own opinions. How do you know that I'm for the war? I don't believe I have ever argued 'for' the war anywhere on this site. War is awful. I'm not a soldier for a reason. I could not be a soldier. This guy is a soldier. He knew what he faced. Why join the military if not to go to war?

Losing sight of the forest for the trees?

This topic is going on pages and pages, going in circular arguments over whether he was right or wrong to desert. Yet, you've completely missed why he has deserted.

He has deserted because he did not enlist to kill ciivillians. Is that right or wrong? Continue:

Like I keep trying to point out in as many ways as I can he was RIGHT!
I don't care what way you look at it a Human being has the right to choose not to kill if he feels it's wrong. Law or no law.

@ Sour Grapes

1. As I said before he looses all his benefits the moment he was marked as AWOL.
He only got the free medical etc. while he was serving, as he should.
As any person should, who's making as little as our military ppl do.
No college fund (GI bill) he lost that also.

2. No sign up bonus I'm afraid. Only very specialized jobs get that.
Nothing to do with how dangerous the job is. Two people working in the division subject to the same danger, if one has a priority MOS he could get a bonus whilst the other doesn't. It's all to do with filling open mos slots.
Also this is what troops think of bonuses, and having been through that ringer myself I can sympathize;

www.why-war.com...

List of MOS with bonuses;

usmilitary.about.com...

3. But this is not an issue of just going to war. It's an issue of participating in what he, and he's not alone, considers an illegal war.
So who are the real criminals here, Hinzman or the ppl who were willing to send him to die for nothing?

4. The statement about killing the guy wasn't necessarily directed at you.
I am also addressing the other comments in this thread. Don't mean to confuse but there is so much to this issue it's hard to narrow it all down into short simple statements.
I bought up other thoughts about war/military and our involvement in it to put my thoughts on the subject into context.

By the way nobody caught this, that article states he was a Marine.
The 82nd airborne is Army.

I actually thought I respected you Druden and felt like there was factual information in what you had to say......fool me once.......i need to go take a shower now...

Originally posted by Yosemite Sam
I actually thought I respected you Druden and felt like there was factual information in what you had to say......fool me once.......i need to go take a shower now...

...come again?

"This guy is a soldier. He knew what he faced. Why join the military if not to go to war?"

I understand, that you have an opinion ANOK, but until you have served and put your azz on the line like the rest of us, your opinion carries as much weight as my breath after drinking all night.

You whinny little people just kill me. You'll be the first to fold like soggy corn flakes in milk if this country ever gets invaded. I can assure you..can't speak for Grady for sure...but you'll be the first ones to be kicked to the curb. MAKE NO MISTAKE, don't count on the strong ones to help you whinners. I'll save the worst employee I have over your type......

Blah blah blah......I better stop now before I get mad...

...come again?

Druden,

Read what you've posted. I couldn't disagree with you mrore.

I'm just sorry because it would seem we think a lot a like.....huh????

Or I just see it that way. Whatever, I just appreciate logical articulate acccurate thinkers. Seems I mis-judged you, that's all.

Originally posted by Yosemite Sam
Or I just see it that way. Whatever, I just appreciate logical articulate acccurate thinkers. Seems I mis-judged you, that's all.

Well, why don't you elaborate on where exactly we disagree and we can go from there?

Yosemite Sam

Dude get yer facts right before you critisize.
See this pic;



You think I earned those being a little whiny person?

I HAVE been there and yes MY azz was on the line.
I served for the United States military for 6 yrs and I'm not even American I'm English.
And yes I served for YOUR country during wartime in a combat zone for 8 months during the first Gulf War.
My opinion comes from hard earned experience, not state fed propaganda.

Where were you?

Nice to hear that there are people with their heads on straight Durden,and to ANOK wow a warrior with a heart,my hats off to you both.
I posted my opinion earlier and was told to mind my own business by GradyPhilpott which i could really care less,to the best of my knowledge he isnt a mod or an owner of ATS,i only thought it double standards and not practicing what he preaches when his next post was a comment on another thread about an isreali soldier.

Originally posted by gps777
are willing to put to death one of their own people because he did`nt have the stomach to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11

Irrelvant. Congress declared war on Iraq, that is all that is required. He was in the military, he deserted, he's commited a crime. The US army doesn't really execute deserters now anyway, I doubt they will now, and they have good reason for not doing so. However, desertion is a major crime, especially in military court which is where he will be tried. His desertion has lead him to accuse the US, in a foreign country, of war crimes and other illegal acts. He didn't just desert, he is also acusing the government of this stuff, so they might very well execute him as a deserter and traitor.

