- Reaction score
- 6,431
- Points
- 1,360
http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=4f09e47c-222a-4555-82b8-1afc18575bf2
Refugee board made right move
U.S. soldier's asylum argument simply didn't hold water
Calgary Herald
Monday, March 28, 2005
It never looked for a minute as though U.S. army deserter Jeremy Hinzman was a genuine refugee. Thus, the Immigration and Refugee Board's decision to refuse his bid for political asylum gives us some assurance that Canada's creaky system for considering refugee claims can produce a right answer, despite the copious criticism justly heaped upon it.
We are concerned, however, at how long it takes to do it. Determining citizenship is a key element of sovereignty; that it took 14 months to deal with such a straightforward case suggests the board needs to be better resourced.
Hinzman joined up for a four-year engagement in November 2000. Later, he volunteered to be a paratrooper, and ended up in the 82nd Airborne Division. While in Afghanistan with his unit, he was apparently affected by pacifist ideas, applied for conscientious objector status, and was allowed to serve out his tour of duty on non-combatant duties.
His application to be considered a conscientious objector was later denied, however. So, days before his unit was to leave for service in Iraq, Hinzman decamped to Canada and claimed asylum as a refugee.
The basis of his appeal was that the war in Iraq was illegal, that if he hurt or killed anybody he would be guilty of a criminal act, and that if he was returned to the U.S., he faced cruel and unusual punishment.
It is good the board didn't buy his story, for this young man seems to be badly mixed-up on some basic principles. For instance, he is a volunteer. Nobody pushed him into the army, unless one considers the prospect of financial assistance through college to be a conscience-bending drug, too powerful for ordinary people to decline.
There is also an unwritten understanding that while merely following orders is a poor defence against accusations of immoral conduct, one doesn't get to pick and choose one's wars.
Having taken the oath, Hinzman's job for four years was to serve. And indeed, the board declared the legality or otherwise of the war in Iraq to be irrelevant.
It also rightly held that Hinzman's case failed the basic test of what constitutes a refugee, namely someone with "a well-founded fear" of persecution. If returned to the U.S., that's not what Hinzman is facing, just a court martial on charges that could net him up to five years in the stockade. No holiday camp, certainly, but hardly cruel and unusual punishment, either.
Unfortunately, the board's decision merely places Hinzman on the next rung of an appeals ladder that capable attorneys have used to prevent the deportation of far less desirable refugee applicants than he.
Heaven forbid Canadians should deny justice to strangers within their gates, but they would do well to administer it more speedily.
© The Calgary
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2005/03/28/pf-974116.html
Mon, March 28, 2005
His legacy's painted in yellow
By Peter Worthington
Although some are disappointed, no one should be surprised that U.S. army deserter Jeremy Hinzman's bid to be a "refugee" has been rejected.
Hinzman himself says he expected this decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board, and will launch his appeal today. It will likely enable him to remain in Canada for years like other illegals.
Looking at it objectively, it's hard to imagine a case weaker than Hinzman. His three main themes for deserting are: 1. Iraq is an "illegal" war (what's a "legal" war, one wonders?); 2. He was afraid he'd have to commit atrocities in Iraq; 3. He decided he was a conscientious objector, even though he volunteered to become a paratrooper in America's most gung-ho unit, the 82nd Airborne.
'Fear of combat'
While good manners dictate that no one wants to come out and say it, it's hard to escape the stark conclusion that Jeremy Hinzman is a coward.
A Globe and Mail editorial put it gently -- and I'd agree: "A person (Hinzman) is clearly not a refugee if his only reason for desertion is his dislike of military service or fear of combat."
The army was fine when he joined 10 months before 9/11, and being a macho paratrooper gave him status until on the eve of being sent to Iraq when he ran away to Canada.
True, he served in Afghanistan -- where he was refused conscientious objector status. Perhaps out of deference to his newly found pacifism, he was relegated to kitchen duty. Safe but unheroic.
No one is sure how many U.S. deserters are hiding out in Canada. Maybe 100, maybe 200. Interestingly, their lawyers and supporters tend to be former Vietnam draft dodgers.
But these guys today aren't draft dodgers -- a qualitative difference. There is no draft in the U.S. It's a volunteer army, like ours.
These guys are deserters, and there's a certain disdain for deserters. Even during Vietnam, a draft dodger was more acceptable than a deserter, which reeks of cowardice no matter how one sugarcoats it.
That said, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, Detroit Free Press and others, Hinzman's lawyer Jeffry House came up with a novel defence on the CBC: "We don't believe people should be imprisoned for doing what they believe is illegal."
Bicycle courier
Hmmm.
A poster boy for deserters, today Hinzman is a bicycle courier. It's a far cry from the university education he says he joined the army to get -- until the shooting started.
The "cruel and unusual" punishment he thinks he'd get if he returned to the U.S. would be at most five years in prison, but more likely one year. Neither very cruel, nor unusual.
Despite Canada's meek support for U.S. policy and our opposition to the war in Iraq, Canadians are generally admiring of their own military and not enthusiastic about deserters.
Canada, with Paul Martin as PM, is different from Canada when Jean Chretien was PM and his party striving to loot the till.
Martin clearly seeks to restore damaged relations with the U.S. Despite his verbal opposition to missile defence it doesn't mean a damn thing because, under NORAD, Canada is already a partner in continental defence.
Hinzman will be an anti-war hero to those aging anti-Vietniks who came here 30 to 40 years ago, and to the CBC which viscerally dislikes our military and revels in anything anti-American.
He can attend anti-U.S. rallies and ride his courier bike on our streets and live a sort of twilight life and never amount to much. But mostly he's a sad young man whose judgment is flawed and whose courage is questioned.
Not much of a legacy.
