U.S. Military Deserters in Canada Megathread

[paracowboy]

Good points from all.   I am not on a Jeremy Hinsmen defense crusade here.   I didn't know he served in a kitchen.... on the other hand I don't know how that matters.

I agree that he doesn't have much of a legal leg left to stand on.   But morally I believe there is an assumption here that this is a belief of convienence and again I think that is presumtuous.  

Yes he is a volunteer in a volunteer army but he volunteered before his country illegally ( his belief - not mine ) invaded Iraq.   I agree that it is not the soldiers place to determine the legality of wars but as a man/woman you have a moral obligation to do what you think is right.   If the cause truly violates your moral beliefs than "I was just following orders" is not going to cut it when dealing with your conscience.  

I'm not just trying to rattle the cage here and I don't necessarily disagree with you guys.   Legalities aside.   The word coward is thrown around a lot.   That may be because it fits.   That is on the assumption though that he is using this as a convienient excuse to escape duty.  

What are the other options?   Besides marching yourself straight to cells ;D   Agreed though, it hardly seems brave running to Canada.

other options are to declare yourself a Conscientious Objector, go see the Padre, or simply march yourself to cells and fight for what you believe in.

However, it was established in interviews conducted by independent media (back when this was the topic du jour) that our good buddy Jeremy is a coward. The words of the men in his platoon. That is why he washed dishes in a kitchen in Afghanistan. He refused to go into combat, and so, they put him to work in a position where he wasn't just converting rations.

Jeremy enlisted to get the benefits. He didn't reckon having to do his duty to earn them. Jeremy should be marched to the border and turned over to the nearest Law Enforcement Officer. Or simply tossed over the Falls.

 

[x-zipperhead]

Okay, starting to see that in this guys case maybe the shoe fits.    I imagine though that any conscientious objector would be viewed as a coward by the rest of the platoon regardless of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of his stance.  Especially in a combat situation.

Jeremy enlisted to get the benefits. He didn't reckon having to do his duty to earn them.... .

You probably are quite right but none of us can say that for certain.

 

[North Star]

Did anyone read the book "Fields of Fire" by James Webb? Really good book that covers this debate (in the form of the father of the anti-hero) and points to a disturbing cultural split in the US during Vietnam (Ivy-League elites burning draft cards and shirking obligations, while working-class people don't).

 

[Brad Sallows]

The difference between the fly shit and the pepper is the difference between jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

Governments (and citizens, in the case of representative governments) are responsible and accountable for the decision to make war, and whether it is just or not.

Soldiers are responsible and accountable for how they wage war.

It is critically important to not blur that line, or permit it to be blurred.

 

[Glorified Ape]

The word "exasperated" doesn't even begin to describe the way I'm feeling after numerous repeated attempts to explain this.   However, one more try won't kill me.   Try this example:

Your section commander orders you to shoot an unarmed prisoner.   Or to help him steal a car.   Or to go take a lolipop away from a baby.   Whatever.   In any event, you're given a direct order to do something which you feel is wrong.   Do you:

A)   Carry out the order.
B)   Say "I think this is wrong", and then do it anyway.
C)   Say "I think this is wrong", and refuse to do it.
D)   Run away to Canada and claim to be a refugee running away from oppression.

For me it'd be C.   Personaly, I think anyone who choses any of the other 3 options is a coward.   In the case of "A" and "B", because you're not willing to stand up for what you beleive in, and in "D" because, well, that one should be obvious.   Jeremy Hinsmen and his ilk picked D.   If they had picked C, I would have had nothing but respect for them.   I'd still think they were WRONG, but I'd respect them for standing up for their beleifs.

I understood you the first time - you feel their cowardice is a result of their refusal to take responsibility for their actions (IE refusing to go to war). I disagree that their actions constitute cowardice. Take your same example - you refuse to shoot a prisoner when ordered to do so. You're now being charged for refusing the order because your country doesn't think it was illegal, indeed CAN'T agree it was illegal without admitting that the entire cause which brought you to your current situation is illegal. You have two choices - stick around and go to prison for refusing an illegal order or take off and possibly avoid prison. I wouldn't call you a coward for picking the latter. I don't view stoic acceptance of perceived injustice to be admirable or brave.

Actually, I was really confused about what the heck you were trying to say.   You didn't phrase it very well.   I'm pretty sure it was irrelevant anyway, so forget it, and I'm glad I was able to teach you something new

I thought I phrased it just fine. As for the topic being irrelevant to the deserter discussion, no arguments there - I was responding to an erroneous assertion on an irrelevant topic.

 

[Infanteer]

I understood you the first time - you feel their cowardice is a result of their refusal to take responsibility for their actions (IE refusing to go to war). I disagree that their actions constitute cowardice.

So, you don't think shirking from one's obligations constitutes some form of cowardice?  "I liked it when everything was going my way but now (for whatever reason) I don't like it so I'm going to leave the military high and dry, despite my legal obligations to my government and my moral obligations to the men in my unit."  Doesn't really strike me as speaking out for the "right thing".

