Should American Paratrooper be sent back to face discipline for Desertion

Osama bin Laden and his Al qaeda group attacked America, so Hinzman fought in Afghanistan against the attackers. He was taking retribution to Al qaeda in behalf of the American people and was defending America against those who had attacked its people.

Iraq was not the same. Iraq was at best a 'You tried to kill my pappy, so I'm going to deal with you Saddam' kind of war. At worst it was planned to give more profits to the oil cartels. I don't blame Hinzman for refusing to fight for such pathetic reasons.

My thoughts ... Hinzman will fight for America and defend America but can't see the point in fighting for some greedy oil barons.

I agree with him. Although I am a Brit, I will defend America if the country is attacked. But I wont fight for some wracked off greedy corporation. Bugger that,

The U.S. Army wants him in Fort Bragg, N.C., home of the 82nd Airborne Division, "America's Guard of Honor." But this week Mr. Hinzman, 25, passed the 30-day limit for being absent without leave. He officially became a deserter.

Just before midnight on Jan. 2, he and his wife, Nga Nguyen, 31, quietly loaded their 21-month-old son, Liam, and a few belongings into their 1996 Chevrolet Prism and disappeared into the darkness for a 17-hour drive to the Canadian border. They left just before his unit -- the second battalion of the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment -- was shipped overseas.

As a result, Mr. Hinzman is believed to be the first U.S. soldier to apply for refugee status in Canada after refusing combat duty in Iraq -- the first echo of the 12,000 deserters and 20,000 draft resisters who came north more than 30 years ago to escape the Vietnam War.

In 2002, Mr. Hinzman asked the army to declare him a conscientious objector because he had arrived at the religious conviction that killing and war in any guise are wrong. His request was rejected.

external image

I feel sorry for the man but he made a commitment to the Army and should have finnished his tour,
I believe his hearing is today Wed, /07/07/04
US soldier refuses to fight seeks refuge in Canada

Jeremy Hinzman www.jeremyhinzman.net...

[edit on 8-7-2004 by Sauron]
Jeremy Hinzman, 25, attended a pretrial earing Wednesday to set Oct. 20 to 22 as the dates for the inquiry to determine his fate. ...






[edit on 8-7-2004 by Sauron]

HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER SIGNED UP THEN. You unfortunately don't have the luxury of having a change of heart when you sign a contract with the military. If I had a family or the chance of having a family, then I would not sign up. He is not changing his mind about buying a car. What about Vietnam? Was that just? Again I pose this question, what would happen if 2/3 of our miliatry had a change of heart

I can't believe I am even arguing this point. He is a coward and a deserter, nuff said.

Originally posted by nyarlathotep

Originally posted by NavyDog
You know who I would like to see reprimanded as well - anyone within the NMC or NORAD chain of command for failure to act and execute their duties on 911. No heads have rolled yet - nor will they. A true sign of complacency or insider knowledge to something devious.

Come on, there's a big difference and you know it. Save it for the 9/11 threads. Besides, that is just speculation, this is definitely fact.


There is not a big difference as far as the UCMJ is concerned - you miss the point like many do and it is relavent to this situation. BS - 3000 people die and not one has been reprimanded at those agencies - FACT - did you reald 911 commission report, do you have friends at Pentagon or other unnamed sources, peruse the news. Heads should roll! So if a captain of a navy ship lets it get hit by a missile, he won't get reprimanded?? LOL

[edit on 7-7-2004 by NavyDog]

Originally posted by NavyDog
There is not a big difference as far as the UCMJ is concerned - you miss the point like many do and it is relavent to this situation. BS - 3000 people die and not one has been reprimanded at those agencies - FACT - did you reald 911 commission report, do you have friends at Pentagon or other unnamed sources, peruse the news. Heads should roll! So if a captain of a navy ship lets it get hit by a missile, he won't get reprimanded?? LOL

[edit on 7-7-2004 by NavyDog]

This thread was about an individual deserting, not some 9/11 conspiracy. that is why I said save it for those threads. This has nothing to do with this guy, OK?

Perhaps one part of it I should save for another thread. I am still interested whether you think it odd this person is in the limelight more than top officers at NMC or other agencies with regard to 911. As a former officer, it really bothers me - and many others I know.

In the words of General Thomas Jackson, "Dissertion is not a solitary crime, establish the Courts Martial and if found guilty they shall be put to death, it must be so."

i just want to thank most of you, seriously, nearly all of you, for realizing desertion is never justifiable. regardless of how you feel about the war itself, so many of you understand what this guy did is truly wrong, that is something i really appreciate. as for those who say his reasons justify what he has done, that's not true. he always had the option of applying for conscientious objector, basically meaning he thought the war was wrong and wanted nothing to do with it. my understanding is had he being awarded that then he could freely leave the military. what he did instead was simply desert, leave, run off, and that's not right.

We don't know if he tried all of those avenues before he deserted. You shouldn't judge before you know the whole story.

Isn�t desertion punishable by death I thought it was so that is what that little punk should get if you cant take it don't join the military plain and simple!

i dont talk about my personal life often and for good reason, its private however i will share a little bit of it with you people./

my father was in the army in the early 70's by choice while vietnam was still going on and for some strange reason decided he was going to go AWOL. apparently he didnt like the thought of going into officers school so he split. he didnt want to go to vietnam (i think someone put it in his head he might have wound up there) which made me wonder and then ask my mom why he went into the army during that time and she didnt know and i still dont understand.

now the first thing i thought of when i heard about this was "what a coward". now i was a teenager at the time, the gulf war was going on and i guess i was part of the give peace a chance movement but still i couldnt get over why someone would join the military and then bail when things happened that didnt mesh with a persons sense of morality.

i could understand why someone would do this if they had no choice. those who are drafted and then leave i could understand, i dont condone it but i could understand why some of those who were drafted would go live in another country. but for a person of their own free will to join ANY branch of the armed services and then decides to bail because it goes against their religious beliefs, sense of morality, they feel that particular action mission or war is unjust baffles me greatly. i wonder if these people put any forethought into their actions. do they actually think "hey i might actually have to go to war and kill people, is this what i really want to do?" or do they think "hey free college!"??? what do people think the military does anyway? send people to college? the military has two purposes, kill people and blow things up. thats it. free college and training in this that or some other field are incentives to join and they do use them to get people to sign up. however once you join up they train you to fire weapons, be physically fit and put you in the mindset of being a part of a whole army. they do not, repeat do NOT sing campfire songs and roast marshmallows.

now certainly people are entitled to change their mind but they are not allowed by law to then tuck tail and run when it suits their own wants or needs. sure he has a right to not agree with whats going on in iraq, noone said he had to like it, he just had to do it. and he wouldnt do it and now faces charges of desertion. the smart thing would have sucked it up and said "yeah i got myself in this, time to pay the price" and then do the job he VOLUNTARILY signed up for and then once his time was up to simply leave the military behind him. as adults we have to live with the decisions we make. sometimes we regret them later but that serves as a lesson that we should put more thought into what we do in the future.

i love my military and i support what it does and i support those who do the job they signed up to do, to do what is asked of them with or without notice, if they like it or not.

i find there is a vast difference between those who go forth and then "lose it" and someone who hopped across the border because he felt what what going on in iraq was "criminal". curme i understand what you're saying however its not like he went to iraq and tried to do his duty, no he simply didnt go and took off to canada. or are you implying he too might have a mental problem?

How can anyone possibly justify what this guy has done? He broke the law, regardless of how you feel, that is what happened. What is the point of even having laws if we think they can be broken for the sake of ones "soul" or feelings? There is nothing that can justify what this guy did. There are many avenues available to him that he could have used to keep himself out of the combat arms. He tried one and then gave up. What a quitter.

This guy volunteered for the Army, and then he volunteered to go Airborne. When faced with having to do his job, he bolted and is not trying to claim that he is a "refugee." That is complete BS. You do the crime you pay the price.

He's lucky that they won't be able to persue the death penalty for desertion in this case. He will probably receive a light sentence and then a BCD.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
How can anyone possibly justify what this guy has done? He broke the law, regardless of how you feel, that is what happened. What is the point of even having laws if we think they can be broken for the sake of ones "soul" or feelings? There is nothing that can justify what this guy did. There are many avenues available to him that he could have used to keep himself out of the combat arms. He tried one and then gave up. What a quitter.

Thank God in Nazi times there were people who listened to their hearts and souls and went against "law" to help hide innocent Jews. Thank God for people like Schindler who SO broke the law and bent the rules because he kept his humanity to help jews when he so easily could have become a preprogrammed soulless robot like the masses.

