"This is the first time a soldier from the Iraq war is seeking protection. He does not want to fight in Iraq and he will do any lawful thing to stay in Canada."
If he returns to the US, Pvt Hinzman could be prosecuted as a deserter, according to Sergeant Pam Smith, a spokes woman for the 82nd Airborne. "We don't have time to go and track down people who go AWOL," she told the Associated Press. "We're fighting a war."
On the telephone from Toronto, Pvt Hinzman said: "I signed up to defend my country, not carry out acts of aggression."
He hopes other soldiers will refuse to serve in Iraq and come to Canada: "I think I am the first, but I encourage others to do the same. I do not want to sound seditious, but there is strength in numbers."
Pvt Hinzman told the Fayetteville Observer that he had liked the subsidized housing and groceries offered by the army and the promises of money for college. "It seemed like a good financial decision," he said. "I had a romantic vision of what the army was."
From the start of basic training, he was upset by the continuous chanting about blood and killing, and what he called the dehumanization of the enemy. "It's like watching some kind of scary movie, except I was in it," he said.
"People would just walk around saying things like 'I want to kill somebody'."
Human rights lawyers and religious counselors in the US predict that the case is the start of a huge wave of protests and legal moves by military personnel and their families.
Volunteers at the GI Rights Hotline, a legal aid center for soldiers, are receiving about 3,500 calls a month from military personnel looking to leave the armed forces.
With a growing number of dead and wounded, the Pentagon is struggling to maintain troop levels in Iraq. Nearly 40% of those now deployed are national guard or reserve troops. "These guys are not going to re-enlist, that is for sure," said Giorgio DeShaun Ra'Shadd, a lawyer in Centennial, Colorado, who represents several military families. "Soldiers are fighting to get out of the service."
In late January the Pentagon canceled retirement dates for an estimated 40,000 soldiers. This unilateral move postpones soldiers' return to civilian life.
Military families erupted in protest at the decision and immediately launched websites and demonstrations.
"Can the US president with the signature of a pen indenture tens of thousands of US citizens? That is the question we are now investigating," said Luke Hiken, a lawyer in San Francisco. "This is a tremendous militarization of civilian families. Soldiers are now being asked to stay for two more years. This takes civilian families and turns them into military families."
Based on his work with US military personnel in Germany, Mr Hiken estimates that there are "thousands" of soldiers who want to escape from Iraq. "When they brought them home for vacation in the US, about 15%-20% simply never went back. They stayed with their families."
Pvt Hinzman said his family was part of his reason for going AWOL
"I vowed to myself, to my wife and son, that I would not go to Iraq. To me it was a war fought on false pretenses. Dr Blix [the former chief UN weapons inspector] went time and time again [to Iraq] and he said there are no weapons of mass destruction.
"They are exploiting the events of September 11, based on greed and our need for oil."
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
reprinted from Common Dreams.org
###
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Note: US Soldier on Frontline...
Common Dreams.org
Stumble It!
My father served in WWII, in Italy and other places in Europe.
He was a good soldier and thought he and many others had done the right thing.
My dad was always opposed to the \"war\" in Vietnam and said on many ocassions that he understood the US soldiers that didn\'t want to go. It was an unjust war.
Iraq was a mistake of monumental proportions and Bush was one of the leading pushers for the war.
A man that got out of the Vietnam situation because his family had money. Right !
Notice nowadays that the US troops are made up of the poor to the middle class, nobody with money is enlisting.
That tells you something right there.
We\'ll be called \"bleeding hearts\" and such, but so what ??
Do I care what Bush thinks ??
Let them all in and have a better life.
---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca
---
Dave Ruston
No war can be justified, unless it is in the defence of your country.
For the US to send 150,000 troops halfway around the world for no apparent reason is just wrong. Just because Bush SR. didn\'t finish the job is no reason.
---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca
He volunteered. I asked him once if he would want us boys (his 3 sons) to go to war.
He surprised me to my core.
He said \"No! I would want you to go to some other country.\"
I was shocked. He never really spoke about the war to me and I, to be truthful never really asked. I was too busy being a teenager. I thought he was gung-ho about war until he told me:
He told me about being \"up to his knees in blood\" in a farmhouse in Holland.
He told me about watching wild pigs eating a dead man in a field.
He told me about how war was a very, very, very last resort, because innocent people always died.
I feel very strongly about my country. I feel more strongly about my father\'s words.
It better be a damned imminent danger that we face before I\'ll believe it\'s worthwhile killing for.
I am proud that this man can come here to avoid an unjust war.
War? Iraq was a slaughter.
threatening this man's life - and if you think I'm kidding try to imagine
the death threats he's probably received from militia-type wackos in the
states. "If you were in my unit I woulda shot you, maybe I still will..."
Dr Caleb, remember that:
*When the US signs an international treaty, it becomes US law
*The invasion of Iraq was illegal, according to the UN Charter which
America ratified legally
*Therefore the invasion of Iraq was illegal according to US law
*No soldier is obliged to follow an illegal order
Also, read the Canadian War Crimes and Crimes Against humanity Act:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-45.9/text.html
I hate to say it, but if you shot someone for refusing an illegal order, you
would be cheerfully marched into my court martial and sentenced for
murder. Lucky for you I wouldn't go for the death penalty because I
don't buy that crap.