You've signed a contract with the government of Canada (and gotten something good in return); do you not think that if you or somebody else decided to cash out by running away because you didn't like having to hold up your end of the bargin wouldn't constitute moral cowardice?  As I said, I'm not going to condemn the guy or call him a 'fraidy-cat for not wanting to fight or disagreeing with state policy, but he has clearly failed to uphold his legal duties - the fact that he did that willingly makes him morally defunct in my books.

 

[larry Strong]

You've signed a contract with the government of Canada (and gotten something good in return); do you not think that if you or somebody else decided to cash out by running away because you didn't like having to hold up your end of the bargin wouldn't constitute moral cowardice?   As I said, I'm not going to condemn the guy or call him a 'fraidy-cat for not wanting to fight or disagreeing with state policy, but he has clearly failed to uphold his legal duties - the fact that he did that willingly makes him morally defunct in my books.

Well that must be a global epidemic, as it's getting harder all the time to find people who will stand up and accept their responsibilities, Starting from political leaders, all the way down thru society.

 

[Infanteer]

Well that must be a global epidemic, as it's getting harder all the time to find people who will stand up and accept their responsibilities, Starting from political leaders, all the way down thru society.

Yup - and that is why Hinzeman and Co. are still here and not in Leavenworth where they belong....

 

[x-zipperhead]

You've signed a contract with the government of Canada (and gotten something good in return); do you not think that if you or somebody else decided to cash out by running away because you didn't like having to hold up your end of the bargin wouldn't constitute moral cowardice?   As I said, I'm not going to condemn the guy or call him a 'fraidy-cat for not wanting to fight or disagreeing with state policy, but he has clearly failed to uphold his legal duties - the fact that he did that willingly makes him morally defunct in my books.

Just because you've signed the dotted line doesn't mean you've sold your soul.  Legally, yes he has an obligation.  But in calling him a coward you are calling his morals and ethics into question.  It is a fine line between what one person calls a moral coward or another calls a moral hero.  Take a german soldier in WW2.  Suppose the first time he sees a concentration camp he decides he is going to desert.  Even though he signed the dotted line and has a legal obligation to fight for his country, on a moral level he decides he cannot fight for his country based on what he saw.  Moral coward or moral hero?  I guess it depends upon whether or not you agree with his stance.

I am in no way trying to draw a paralell between the US and Nazi Germany.  Period.

My point is this whole ' you signed the dotted line - do what you are told and let others determine if it is right or wrong ' doesn't cut it with me.  Governments have a duty to the soldier above all else to use war as a last possible solution.  If they must go to war they owe to the soldier above all else that the war be based on just cause.  It is the soldier who must risk his life and take others lives.  If you would go to war on a premise that you felt very stongly was unjust ( remember this is assuming he belives everything he is saying ) just because you signed the dotted line I would have to question those morals.

 

[Glorified Ape]

So, you don't think shirking from one's obligations constitutes some form of cowardice?   "I liked it when everything was going my way but now (for whatever reason) I don't like it so I'm going to leave the military high and dry, despite my legal obligations to my government and my moral obligations to the men in my unit."   Doesn't really strike me as speaking out for the "right thing".

You've signed a contract with the government of Canada (and gotten something good in return); do you not think that if you or somebody else decided to cash out by running away because you didn't like having to hold up your end of the bargin wouldn't constitute moral cowardice?   As I said, I'm not going to condemn the guy or call him a 'fraidy-cat for not wanting to fight or disagreeing with state policy, but he has clearly failed to uphold his legal duties - the fact that he did that willingly makes him morally defunct in my books.

No, I wouldn't call it cowardice. I might call it low and immoral depending on the circumstances, but I wouldn't call it cowardly any more than I'd call someone a coward for trying to avoid a fine for illegally parking.

 

[Infanteer]

I am in no way trying to draw a paralell between the US and Nazi Germany.   Period.

If you aren't, than why bring up the allegory of a concentration camp to strengthen your argument?  Stick to the case at hand and try not to enact Godwin's Law.

My point is this whole ' you signed the dotted line - do what you are told and let others determine if it is right or wrong ' doesn't cut it with me.

I've never stated that - what I have stated is that he obligated himself to the US Army; there a legal and moral implications in the fact that he, as a free and rational citizen, signed on the dotted line.  As I and many others have stated, he could have said "No", accepted his jail time, and moved on and let history be the judge.  Instead he decided to run away; running away is what most of us are focused on here.

No, I wouldn't call it cowardice. I might call it low and immoral depending on the circumstances, but I wouldn't call it cowardly any more than I'd call someone a coward for trying to avoid a fine for illegally parking.

Fine, I'll settle for low and immoral (which sits on the same plain as shirking coward in my books) than.  And I think this is a circumstance where either can apply; as somebody who's been part of a tight-knit team and relied on the others, I find Hinzeman's type especially low.  I could give a shit about the politics of Iraq, his claims to CO, or the fact that it was the US Army - I'd feel the same way if it was someone in a Canadian unit that didn't want to deploy to Kosovo or Afghanistan.

 

[x-zipperhead]

If you aren't, than why bring up the allegory of a concentration camp to strengthen your argument?   Stick to the case at hand and try not to enact Godwin's Law.

I never knew what Godwin's Law was.  After looking it up, your right, that was poor form.  I apologize if I offended anyone.  I could make any other allegory using say an Iraqi soldier but I think you got the point any way.  You are equating his legal obligation with his morals.  I have to disagree and I guess just leave it at that.

 

[Infanteer]

I never knew what Godwin's Law was.  After looking it up, your right, that was poor form.  I apologize if I offended anyone.  I could make any other allegory using say an Iraqi soldier but I think you got the point any way.  You are equating his legal obligation with his morals.  I have to disagree and I guess just leave it at that.

Well, what I was really getting at is the context of the legal obligations.  Comparing the legal and moral obligations in an all-volunteer US Army to that of Nazi Germany or Saddam's Iraq makes no reference to the proper context which Teddy Ruxpin so clearly highlighted:

So, what have we established?

1.  Hinzman did not receive a manifestly illegal order.  Therefore, he was bound to obey it.

2.  He was a volunteer in a volunteer army.  He had no objection to the use of military force, as his deployment to Afghanistan indicates.  Ipso facto, he is not a consciencious objector - at least in a traditional sense.

3.  The US is a democracy, with a democratically elected government - whether you agree with it or not.  There is no evidence that the constitutional process has been violated by the US policy in Iraq - to the contrary, the policy has (rightly or wrongly) been supported in Congress.

4.  His service in Afghanistan makes it impossible to determine if he's a "coward" or not.  It not really relevant to the discussion at hand anyway.

He hasn't got a leg to stand on legally or (really) morally.  Time for him to leave....

 

[x-zipperhead]

Well, what I was really getting at is the context of the legal obligations....

Ok

I've never stated that - what I have stated is that he obligated himself to the US Army; there a legal and moral implications in the fact that he, as a free and rational citizen, signed on the dotted line.   As I and many others have stated, he could have said "No", accepted his jail time, and moved on and let history be the judge.   Instead he decided to run away; running away is what most of us are focused on here.

Fine, I'll settle for low and immoral (which sits on the same plain as shirking coward in my books) than.   And I think this is a circumstance where either can apply; as somebody who's been part of a tight-knit team and relied on the others, I find Hinzeman's type especially low.   I could give a crap about the politics of Iraq, his claims to CO, or the fact that it was the US Army - I'd feel the same way if it was someone in a Canadian unit that didn't want to deploy to Kosovo or Afghanistan.

Sorry, I didn't realize we were only talking about the legal aspect here.

Ok

 

[Infanteer]

Sorry, I didn't realize we were only talking about the legal aspect here.

Are you confused?  We're not, which is why I spoke of both moral (which you so clearly highlighted) and legal obligations and drew some links between the two that pertained to Jeremy Hinzeman's case.

 

[54/102 CEF]

Hot pursuit is an established practice.... not enforced lately it seems 

USA get your snatch teams ready!

In May 1876 a US Officer brought back a deserter by force from Manitoba to United States

Ref RG2 , Privy Council Office ,  Series A-1-a, For Order in Council see volume 344 , Reel C-3316

http://data2.collectionscanada.ca/e/e091/e002255194.jpg
http://data2.collectionscanada.ca/e/e091/e002255195.jpg
http://data2.collectionscanada.ca/e/e091/e002255196.jpg
http://data2.collectionscanada.ca/e/e091/e002255197.jpg

 

[Jarnhamar]

No, I wouldn't call it cowardice. I might call it low and immoral depending on the circumstances

What would you call a firefighter who all of a sudden chose not to run into a burning building.

Morals in this guys case is like the soldier who's always hurt missing PT whom throws out his back right before an excersise. (Surprise surprise he's out at the bar that night)
Everyone knows whats going on, actually proving it is another story.

I'm always amazed at peoples ability to argue over anything on the internet.
This guy had a legal and moral obligation and he shit the bed.

 

[geo]

During the days of the American Draft, there were plenty of "consciencious objectors" who stood their ground, faced the music and paid the price. Some were given the oportunity to participate in the peace corp while others were invited to do some sort or other of community work..... in the end, the american people pulled out of Vietnam AND suspended the forced enlistment of draftees... though americans are still expected to register for SSS

Time for these guys to fess up and face the music.

if there are as many deserters as the article states (6000) then the people of "we the people" have a right and obligation to do something about it.... and these guys should be the catalyst.

Farewell, auf wiedersehen, au revoir, bye bye.........

 

[x-zipperhead]

Are you confused?  

No.

 

[a_majoor]

While what he did is pretty low, the idea that Canada would shelter such a person isn't as far fetched as it seems. Much of the modern political discourse is based around the idea that people should not have to face the consequences of their actions.

If an American serviceman volunteers to get the benefits the American Army offers, but declines to honour his part of the bargin, we see it as trying to cherry pick the good stuff but avoiding the obligations he voluntarily undertook to get them. The Canadian "elites", the CBC and fellow travellers see it differently, since they see no need to match effort to gain, and the idea of civic obligations or duties seems to be totally alien to that mindset (except of course our "obligation" to turn over our taxes to support their ends....)