This guy loves his family. THIS is what's most important to him. Who is anyone to stand as judge and jury and tell him what he should consider "important" in his life.

Love and family or a bunch of soulless rules and regulations. Hmmmm...HARD choice.

Anyone who thinks the law must be obeyed to the letter, simply because it's a law and to Hell with the repercussions of that law (no matter how many people that law happens to hurt) is no better then the brainwashed masses in Nazi Germany. We, each one of us must think for ourselves and either reject or accept individual laws depending on what our inner selves tell us is right. Simply accepting is mindless sheep behaviour plain and simple.

Originally posted by KayEm
Anyone who thinks the law must be obeyed to the letter, simply because it's a law and to Hell with the repercussions of that law (no matter how many people that law happens to hurt) is no better then the brainwashed masses in Nazi Germany. We, each one of us must think for ourselves and either reject or accept individual laws depending on what our inner selves tell us is right. Simply accepting is mindless sheep behavior plain and simple.

AMEN!!!! CAN I GET ANOTHER AMEN HERE PEOPLE??? YOU GO KayEm!!! Preach it Baby!!!

Law - noun
A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.

Wait a second. What was that second 'Word' used to site 'What establishes a Law? AGREEMENT Huh, what do ya know, KayEm is Correct. So if someone doesn't agree with what a certain Law says, that Law then doesn't mean JACK SH|T to them then does it.

Now obviously that doesn't stop the 3rd 'Word', 'Authority', from bringing down the hammer on those who choose to exercises their Free Will in what laws to follow. But, that is usually the price one pays when they admit to themselves that 'Laws, Authority, Customs, Rules, etc. and even Words themselves' are nothing but Illusions and Concepts of the Mind and from then on make the decision to Live Completely Free from the Bonds they were born into. From then on to Choose Responsibility for Themselves and to Live a Life of Their Own Rules & Not by the Rules of Others. (Who by the way only seem to follow their own rules when convenient anyway.)

Now, aside from that. In this particular case, this man Decided to Sign up for the military, and then Airborne on top of that. I have to assume he knew what that meant too. I don't think just abandoning your commitment, which was chosen & not forced, is the way to do it. However, if you should desire and choose of your own free will to cancel your contract then you should be able to do so as long as it is done at the right time. (Basically, at any time other than right in the middle of fighting or something. Like on leave, or a day off or something like that.)

In doing so, you should get Dishonorable Discharge or Voluntary Abandonment or whatever on your record, no benefits, lose all medals and so forth of course, but released if you choose to do so. If it was your choice to 'Sign Up' it should be your choice to 'Sign Out' too. As long as it's done at the right time, which should be often enough that it's not a problem anyway.

The difference would be Abandoning your post or something which in that case should be punished for being an Incompetent Retard and becoming a Hazard to the safety of others.

[edit on 8-7-2004 by mOjOm]

Originally posted by KayEm
Thank God in Nazi times there were people who listened to their hearts and souls and went against "law" to help hide innocent Jews. Thank God for people like Schindler who SO broke the law and bent the rules because he kept his humanity to help jews when he so easily could have become a preprogrammed soulless robot like the masses.

What laws did Schindler break?

This guy loves his family. THIS is what's most important to him. Who is anyone to stand as judge and jury and tell him what he should consider "important" in his life.

No one is denying that. However, he still had a legal obligation that he failed to uphold. Are you now saying that he should not be punished for committing a crime?

Love and family or a bunch of soulless rules and regulations. Hmmmm...HARD choice.

Have you ever actually read any of those rules and regulations or researched the reasons why they were created in the first place? Do you know what purpose they serve today?

Anyone who thinks the law must be obeyed to the letter, simply because it's a law and to Hell with the repercussions of that law (no matter how many people that law happens to hurt) is no better then the brainwashed masses in Nazi Germany. We, each one of us must think for ourselves and either reject or accept individual laws depending on what our inner selves tell us is right. Simply accepting is mindless sheep behaviour plain and simple.

So now you no longer think that we need to follow laws that our inner selves tell us are wrong? Does that mean that I can go out and kill someone simply because my inner self does not agree that there should be a law against that? Try using that for a defense in court, "your honor I am not guilty of murdering that person as my inner self thought that it was a okay thing to do despite what the law says."

Originally posted by COOL HAND
So now you no longer think that we need to follow laws that our inner selves tell us are wrong? Does that mean that I can go out and kill someone simply because my inner self does not agree that there should be a law against that? Try using that for a defense in court, "your honor I am not guilty of murdering that person as my inner self thought that it was a okay thing to do despite what the law says."

No, COOL HAND, that is an excellent point though.

First of all nobody is saying that it's either a choice of All Laws or No Laws. Just because someone doesn't agree with the 'Drug Enforcement Law' or 'Jaywalking Law' or whatever doesn't mean they are also by default going to go against the No Murdering Others Law too.

Using your example though is perfect. What if someone does agree with the Law of Not Killing Others and also includes that to mean Not Killing Innocent People or Gross Acts of War as well??? Then what??? Are they wrong unless they go out and Kill then???

What if you sign up for the Military thinking that you were going to be serving your country and helping others or whatever, but come to find out your just being used as a killing machine and that it also includes killing innocent people, only calling them 'Acceptable Losses' or some crap like that. You not only know that is wrong, but it is also against the Law from any rational perspective. However, because the Laws are being made by a Corrupt Authority they say it's ok this time but no other time. Well that is B.S.

You see it's not a choice of one or the other or a black and white issue like that. You see what I'm saying?

Originally posted by mOjOm
Wait a second. What was that second 'Word' used to site 'What establishes a Law? AGREEMENT Huh, what do ya know, KayEm is Correct. So if someone doesn't agree with what a certain Law says, that Law then doesn't mean JACK SH|T to them then does it.

Wait a sec, so any law I don't agree with is null and void? I am going to throw a flag on this one. *referee says, illegal procedure on the offense, 10 yards, repeat first down*

Come on Mojom, there wouldn't be any criminals then, for they would have to say is: "well I don't agree with that law and it clearly states in the dictionary a law must have agreement.

I am not going to bash the guy, he will get plenty of that in court. The law is quite simple actually, and he broke it. He should be judged by his peers.

I had a friend of mine who had some family problems to take care of, in another state before we left for Iraq. My unit wouldn't let him take off a couple of days off. There was this rule that you couldn't be more than 100 miles from the base, because we could of been leaving any second. We were that way for about six months. Anywho, he just left, took care of his buisiness, and came back about a week later. None of the slodiers were mad at him, he had family stuff to take care of, and the Army would not work with him to make that happen. He came back, did a couple of months of extra duty, lost some money, I forget whether he lost a rank or not. My point is, sometimes you have to look after yourself, because no one else is going to do it, even the military.

zerotime...my thoughts exactly!!!

Let Canada have him.

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
Wait a sec, so any law I don't agree with is null and void? I am going to throw a flag on this one. *referee says, illegal procedure on the offense, 10 yards, repeat first down*

Come on Mojom, there wouldn't be any criminals then, for they would have to say is: "well I don't agree with that law and it clearly states in the dictionary a law must have agreement.

I am not going to bash the guy, he will get plenty of that in court. The law is quite simple actually, and he broke it. He should be judged by his peers.

Well, laws are made and unmade and changed all the time whether or not everyone agrees anyway. Now, like I said, just because you don't agree or choose not to follow a certain Law of your own free will, it doesn't mean that some Authority is going to say that it's ok and let you skip along untouched. All I'm saying is that Individually, each one of us either Agrees or Disagrees with the Laws that are established. Now, we also either Comply or Do not Comply with the Laws that are established. The big question is do we, as individuals, comply with laws that we disagree with??? If so, then why and at what cost???

If it's a law like not being in the park after 10pm, or something little and minor it's not that big of a deal obviously. But let's take something like Killing or Hurting Innocent People, or even People in general. But for simplicity let's use Innocent People only for now. Well, so now your a soldier and you realize that all these Bombing Raids you're being sent on is actually responsible for killing Innocent People as well as the Enemy. Also, calling it 'Acceptable Losses' or whatever still doesn't justify it to you and you know terms like that don't mean anything cause it's just a way of justifying something that you cannot and will not agree is Just or Right ever. It's all fine until the 'Acceptable Losses' end up being your own Mother or Father or Loved one and you know that.

Well, just because the Law says it's ok and don't worry cause you're not accountable cause you're a soldier, does that really make it ok???

What I'm saying is that, it was once a Law that Blacks couldn't drink from the same water fountain as Whites. Is that a Just Law?? Should it be followed just cause it IS the Law?? Would you follow it, knowing that you did not agree with it?? (Once again back to the Big Question)