Basically, Rumsfeld should have refused to invade iraq and resigned if
necessary, or asked the vice president to assume command and place
Bush under arrest if Bush insisted on carrying out an illegal war crime
threateneing to the international order, and the stability and security of
the United States. Boy, does that ever sound extreme, doesn't it?
Sounds much crazier than killing 18,000 people. Refuse orders. Arrest
the President. Or kill people. Geez, tough choice.
This rejection of orders could and should have taken place all the way
down the line of command, right down to Herzman. This is how Russia
got out of World War I, you remember - a stupid slaughterhouse war, the
Russians refused to fight, shot or arrested their officers (officers whose
tactics were likely similar to yours, Caleb: shooting deserters). This
destabilized many other armed forces, forcing nervous leaders to lower
their ambitions and shortening the war.
When i was in the military (navy reserve, during the Gulf War though I
never left Ottawa), I asked the base chaplain: "As an officer, you have to
order soldiers to obey their orders. But as a chaplain, what would you
do if someone said they refused to kill anyone because of their religious
convictions?" The Chaplain's cheery answer was, "That's what makes my
job so interesting!" I agreed but insisted, "Yeah, but what would you
SAY?"
The other officers cut off the debate by shouting my name in a scolding
manner. I was a new enlisted recruit.
This type of conversation taught me not to stick around in the military
fascist workforce.
(a soldier has a strong case against obeying immoral orders, too - he
may be shot for it, say, if you were around, but this is perhaps a lesser
penalty than being forced to commit murder or rape)
---
“Sex, Drugs, Love, Marx...”
Flick Harrison’s new digital feature
MP3, trailer, scenes and stills at:
http://www.armedrabble.org/sdlm.htm
Also I agree that there are fast differences in the soldiers duty depending on the reasons for War...Iraq and Afganistan do not fit the legitimate reasons for war, so if the war isn't legitimate why would a soldier be forced to kill?
World War II was different in that millions of people were being slaughtered and Hitler was intending to take over the world, Hussein had no such plans. Hitler wasn't sitting on a large supply of oil, and in fact the reasons for assisting the people of Europe were honourable, in my opinion, that doesn't mean that it wasn't horrific or distasteful to those involved and asked to serve, but it does in my mind change the circumstances of the soldier then and in Iraq today. In the case of Hitler, there was no other way, he was rolling over Europe taking country after country and murder people wherever and whenever he wanted. There was no other purpose to his agenda, he didn't destroy art, hospitals, museums, and anything of value, he valued the material things in each country and wanted it for his own, he did not value human life.
In the case of Iraq and Afganistan, it was purely retaliation for Sept 11, but there has yet to be proof of this; so the next excuse given was, Hussein is murdering his own people...yes, but then if that was the reason, why didn't the invading army protect the people, why did they use uranium, napbomb(spelling?),etc. bomb or allow to be destroyed the infrasture the people need? If the intention was to protect the people of Iraq and Afganistan, why did they do the opposite? Then the excuse was his weapons of mass destruction...but alas, they are not found either! There are so many contradictions that I can see nothing to justify these wars.
But having said that, I do very much respect the military, the soldier who commits to protect and serve, and I value their role in our society. What I don't agree with is using these people as weapons, using them to murder innocents! Since everyone knows that the soldier is trained to follow orders and a huge burden rest on him to do so, the commanders at the top, must be held to a very high standard in their decision to use that military force. They are the ones to be held accountable, not the soldier who is trained to do his job.
Sorry this is long I hate war, but I hate wars based on deception even more!
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?
Now. Dr Caleb, like Flick I couldn't disagree with you more.
To me the most obvious problem with your line of reasoning is that Hinzman didn't say he's against war in all cases, just this one. Note that he FOUGHT in the war in Afghanistan. You're basically accusing him of being afraid to fight or unable to handle it, by saying he should have signed up for a different kind of service if he doesn't have the consitution for it (since you compare it to being seasick and signing up for the Navy) -- despite the obvious reference to his previous military service in a real and unpleasant conflict.
You then go on to contrast this by demonstrating your own supposedly manly willingness to shoot and kill by saying you'd do it to Hinzman for refusing to fight in an unjustified and, as Flick pointed out, illegal war.
Ok, Dr Caleb, while we're all being directed to look at the supposed size of your kahunas, did you perhaps fight in Afghanistan (no, right)? Do you currently face the prospect of heading into Iraq (obviously no)?
Have you ever actually had to see a war close up and kill anyone? Can you, in other words, demonstrate that you are in fact willing and able to kill the way Hinzman has had to do in Afghanistan?
I doubt it's so easy or so glorious as you imagine it to be. Stuff the half-baked macho posturing, if you please.
PS My grandparents were part of the Dutch resistance to the Nazis and lived through the occupation of Holland, and my other grandfather fought a losing battle against the Russians in Finland during the winter war there. Both grandfathers also served in a world war. I get the same message from them as P Regan--war is hell. It needs to be a last resort. And as a mother I can feel that in my bones any time I look at my kids.
---
Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato