It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


NEWS: Deserter Makes Bid For Refugee Status In Canada

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 11:59 PM
Brandon Hughey appeared before the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board in a bid to gain asylum. After his unit was ordered to pack up for deployment to Iraq, Hughey left his unit in Fort Hood, Texas and drove across the border at Niagra Falls. He claims his conscience forced him to desert and that the war in Iraq is illegal.
American war dodger Brandon Hughey made his case to stay in Canada yesterday, appearing at a hearing in a bid to gain permanent asylum as a refugee.

Hughey, 20, appeared at an Immigration and Refugee Board hearing that was heard by Brian Goodman.

Goodman said Hughey's bid for refugee status rests on whether human rights abuses in Iraq by coalition forces are systemic or not.

It's not known when Goodman will make his decision.

The hearing comes two months after fellow U.S. military deserter Jeremy Hinzman lost his bid for refugee status.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I think it is highly unlikely that Hughey will be granted refugee status in Canada. The Board set a precedent by denying Hinzman's application, so I think Hughley can expect to be heading back home soon. While conscription is a valid basis for a refugee status, he joined voluntarily so he has no claim.

Related News Links:

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:15 AM
Yep, it will or most likely will be denied just as you mentioned that Hinzman's was.


posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:21 AM
How are US military rules of engagement ? Can you disobey illegal order (like killing your roommate f.ex.)? If yes, there's plenty of jurisdictional ground on which asylum could be granted to a US soldier, given that the occupation of iraq is illegal. Probably just not enough political grounds.

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:45 AM
Rules of engagement? They are pretty tricky.

If an order is illegal or established as immoral, then yeah, you can disobey it. Like, if your commander orders you to go sell crack to Iraqi school kids, you can tell him to stuff it, just make sure you get some witnesses and report it. Your word against his, the more evidence you have, the better chance you have of getting off.

If say, your commander tells you to shoot an Iraqi kid thats running towards you, its a bit different. If you do not shoot, and the kid is packing a bomb and ends up blowing away half your unit, then you can get busted for disobeying a direct order. If you shoot the kid, and you find out your C.O. told you to do it because he didn't like the look the kid gave you, you had better report it quick if you want to avoid later charges.

But this guy doesnt have a leg to stand on. He cannot truly be a consciencious objector. He joined the army willingly, as we do not have a draft in place (yet). Once you join, thats it, your ass belongs to the government. You made the choice to join, with that choice, comes the possibility that you may be sent into who knows what conflict. If one breaks out and you get sent, tough luck, should have thought if that before you signed the dotted line.

This dude should be busted for desertion. And I hope the Canucks send his ass back so he can recieve proper punishment.

I did not believe we should be in the Gulf, and did not want to go to Saudi, but I went anyway, because when I signed that paper, I basically said "Uncle Sam Owns My Ass" and it was my duty to go. I went. Because it would be more immoral for me to bail out when things became less than pleasant.

Hope this dude gets busted as an example.

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:52 AM

from a random web page
You not only have the right to disobey an illegal order, but you may also have the duty to apprehend the parties issuing such an order if such issuance is part of the commission of a crime.

What illegal orders are we talking about, here, though? Military precedent in this regard focuses on the constitution, I believe.


posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:53 AM
I think the guy was disobeying orders on the following grounds:

Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to deprive any person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution, and under 18 USC 241 it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights.

But I don't think he has a case.


posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 01:17 AM
I apologize for all of the questions, but if I don't ask, I won't know the answers. I hope someone can answer them for me.

How much prison time is he likely to receive when he gets sent back?

What would be different if he had refused to go, but not run away?

Would they just drag him onto the airplane or could he attempt to refuse and get some kind of military trial where he could plead his case? Of course, he'd go to jail, but it would the more honourable thing to do, in my opinion.

Seekerof, thanks for adding the Hinzman link. Wish I had thought of that. *slaps forehead*

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 01:28 AM
Jail time is too good for this person!

He should be shot at sunrise if not earlier.

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 01:37 AM
Shot at sunrise? Absolutely not. Prison in this is not too good for him. Its what he deserves. Ever been to Leavenworth, Kansas? Like a piece of hell that fell to earth.

He'll beg for death.

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 02:36 AM
If he signed the paper, willingly, make him go.
If it were a draft, I would support him running, I'll be damned if I ever go to war, for some fat ass white dudes who want some oil.

top topics


log in