It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: No refugee status in Canada for U.S. soldier

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
TORONTO, Thursday - An immigration panel had just recently denied Hinzman the refugee status he needs to stay in Canada on the grounds that he is not in any danger for punishment upon his return to America. He did support his defence with the facts that he can face a 5 year jail sentence, but this was not enough to convince the panel that he and his family should be allowed to stay in Canada.
 



www.cbc.ca
He 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 family.

During a three-day hearing before the immigration board in December, Hinzman said he sought refugee status because he opposed the war in Iraq on moral grounds and thought the U.S. invasion violated international human rights.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Jeremy Hinzman was right for abandoning the war in Iraq. Many people did not agree with that war and he made the step every other solider should have made. The immigration panel realized that he WOULD be punished, and yet, they still made him go back to America. Bad decision on Canada's part.

Related News Links:
www.cbc.ca
www.jeremyhinzman.net
www.democracynow.org

[edit on 25/3/05 by ivanglam]




posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Jeremy Hinzman is a coward. The immigration panel realized that he would be punished, and they made him go back to America. Good decision on Canada's part.

Additonal note,. If was against fighting in a war he never should have joined the military. DUH.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   
So fighting an unjust war is OK? Canada, who also did not support the war should have allowed him to stay.

[edit on 25/3/05 by ivanglam]



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I think its more along the lines of not wishing to fight in an unjust, war. I'm sure if this war was againt those that ACTUALLY commited the 9/11 act, then most of the people that are against this war would be for it.

It would be like IF the US declared War on New Zealand, after Japan was allowed to attack Pearl Harbor.

I think all he's saying with his protest is "IF you want to fight the Right War I'll Be with you. But since you don't then No I' do not want to fight this war."

Phae



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   


I think all he's saying with his protest is "IF you want to fight the Right War I'll Be with you. But since you don't then No I' do not want to fight this war."


I think Jeremy thought this was the right war, and I agree with him, as I am sure many agree with him also. The war in Iraq was plain out wrong. Simple as that. The crusades all over again.

Now, Bush is the terrorist.




[edit on 25/3/05 by ivanglam]



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
You have to remeber that this must have been a difficult descision for Canada. I would imagine this might have been the result from presure from the United States. It would be hard to imagine that Canada is not underpressure to stay on good terms from the USA. Allowing this to happen would encourage more soldiers to do the same thing. This would weeken the morale of the armed forces soldiers even more than is current which I would imagine would be on breaking point. This would also reduce confidence in the USA from supporting countries. This would be hazardous if allowed to happen from the point of view of the United States and it's people. You have to remember that people who enlist do so on their own free will. Nobody made them sign, they chose to make that descision for what ever personal reasons they had. If they were not willing to go to war and fight regardless of their polital opinion they should not have signed up. They are paid to do a job which is what they are doing, it is not the kind of job that you can pick and choose what you do... if you wanted that you should have become the President.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   


I would imagine this might have been the result from presure from the United States.


I most definatley think Canada played the puppet here. Canada did not support the war in Iraq, and neither did Jeremy. I think the fact alone that he DESERTED the army to not participate is reason enough to keep him in Canada, but like I said, Canada played the puppet.



They are paid to do a job which is what they are doing, it is not the kind of job that you can pick and choose what you do


What happened to the good old days of morals and democracy?

[edit on 25/3/05 by ivanglam]



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   

as posted by ivanglam
...as I am sure many agree with him also.


"Many" equates to roughly how many?
As a vet of the first Gulf War and a few other unknowns, to me, as with many military personel, retired or active, he is a deserter, and as such, should reap what he sows. Apparently he had no ISSUES when he served during his first tour in Iraq, now he does? Excuse me, but did he not sign a contract? Here's a topic thread given from a Canadian member:
Canada Rules U.S. Army Deserter Not a Refugee

I am glad that Canada has decided what it has. IMHO, about time, especially when they were a retreat haven for those draft-dodgers and deserters during the Vietnam War. Whether you agree with the war in Iraq or not, the man volunteered to join the military and volunteerily took the OATH. His bagging butt now only confirms a number of things: he is a deserter, he has not only betrayed his country, he has betrayed himself, his family, and his comrades in arms.




seekerof

[edit on 25-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
How has he betrayed his family? I'm sure they disagree with the war also.

Not many agreed with the war in Iraq. Thats why many countries decided to not help in it. And also why the UN decided to not fight in it either.





[edit on 25/3/05 by ivanglam]



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
You hit it right on the nail Seekeroff.


There is absolutely no excuse for what he did. :shk::shk:



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
There may not have been an excuse from an American standpoint, but from a Canadian one, I think there would have been. As I have said before, Canada also did not participate in the war in Iraq. They should be honouring this man for making a right choice.

But then again, if he left simply because he was afraid, then the right choice was made.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
It's every soldiers obligation to disobey an illegal order, he given one to deploy in Iraq, so he followed through with what was morally right.

When a country is allowed to punish you because you did not complete an illegal task, then you know such a system is corrupt and unjust.

I for one believe he made the right decision.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
---Edited---

Never mind, i can see that quite a few members are not interested in the facts but instead they prefer to believe wild theories...

i guess people have a right to be ignorant instead of denying ignorance...



[edit on 26-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   


Members of the UN who decided not to fight or support the war, were reaping profits from the illegal sell of weapons and other illegal tactics by use of the oil For Food scandal. i guess some people still don't know this....


If thats true, then why is the general public still blind to those facts and many others?



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ivanglam

If thats true, then why is the general public still blind to those facts and many others?


Because as we can see time and time again from the responses in these forums people are interested just in what they think is the truth, no matter how wild it is, and prefer to ignore the actual evidence and the truth of the matter, and the liberal media in the states and abroad have not helped at all in this.


[edit on 26-3-2005 by Muaddib]

[edit on 26-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Yes... It truly is surprising how much a government keeps from its own people and allied countries..



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ivanglam
Yes... It truly is surprising how much a government keeps from its own people and allied countries..


What in the world are you talking about?...

All the links and information that came from my original post are real, and anyone could have searched for them and seen them.....



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
It's every soldiers obligation to disobey an illegal order, he given one to deploy in Iraq, so he followed through with what was morally right.

When a country is allowed to punish you because you did not complete an illegal task, then you know such a system is corrupt and unjust.

I for one believe he made the right decision.


It was not an illegal order.... He signed up to be in the military, the US and allies declared a war with Iraq, he should have done what he was supposed to do, the UCMJ does not allow soldiers to disobey orders of going to war.....



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ivanglam
How has he betrayed his family? I'm sure they disagree with the war also.

Not many agreed with the war in Iraq. Thats why many countries decided to not help in it. And also why the UN decided to not fight in it either.


Obviously you don't know what you are talking about...as all our allies that stayed with the US to fight in Iraq, are members of the United Nations.....

The main countries that disagreed with the war were France, Russia, China, and Germany...all of which partook in the illegal deals of the Oil For Food program...which is the reason why they didn't want a war with IRaq....



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Just the discuss the "illegal order" thing in the military. Say, a white soldier in WWII wanted to eat with a black soldier, even though it was against the rules, or wanted to give black soldiers just as good of food as in the whites mess halls. Would the white soldier be wrong for disobeying Army rules? Would his legal order, be morally wrong?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join