CNN.com wrote: TORONTO (AP) -- The Canadian government has denied refugee status to former U.S. Army paratrooper Jeremy Hinzman, a major blow to a handful of U.S. military deserters who have fled to Canada rather than fight in a war they claim commits atrocities against civilians. Thursday's decision, which was formally announced on a government Web site, could affect at least eight -- and possibly dozens more -- American soldiers seeking refuge in Canada, yet help improve strained relations between Washington and Ottawa. Canada opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The Pentagon has urged the deserters to return to the United States and take up their concerns at their respective military bases. The ruling, written by Immigration and Refugee Board member Brian Goodman, said Hinzman had not made a convincing argument that he would face persecution or cruel and unusual punishment if sent back to the United States. Goodman said that while Hinzman may face some employment and social discrimination, "The treatment does not amount to a violation of a fundamental human right, and the harm is not serious." Hinzman's attorney, Jeffry House, said his client would appeal the ruling and still believed that he would be granted refugee status in Canada. "He is disappointed," House told CBC TV. "We don't believe that people should be imprisoned for doing what they believe is illegal." Hinzman, 26, fled from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in January 2004, weeks before his 82nd Airborne Division was due to be deployed to Iraq. He had served three years in the Army, but had applied for conscientious objector status before his unit was sent to Afghanistan in 2002. Hinzman lives with his wife and toddler son in Toronto, where Quakers and the War Resisters coalition of anti-war groups have taken on his cause and provided some shelter. Coalition supporters intend to demonstrate later Thursday in front of the U.S. Consulate in Toronto. Hinzman argued before the Immigration and Refugee Board last December that he would have been taking part in war crimes if he had been deployed with his unit. He claimed the war in Iraq was illegal and he would be persecuted if forced to return to the United States. Hinzman could face charges of desertion if sent home and would face up to five years in prison. He and seven other U.S. military deserters are being represented by House, a Wisconsin native who came to Canada in 1970 as a draft dodger during the Vietnam War. House believes there are as many as 100 other American war resisters hiding in Canada, waiting to see how Hinzman's case is played out before coming forward. He said the 30,000 to 50,000 Americans who fled to Canada during Vietnam and were allowed to settle here, but that Hinzman would have become the first American soldier to be granted political asylum in Canada. During the Vietnam era, young American men could be drafted into military service, but now enlistment in U.S. military is voluntary. The military attracts many young recruits with job skills training and programs that help pay for university. Pvt. 1st Class Joshua Key, 26, of Oklahoma City is the latest war resister to flee to Toronto, arriving two weeks ago with his wife and four children. He told the Toronto Star that he served in Iraq with the 43rd Combat Engineering Company, which was deployed in April 2003. Key said he served eight months in Iraq before he left the military when he was on leave back at the 43rd's base in Fort Carson, Colorado in December 2003. "I was in combat the entire time I was there," said Key. "I left for Iraq with a purpose, thinking this was another Hitler deal. But there were no weapons of mass destruction. They had no military whatsoever. And I started to wonder."

So, what does everyone think of this? I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, these soldiers signed up mostly to pay for an education, see the world, and/or defend America. On the other, they signed up knowing full well that they could be called upon to engage in combat in foreign countries, to 'protect' the USA.

Variable wrote: Don't split hairs; they signed up to obey the orders of their commander and chief.  Their service is not limited to defending the U.S. from an invading army.

That’s right, the excuse of “I didn’t know I was going to war when I signed up.” Is a load of crap, everybody knows when they sign up that the Army is no Boy Scout troop, they fight and kill whenever they are expected to, and anyone who signs up knows that. So these guys are deserters and just that, and I am glad that Canada refused to give them asylum.

Someone's trying to weasel out of military service?  Is this a Bush/Cheney thread?  Besides, they didn't have to go to Canada for sanctuary for their cowardice, they found sanctuary in the White House. 

goodsmitty wrote: Badsmitty wrote: Someone's trying to weasel out of military service?  Is this a Bush/Cheney thread?  Besides, they didn't have to go to Canada for sanctuary for their cowardice, they found sanctuary in the White House.  Aren't you still recovering from that vicious punching you took last saturday at the anti-war rally?

It was some Canadian Signal Corp. guy dressed up in a winged helmet and tights.  He hit me with a typewriter.  Then his wife called me a stoner and destroyed me with her golden lasso.  I didn't have a chance.

Bottom line is they of their own free will signed a contract not just with the military but with the American people to defend "against ALL enemies". I'm over here in the hell hole they didn't want to come to because it is part of my obligation when I signed into the reserves six years ago. I would rather be home but I can't imagine being enough of a coward to actually trying to flee the country.

Besides it is the responsibility of all citizens in a republic to defend against any percieved threat, that goes back as far as Athens. Besides how many guys objected to the Vietnam conflict and went anyway?

DBibeau855 wrote: Yeah there are some hot canadians.

Sucky music, but I'd still hit it.

Interesting argument above, but let's try to simplify this again.  I offer the following points:

1. The job of any military is to kill people and break their stuff.
2. The U.S. Military is an all volunteer force-no one is drafted or otherwise coerced to join.  Yes, it is disproportionally composed of personnel from what some would consider middle/lower class backgrounds, but these folks joined because they decided there was something in it for them.  Actually, that is not entirely fair, I have been proud to serve with many people of many different backgrounds who joined because as unfashionable as it may be right now, they were true patriots with a desire to serve their country.
3. Because the U.S. military is an all volunteer force they have to entice recruits through additional benefits (such as educational opportunities) besides just basic pay and career related training.
4. Some people join specifically to take advantage of the benefits offered by the military, some join out of patriotism and some want to test themselves against the challenges the military offers.  There are many more reasons, but you get the idea.  In most cases folks join for more than one reason.
5. When someone enlists they take an oath to do the following:  Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; bear true faith and allegiance to the same, obey the orders of the President of the U.S. and of the officers appointed over them according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
6. For making this commitment, they get to serve in the U.S. military.  The military invests in training them in whatever career field they elected or were directed to serve in, they receive pay appropriate to their pay grade, housing is provided for them and their immediate family (if applicable), medical care is provided, and they are allowed to take advantage of whatever offer enticed them to join the military if they are so inclined.  
7. In return for receiving these benefits they are expected to answer the call to combat if so directed. 

From the above, and personal experience, I will state that every member of the U.S. military joins with the knowledge of what could be expected of them in the future. 

Vietnam era protesters had the guts to walk the streets and protest against a war they didn't believe in despite the risk of physical injury from counter-protestors/police.  I applaud their exercise of their freedom of speech and respect their actions.  Most vietnam era draft dodgers were put in the very difficult position of having to choose between violating their conscience or the law.  They made their choices based on their personal morality and while I do not approve of those choices, I respect the personal integrity that led to their decisions.  I respect the folks who served in the current wars/actions, then decided to get out and protest against it.  They had both the courage to fight, the integrity to keep their word in the pact they made with the government despite their personal feelings, and now are demonstrating the depth of their convictions against the war.  These are all honorable actions.

The military members who have fled to Canada have neither integrity or courage.  If they had integrity, they would never have taken an oath, in essence, given their word, when they did not intend to honor it.  If they had integrity, they would not have voluntarily accepted the benefits of military service without intending to meet the obligations of such service.  If they had courage they would have remained at their post and fulfilled their duties.  If they truly do not agree with the war their are options the military offers (i.e. conscientious objector status) that could have been pursued at their duty station.  If they had witnessed atrocities on the behalf of our forces the right thing to do would be to immediately report it so it could be stopped, not wait then use it later as an excuse to justify their actions.  If they are worried about being directed to commit atrocities, I view that as a lame way of justifying their own actions as opposed to just admitting they don't have the integrity to keep their word or to be the person who says "no" if given such an order.  If they actually had the courage of their convictions they would not be in a foreign country whining about potential mistreatment, they would be here fighting for their rights and supporting their point of view. 

They are not protestors, or freedom fighters, or even oppressed refugees.  What they are is a perfect example of the self-obsessed point of view (the "me-generation" if you will) that has become prevalent in today's society.  They were more than willing to take the oath of service when it suited their needs and provided for their wants, but when the time comes for them to earn their keep they aren't willing to meet their obligations.  Maybe they don't agree with the war, it doesn't matter, from basic training on it is drilled into recruits that orders are to be followed whether the person receiving them agrees or not.  If they were not willing to do so, then why did they remain in the service?  Probably because it was okay as long as everything went their way.

Part of the point here is about military discipline.  No military can afford to let it's personnel disregard rules and regulations.  Once that happens, respect for the chain of command is lost, discipline falters, and mission failure inevitably results.  Another part of the point is readiness.  The military has trained these folks to do certain jobs, replacing them takes time.  By absenting themselves from their units they have increased the workload on others and possibly increased the risk to other members of their units.

Before anyone accuses me of being an ultra-right-wing "Bushie" I want to say the following:  Well the right-wing part would probably be correct.  However, while I thought we needed to go into Afghanistan after Al Quada and the Taliban I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq.  I do not agree with the way either mission has been conducted.  I will say the following in defense of our nation's leaders:  Saddam went to great efforts to convince the rest of the world he had chemical/biological weapons.  Part of not letting inspectors in was to make people think he had WMDs when he didn't.  This display increased his stature among other leaders in the region:  He was the brave defender of the rightous standing up to the great satan with the weapons to back up his blustering.  If he had actually had them, and had provided them to a terrorist group which used them on U.S. soil, the question would not be "why are we in Iraq", it would be "why didn't we go to Iraq and prevent this".  This is a question that has already been asked about Afghanistan, but can you imagine the protests in the U.S. if we had done a preemptive strike to prevent 9-11?  Anyway, I've gotten off-topic.

My issue with the military members who are asking for asylum in Canada is that they gave their word (took an oath) and do not have the integrity to keep it.  The military took them at their words, trained them, housed them, educated them, provided for them, all in expectation of them answering the call to duty when required.  These individuals were more than willing to enjoy every benefit, but are not willing to keep up their end of the bargain; a bargain they made willingly and with full knowledge of the possible consequences.  IMO they are nothing more than selfish cowards who have no concept of honor or integrity, and I despise them as such.

rancidpnk13 wrote: *gasp* PARAGRAPHS!!!!!!!! ^

 Yeah, it didn't stay quite as simple as I originally intended.