And put him to death because he as a deserter in the war with IRAQ!! put the lives of his fellow soldiers at risk?.
If all the soldiers slowly backed out of IRAQ and did the same thing as this guy,that would be a step in the right direction,then maybe your politicians would make wiser decisions in the future,
What? Mass mutiny of the armed forces is suposed to be a good thing? Soldiers don't get to decide when a war ends, nor should they. I'd be happy to switch the power to declare war to soldiers, heck even only combat line soldiers, or even to negotiate the peace, but they simply cannot be permitted to desert, singely or in large masses. The very idea is preposterous. Why even have any sort of governmental capability to declare and organize and prosecute war then? Effectively you'd be telling the public to show up for training and fight wherever they want aroudn the world.

i was sucked in as well at the start of this but WHERE`S THE WMD?????? that your government fed the world,you guys would`nt need a draft

There is no draft.

you guys should be demanding better from your government,they are the ones who have made this situation and put all your soldiers lives at risk not this one little guy,

None of that allows him to desert the army, run to another country, and accuse the US of war crimes and seek political asylum because of fears of illegal and unjust reprisals.

let him come to aussie land we`ll have

I suspect howard will not.

durden
Under the 'Laws of War' a soldier has a duty to refuse to commit what could be considered a war crime.

Precisely. Thats why he is not allowed to desert. If he is told to do something illegal, then he has the right and responsibility to refuse. Even if he thinks that the whole war is illegal/war crime, then he has to refuse to fight while remaining in the army. He doesn't get to run from it and flee to another country.

if I understand this correctly and if ruled in this soldier's favor; he could be granted a conscientious objector status

He could have, but I think that that status is in reference to draftees, not people who volunteer to fight but then change their mind, but, irregardless, he can't do that now. He's deserted the army, fled to a foreign country, and even gone so far as to acuse the US government and Army of war crimes and various other illegal acts, in order to be granted asylum. He could've gotten some sort of objector status. Or he could've been tried by a military court, those were his options. Now he's, literally, gone over the edge, and pointlessly too becuase it looks like there's practically no chance that canada will let him stay.

if this is to be considered a war that is known by the soldier to be illegal;

He joined before that, he's already been fighting over there too, and if he felt so anyway then he is still not permitted to desert, flee the country, and make up accusations about it. He'd have to follow a procedure; telling his commander, refusing to fight, being detained, getting a military lawyer, goign to trial, and sorting it out. He chose not to.
[quoteif this war is viewed by the soldier to be illegal then the issue is by definition whether it could be considered that the soldier was part of a war crime.

No. The soldiers opinion on the matter is irrelevant as to his actual status. If he beleives he has been given an illegal/war crime order, in this guys case it would be deployment in iraq all together, then it has to be determined if it was illegal. He doesn't get to decide for himself, or at least a court gets the final say. He can refuse any order on that basis, but it still has to be considered and reviewed by a court.

indigo
He has deserted because he did not enlist to kill ciivillians. Is that right or wrong?

It is wrong. He deserted, any reason for doing so is wrong. The best he can do is refuse to follow an order, not desert.

anok
I don't care what way you look at it a Human being has the right to choose not to kill if he feels it's wrong.

Of course. But he does not have the right to desert the army.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Durden
if I understand this correctly and if ruled in this soldier's favor; he could be granted a conscientious objector status

He could have, but I think that that status is in reference to draftees, not people who volunteer to fight but then change their mind, but, irregardless, he can't do that now.

I wasn't aware that a conscientious objector status couldn't be granted for volunteers, could you share a source where I can find this substantiated? And if this doesn't only concern draftees, why can't his case still be tried in an effort to reach this outcome? I'm not saying you're wrong here, I merely want to find out how this is argued if it truly is the case.

Originally posted by Nydgan

Originally posted by Durden
if this is to be considered a war that is known by the soldier to be illegal;

He joined before that, he's already been fighting over there too, and if he felt so anyway then he is still not permitted to desert, flee the country, and make up accusations about it.

How do you know that the soldier in questions knew - before he joined - that he would be part of something he would then consider to be illegal? And how do you mean his accusations are 'made up'?

Originally posted by Nydgan

Originally posted by Durden
if this war is viewed by the soldier to be illegal then the issue is by definition whether it could be considered that the soldier was part of a war crime.

No. The soldiers opinion on the matter is irrelevant as to his actual status. If he beleives he has been given an illegal/war crime order, in this guys case it would be deployment in iraq all together, then it has to be determined if it was illegal. He doesn't get to decide for himself, or at least a court gets the final say. He can refuse any order on that basis, but it still has to be considered and reviewed by a court.

Deliberately or unitentionally you completely misread me here. What I meant was that if the soldier took part in something that he considered to be illegal (i.e. a war crime), then this would have to be considered by the court. Clearly the court gets the final say.


[edit on 10-12-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden
I wasn't aware that a conscientious objector status couldn't be granted for volunteers, could you share a source where I can find this substantiated?

sure:

Nygdan
I think that that status is in reference to draftees

I've only ever heard it in reference to wwii draftees. Am I wrong or right? I honestly don't know.

And if this doesn't only concern draftees, why can't his case still be tried in an effort to reach this outcome?

Because he has already deserted. Its like as if he made a contract with someone, then said, screw this contract, it sucks, and just stopped making payments or whatever. And then fled the country. In civil law, i think he'd be able to still sue to get out of the contract, but even then it'd only be after being arrested for breaking the contract in the first place and going thru trial for that. As far as military law, i strongly suspect that a deserter doesn't get similiar protections when captured. Indeed, why should they, they deserted.

Originally posted by Nydgan
knew that he would be part of something he would consider to be illegal before he joined?

Its not that, its that he has already joined, and agreed to not desert.

And how do you mean his accusations are 'made up'?

He's accusing the government of commiting war crimes. It isn't.

Originally posted by Nydgan

Deliberately or unitentionally you completely misread me here.

if I misread you I'm sorry but I certainly wouldn't be doing it deliberately.

What I meant was that if the soldier took part in something that he considered to be illegal (i.e. a war crime), then this would have to be considered by the court.

Yes, he'd refuse to follow an order that the person giving thought was legal, he'd be brought to court, or, failing that, bring the officer to court, and then the court woudl decide if it was an illegal action or not. Outside of that tho his understanding of the acts legality is irrelevant. Are you saying that the court considers that, since he thought it was illegal, that he was allowed to disobey it? I am not sure how specifically it works, but I reall ydon't think that the military tribunals would be doing that, certainly not in this case where the order he disobeyed was to deploy into a war zone. They might say that, for example, the rounding up and exucution of everyone in this village was legal, because they were all spies and enemy combatants, but the soldier that refused, well, as far as he knew they were just civilians, so we'll let him get away with it, or go easy on him. I can see something like that happening, but not this, where it wasn't on the field of battle and dependent on an uninformed snap judgement.

[edit on 10-12-2004 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Nygdan
In civil law, i think he'd be able to still sue to get out of the contract, but even then it'd only be after being arrested for breaking the contract in the first place and going thru trial for that. As far as military law, i strongly suspect that a deserter doesn't get similiar protections when captured. Indeed, why should they, they deserted.

Well I'm not an expert on military law; nor do I claim to be. However I believe there is much to be found by looking at the outcome of similar cases.

In the 2003 case of Stephen Funk, also an outspoken critic of the war, a military jury in New Orleans acquitted Mr Funk - who was seeking to be granted a conscientious objector status - of desertion. The court ended up sentencing him to six months in military prison, a bad conduct discharge and reduction of rank to private. "The jury recognized the fact that because Stephen filed for a discharge as a conscientious objector, he was not a military deserter". (1)

This could be compared to the case of Mr Hinzman as he states to have requested discharge as conscientious objector in the US as early as 2002, before he was deployed to war, but his request was rejected. (2) So indeed, Mr Hinzman also seem to have requested for this discharge and I would not say this is a clear cut case; the verdict is still out.

Originally posted by Nydgan

Originally posted by Durden
knew that he would be part of something he would consider to be illegal before he joined?

Its not that, its that he has already joined, and agreed to not desert.

See above.

He's accusing the government of commiting war crimes. It isn't.

I believe the verdict is still out on that one as well.

Yes, he'd refuse to follow an order that the person giving thought was legal, he'd be brought to court, or, failing that, bring the officer to court, and then the court woudl decide if it was an illegal action or not. Outside of that tho his understanding of the acts legality is irrelevant. Are you saying that the court considers that, since he thought it was illegal, that he was allowed to disobey it?

No - why would you even claim I'm saying such a thing? I would however say that a soldier's understanding as to whether an act is illegal or not is very relevant. Clearly, a judgment made on a soldier's part of following or not following orders is based on his/her understanding of the laws of war.

However, it is also clear that the soldier in question may have made an error of judgment and the court has the final say.

----------------------------------------------------------
1. www.notinourname.net...
2. www.libertypost.org...


[edit on 10-12-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden
I would not say this is a clear cut case; the verdict is still out.

Ah, apparently not. So there is some sort of precedent. I suppose it will depend on how they view him going to iraq after being rejected for objector status.

No - why would you even claim I'm saying such a thing?

Just trying to understand what you are saying. I don't see why you would think its at all meanigful to the jury or to the judge that the hinzman himself thought that the actions were illegal.

I would however say that a soldier's understanding as to whether an act is illegal or not is very relevant.

I think that that is just what I said.

Clearly, a judgment made on a soldier's part of following or not following orders is based on his/her understanding of the laws of war.

Yes, thats exactly what I was saying. However, that doesn't mean that he can't be punished for disobeying an order merely because he thought it was illegal when it actually wasn't.

Dear Nygdan and Druden,

Perhaps the Hinzman people should request Kofi Annon/UN to testify regarding their position on this illegal war? Even the majority of states within the United Nations agree the Iraq war is illegal and unjust. It would be a very wise and strategic move for the Hinzman team to get the UN involved based on their comments towards the Iraq war.

Just throwing some mud from the sidelines with this thing you guys got going.