Refugee board made right move
U.S. soldier's asylum argument simply didn't hold water
Calgary Herald
Monday, March 28, 2005
It never looked for a minute as though U.S. army deserter Jeremy Hinzman was a genuine refugee. Thus, the Immigration and Refugee Board's decision to refuse his bid for political asylum gives us some assurance that Canada's creaky system for considering refugee claims can produce a right answer, despite the copious criticism justly heaped upon it.
We are concerned, however, at how long it takes to do it. Determining citizenship is a key element of sovereignty; that it took 14 months to deal with such a straightforward case suggests the board needs to be better resourced.
Hinzman joined up for a four-year engagement in November 2000. Later, he volunteered to be a paratrooper, and ended up in the 82nd Airborne Division. While in Afghanistan with his unit, he was apparently affected by pacifist ideas, applied for conscientious objector status, and was allowed to serve out his tour of duty on non-combatant duties.
His application to be considered a conscientious objector was later denied, however. So, days before his unit was to leave for service in Iraq, Hinzman decamped to Canada and claimed asylum as a refugee.
The basis of his appeal was that the war in Iraq was illegal, that if he hurt or killed anybody he would be guilty of a criminal act, and that if he was returned to the U.S., he faced cruel and unusual punishment.
It is good the board didn't buy his story, for this young man seems to be badly mixed-up on some basic principles. For instance, he is a volunteer. Nobody pushed him into the army, unless one considers the prospect of financial assistance through college to be a conscience-bending drug, too powerful for ordinary people to decline.
There is also an unwritten understanding that while merely following orders is a poor defence against accusations of immoral conduct, one doesn't get to pick and choose one's wars.
Having taken the oath, Hinzman's job for four years was to serve. And indeed, the board declared the legality or otherwise of the war in Iraq to be irrelevant.
It also rightly held that Hinzman's case failed the basic test of what constitutes a refugee, namely someone with "a well-founded fear" of persecution. If returned to the U.S., that's not what Hinzman is facing, just a court martial on charges that could net him up to five years in the stockade. No holiday camp, certainly, but hardly cruel and unusual punishment, either.
Unfortunately, the board's decision merely places Hinzman on the next rung of an appeals ladder that capable attorneys have used to prevent the deportation of far less desirable refugee applicants than he.
Heaven forbid Canadians should deny justice to strangers within their gates, but they would do well to administer it more speedily.
© The Calgary
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2005/03/28/pf-974116.html
Mon, March 28, 2005
His legacy's painted in yellow
By Peter Worthington
Although some are disappointed, no one should be surprised that U.S. army deserter Jeremy Hinzman's bid to be a "refugee" has been rejected.
Hinzman himself says he expected this decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board, and will launch his appeal today. It will likely enable him to remain in Canada for years like other illegals.
Looking at it objectively, it's hard to imagine a case weaker than Hinzman. His three main themes for deserting are: 1. Iraq is an "illegal" war (what's a "legal" war, one wonders?); 2. He was afraid he'd have to commit atrocities in Iraq; 3. He decided he was a conscientious objector, even though he volunteered to become a paratrooper in America's most gung-ho unit, the 82nd Airborne.
'Fear of combat'
While good manners dictate that no one wants to come out and say it, it's hard to escape the stark conclusion that Jeremy Hinzman is a coward.
A Globe and Mail editorial put it gently -- and I'd agree: "A person (Hinzman) is clearly not a refugee if his only reason for desertion is his dislike of military service or fear of combat."
The army was fine when he joined 10 months before 9/11, and being a macho paratrooper gave him status until on the eve of being sent to Iraq when he ran away to Canada.
True, he served in Afghanistan -- where he was refused conscientious objector status. Perhaps out of deference to his newly found pacifism, he was relegated to kitchen duty. Safe but unheroic.
No one is sure how many U.S. deserters are hiding out in Canada. Maybe 100, maybe 200. Interestingly, their lawyers and supporters tend to be former Vietnam draft dodgers.
But these guys today aren't draft dodgers -- a qualitative difference. There is no draft in the U.S. It's a volunteer army, like ours.
These guys are deserters, and there's a certain disdain for deserters. Even during Vietnam, a draft dodger was more acceptable than a deserter, which reeks of cowardice no matter how one sugarcoats it.
That said, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, Detroit Free Press and others, Hinzman's lawyer Jeffry House came up with a novel defence on the CBC: "We don't believe people should be imprisoned for doing what they believe is illegal."
Bicycle courier
Hmmm.
A poster boy for deserters, today Hinzman is a bicycle courier. It's a far cry from the university education he says he joined the army to get -- until the shooting started.
The "cruel and unusual" punishment he thinks he'd get if he returned to the U.S. would be at most five years in prison, but more likely one year. Neither very cruel, nor unusual.
Despite Canada's meek support for U.S. policy and our opposition to the war in Iraq, Canadians are generally admiring of their own military and not enthusiastic about deserters.
Canada, with Paul Martin as PM, is different from Canada when Jean Chretien was PM and his party striving to loot the till.
Martin clearly seeks to restore damaged relations with the U.S. Despite his verbal opposition to missile defence it doesn't mean a damn thing because, under NORAD, Canada is already a partner in continental defence.
Hinzman will be an anti-war hero to those aging anti-Vietniks who came here 30 to 40 years ago, and to the CBC which viscerally dislikes our military and revels in anything anti-American.
He can attend anti-U.S. rallies and ride his courier bike on our streets and live a sort of twilight life and never amount to much. But mostly he's a sad young man whose judgment is flawed and whose courage is questioned.
Not much of a legacy.
As far as the general public, most of the people I know, this subject isn't even something they know about, and if they do know about it they are indifferent (typical Canadians) or for allowing these things to stay here.
