[Spliff]

U.S. army deserter wants to stay in Canada

_C B C . C A _ N e w s _ - _ F u l l _ S t o r y :

U.S. army deserter wants to stay in Canada
Last Updated Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:27:10 EST

TORONTO - Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board will hear Monday why Jeremy Hinzman, a former paratrooper with the U.S. army, should be granted refugee status in Canada.

Rather than serve in Iraq, Hinzman deserted the army and came to Canada in January seeking sanctuary in a Quaker hall outside Toronto.

He considers the Iraq conflict immoral and illegal and while he refuses to speak his mind until his hearing is over, back in July, Hinzman, 25, put his position into perspective: "My life isn't that significant, but also it's not so worthless as to be killed or to go kill innocent people."

Canada has not granted refugee status to American citizens in the past, but Hinzman's supporters are counting on a precedent in international law to help the American.

Gerry Cordon, a Hinzman supporter, says a soldier who refused to fight in Saddam Hussein's army in the invasion of Kuwait, successfully sought refugee status.

To help his client, Hinzman's lawyer plans to present evidence of a systematic pattern of U.S. war crimes in Iraq, including attacks on civilian population centers, and the torture and murder of prisoners, at Monday's hearing.

The board will also hear eyewitness testimony of the killing of Iraqi civilians from former Marine Sgt. Jimmy Massey.

Massey, who served in Iraq, says he's witnessed instances of civilians being shot � not as a mistake, but with cold deliberation.

Written by CBC News Online staff

Copyright �2004 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved

[The Oracle]

This is so old. Been reported up the wazoo a billion times.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by The Oracle:
This is so old. Been reported up the wazoo a billion times.

Really? Geez, I'm Canadian and I totally missed this story. And I did a search here prior to posting. Oh well.

[Mithras]

Well, I missed it too. Sounds like it'll be interesting.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Well, I missed it too. Sounds like it'll be interesting.

He is one of 4 others that are currently claiming it.

[koogz]

He is in the right place.

Question: Why did they join in the first place?

[Athens]

Originally posted by koogz:
He is in the right place.

Question: Why did they join in the first place?

Prob cuz at the time he didnt think the US Government would invade another country and break international law? Prob at the time he thought his country was noble.

[Peter]

so he conquered Canada? cool.

[TeknoTurd]

Originally Posted by Athens

Prob cuz at the time he didnt think the US Government would invade another country and break international law? Prob at the time he thought his country was noble.

Ah I think you meant to say "cuz at the time he thought he could get a free ride because the US wouldn't do anything about Iraq breaking numerous UN sanctions, just as it had done for the previous 8 years." It must be the Canadian accent that made it sound like unintelligent banter.

[Athens]

Originally posted by TeknoTurd:

Originally Posted by Athens

Prob cuz at the time he didnt think the US Government would invade another country and break international law? Prob at the time he thought his country was noble.

Ah I think you meant to say "cuz at the time he thought he could get a free ride because the US wouldn't do anything about Iraq breaking numerous UN sanctions, just as it had done for the previous 8 years." It must be the Canadian accent that made it sound like unintelligent banter.

Now how does Illegally invading another country make the broken UN sanctions right, last I knew 2 wrongs don�t make a right. Maybe the US should invade Canada for not following US sanctions on Cuba?

[koogz]

Originally posted by Athens:
Now how does Illegally invading another country make the broken UN sanctions right, last I knew 2 wrongs don�t make a right. Maybe the US should invade Canada for not following US sanctions on Cuba?

It wasn't illegal to invade Iraq. The 12 years of failed UN sanctions due to kickbacks to people in the pocket of Sadam Hussein made it necessary and LEGAL.

Last I checked, it was illegal to take kickbacks from the "Oil for Food Program".

The culprits:

France
Germany
Russia
The UN, more specifically, Coffee Anin (Mispelled on purpose, so no spelling nazis)
and his son, who now resides in Nigeria.

As for invading Canada? I think we own them and the ownership documents are held in a trust so nobody can find out who really owns Canada. Why would we invade them? They pay their rent on time. Another thing, why would we want Canada? All our deserters love Canada, so it must be lame.

[Troll]

Originally posted by koogz:
It wasn't illegal to invade Iraq. The 12 years of failed UN sanctions due to kickbacks to people in the pocket of Sadam Hussein made it necessary and LEGAL.".

First of all, no impropriety has been proved on the part of any of the civil servants employed by the UN, any citizens of any state (Americans and British people stand accused) or any states that are members of the UN. All we have is an allegation of impropriety on the part of INDIVIDUALS who are not civil servants at the UN which allegation has its source in Ahmed Chalabi whose honesty, it would be trite to say, is somewhat questionable.

Second, you obviously don't know much about the law if you think that the United States was allowed to unilaterally decide that there hadn't been compliance with UN resolutions and then decide to enforce those resolutions itself. You also appear not to feel embarassed to argue that the US was doing the UN's business when we all know that the UN protested the US invasion as loudly as it could. Basically, the invasion was not sanctioned by the United Nations no matter how you spin it. There is a detailed thread in these forums raising the legal arguments of the case you're making if you're interested.

Originally posted by koogz:
Last I checked, it was illegal to take kickbacks from the "Oil for Food Program".

The culprits:

France
Germany
Russia
The UN, more specifically, Coffee Anin (Mispelled on purpose, so no spelling nazis)
and his son, who now resides in Nigeria.

This is completely inaccurate. No states have been accused of doing anything wrong. Neither has any NGO such as the UN been accused of impropriety. Citizens of a number of states (individuals not states!) are accused, amongst them citizens from the United States, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom.

[James L]

As for invading Canada? I think we own them and the ownership documents are held in a trust so nobody can find out who really owns Canada. Why would we invade them? They pay their rent on time. Another thing, why would we want Canada? All our deserters love Canada, so it must be lame. [/B]

All America currently owns is a poor world reputation, a health care and educational system ranked below Canada's, a spiraling national debt, and a tenious grip on a country it invaded under false pretences. Canada and the US has only gone to war once. That is why you have your new white house.

Oh, btw, as far as paying the rent goes your economic knowledge regarding financial dealings between Canada and the US is pretty poor... you should take a look at the money the US gives Canada each year. I would say if anything Canada owns a hefty chunk of the US, as does Japan, China, etc. Maybe WE should be upping the rent for owning you, but with your 7 trillion dollar debt we don't want to get to close to it.

Mind you, you are simply to arrogant to understand any different. Oh well, a true American thinks different. At least the hundreds that I know anyway.

[Athens]

Originally posted by koogz:
It wasn't illegal to invade Iraq. The 12 years of failed UN sanctions due to kickbacks to people in the pocket of Sadam Hussein made it necessary and LEGAL.

Last I checked, it was illegal to take kickbacks from the "Oil for Food Program".

The culprits:

France
Germany
Russia
The UN, more specifically, Coffee Anin (Mispelled on purpose, so no spelling nazis)
and his son, who now resides in Nigeria.

As for invading Canada? I think we own them and the ownership documents are held in a trust so nobody can find out who really owns Canada. Why would we invade them? They pay their rent on time. Another thing, why would we want Canada? All our deserters love Canada, so it must be lame.

Again so how do 2 wrongs make a right?

[koogz]

Originally posted by Athens:
Again so how do 2 wrongs make a right?

What two wrongs?

The wrong Saddam did by using weapons of mass destruction on the Kurds?
The wrong Saddam did by torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of his own people?
The wrong France, Germany, Russia and Leadership / Relatives did by undermining the Food for Oil program? (Causing many innocent loss of life)

Do you lump these together into just one or two wrongs?
You can't mean the USA and Coalition forces bringing down Saddam Hussein can you?

Rediculous.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by koogz:
Rediculous.

Exactly.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Athens:
Ah I think you meant to say "cuz at the time he thought he could get a free ride because the US wouldn't do anything about Iraq breaking numerous UN sanctions, just as it had done for the previous 8 years." It must be the Canadian accent that made it sound like unintelligent banter.

Originally posted by Athens:Now how does Illegally invading another country make the broken UN sanctions right, last I knew 2 wrongs don�t make a right. Maybe the US should invade Canada for not following US sanctions on Cuba?

Saddam was leading everyone to believe he had WMD's. He was making nice with terrorists. His evil intentions toward the US were clear. President Bush wanted to deter future 9/11 style attacks. The US couldn't/wouldn't rely on appeasement, lying down and ass-kissing to prevent future attacks. The gun was pointing at US not Canada.

President Bush had no choice in invading Iraq if he were to effectively deter future attacks. There were many reasons for the invasion. All of them valid. But the only decisive reason was 'self defense.'

Many Canadiens (as well as some others) find it hard to believe we were threatened or that we believed we were under threat from Iraq.

Well, if/when you ever feel threatened by some force (natural disaster or foreign threat) how would you like it if we said, "No, Canada, you are wrong to feel alarmed. Furthermore, you are wrong to address that threat until it ravages thousands of your citizens."

You would, rightfully, tell us to kiss your asses and you would do what you thought was best to protect your interests, as YOU see it.

Then, when one of your 'fine' young citizens - who had a sudden wake up call - deserted your military and came here for refuge from your justice, we'd say, "Welcome, son! Those moronic Canadian war criminals in Ottawa won't get their blood thirsty hands on you!"

When all you were trying to do in the first place was defend your citizens from further attack.

It wasn't wrong and just because someone else says it is doesn't make it so.

Back on topic, the deserter didn't want to risk his life. It is understandable. He KNEW what he signed up for, trained for and was paid for. He is just taking advantage of the situation and hoping to save his skin by appealling to a convenient alternative to doing his duty.

You can feel noble and high minded all you want but what you are doing is encouraging these young people to give in to their fears and to spend the rest of their lives living in shame and self reproach.

A saying comes to mind, "Death Before Dishonor."

I hope he likes it up there. We don't want him back, unless he does his time behind bars. But he'll always be labeled a deserter or a traitor or a chicken, punk ass, coward...in his OWN MIND.

Way to go, Canada.

[UR-20]

Originally posted by Athens:
Maybe the US should invade Canada for not following US sanctions on Cuba?

Careful there, I know at least one person here who would say "That's not a bad idea"

[UR-20]

Originally posted by koogz:
The 12 years of failed UN sanctions due to kickbacks to people in the pocket of Sadam Hussein made it necessary and LEGAL.

And what exactly do lobbyists do?

Another thing, why would we want Canada? All our deserters love Canada, so it must be lame.

It's people like you that give me faith in this country.

[James L]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Saddam was leading everyone to believe he had WMD's. He was making nice with terrorists. His evil intentions toward the US were clear. President Bush wanted to deter future 9/11 style attacks. The US couldn't/wouldn't rely on appeasement, lying down and ass-kissing to prevent future attacks. The gun was pointing at US not Canada.

President Bush had no choice in invading Iraq if he were to effectively deter future attacks. There were many reasons for the invasion. All of them valid. But the only decisive reason was 'self defense.'

Many Canadiens (as well as some others) find it hard to believe we were threatened or that we believed we were under threat from Iraq.

Well, if/when you ever feel threatened by some force (natural disaster or foreign threat) how would you like it if we said, "No, Canada, you are wrong to feel alarmed. Furthermore, you are wrong to address that threat until it ravages thousands of your citizens."

You would, rightfully, tell us to kiss your asses and you would do what you thought was best to protect your interests, as YOU see it.

Then, when one of your 'fine' young citizens - who had a sudden wake up call - deserted your military and came here for refuge from your justice, we'd say, "Welcome, son! Those moronic Canadian war criminals in Ottawa won't get their blood thirsty hands on you!"

When all you were trying to do in the first place was defend your citizens from further attack.

It wasn't wrong and just because someone else says it is doesn't make it so.

Back on topic, the deserter didn't want to risk his life. It is understandable. He KNEW what he signed up for, trained for and was paid for. He is just taking advantage of the situation and hoping to save his skin by appealling to a convenient alternative to doing his duty.

You can feel noble and high minded all you want but what you are doing is encouraging these young people to give in to their fears and to spend the rest of their lives living in shame and self reproach.

A saying comes to mind, "Death Before Dishonor."

I hope he likes it up there. We don't want him back, unless he does his time behind bars. But he'll always be labeled a deserter or a traitor or a chicken, punk ass, coward...in his OWN MIND.

Way to go, Canada.

See koogz... THAT is how you write a retort!

Oh, and it isn't spelled Rediculous, it is spelled Ridiculous.

On topic....

In a somewhat unlucid moment, I find myself agreeing with Aberdeen to a point.

...god, help me.

I do feel the deserter is just trying to save his hide and cash in on a chance to do so. The bottom line is that when you sign up for that job, regardless of nationality, your decision making becomes very limited. You are agreeing to work for the government of the day, and to fulfill your job duties as the man/lady of the day desires. You are trained to follow orders and use force where necessary, as determined by the big guy. That is a pretty clear thing going in, oaths are sworn on it, and if you can't fulfill those duties then you shouldn't have signed up for the job. Personally, I think the soldier should be denied refugee status and returned to be sentenced as determined by the US military, with whatever charge being appropriate brought on.

Americans, somewhat untruthfully, can say that Canadians don't see things from their perspective because they haven't been attacked. Not quite true, as we lost 24 people on Sept 11th, and another 4 in Afghanistan that I can think of (ironically, killed by Americans in a questionable friendly fire incident), plus a few others while fulfilling peacekeeping duties. We have lost people due to terrorism, so it is not fair to say that we do not understand the US point of view. There are ignorant Canadians, as there are ignorant Americans. Note, that I am not saying you are ignorant if you do not support the war on Iraq under the pretences it was launched... just that you haven't considered all the facts.

Very few Canadians questioned the war in Afghanistan. During Sept 11th we were the first nation to aid the US by taking in thousands of stranded passengers from grounded planes. We fed them in shelters, in our homes, etc. We were one of the first nations to mobilize ships to the gulf, to send support resources, and to take on peacekeeping duties once the main conflict ended. Our snipers were commended highly by American forces for the conflict in Afghanistan, and until recently we were in charge of a large part of the peacekeeping duties with 1800 troops there. To say that Canada does not support the war on terrorism is simply idiotic, and only an uneducated person would state that.

Iraq, however, was a different story. You only need to phrase the question properly to get the true response from most Canadians on our feelings on the US invasion of Iraq. It is not that we do not support the removal of Saddam, it is that we do not support being lied to... which we all were. The US's own government in its investigation found there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq. Bush knew this. To think he didn't is docile. The American people, the Canadian people, the world population was lied too. For some people the revisionist history has begun. For others, the simple truth remains.

Liberating, if you can call it that, the Iraqi people may turn out to be a good thing, but it is a personal choice on whether or not the ends justifies the means. It was simply a lie, however, that initially tied it into the WOT.

To return to Aber's example, I would hope that if and when Canada feels the need to attack a force they deem as a threat (lol... better be a pretty small force!), that we would honestly give our reasons to the world community and do it. Not lie about it in a con job that most people saw through right away.

Again, it isn't the Iraqi people being "free" that Canadians are against, it was the initial lies that started the whole thing. Canada decided that Bush's evidence was crap, and chose not to go in under weak, unproven, theories. If you feel this is a bad thing, then your microscope should be on Bush for not making his case better, not on Canada for chosing not to invade another nation without good reason. We saw the case for Afghanistan, and we are there. The case was not presented well by your government for Iraq, however, and the Canadian government felt it best to not trample on another nations rights without just cause. Your president did not show it.

The bottom line, however, is that Canadians lost people on Sept 11th in New York, we have shed blood in the WOT since, we were the first nation to aid the US ON Sept. 11th. We are serving in peacekeeping roles in the gulf currently. We DO support the WOT, in OUR way. It is sad that some Americans feel it is their way or the highway, however.

To echo Aber's last point... take your soldier back and sentence him would be my call. He knew what he was getting into.

Cheers,

James

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Back on topic, the deserter didn't want to risk his life. It is understandable. He KNEW what he signed up for, trained for and was paid for. He is just taking advantage of the situation and hoping to save his skin by appealling to a convenient alternative to doing his duty.

He was obviously hoping that
a.) I'll never have to fight
b.) Even if I do have to fight, I'm confident that my superiors as well as my
commander-in-chief will go to war, only when all negotiations have failed, and will be able to carry out said war in an efficient and semi-intelligent manner so as to minimize U.S. and civilian casualties.

Guess he was hoping for too much.

You can feel noble and high minded all you want but what you are doing is encouraging these young people to give in to their fears and to spend the rest of their lives living in shame and self reproach.

A saying comes to mind, "Death Before Dishonor."

Another saying comes to mind, "Only a fool does not fear death."

I think the guy, is doing what he believes is right. It makes no difference what you or anyone else thinks, he's made up his mind. I say good for him. It takes more courage to stand up for your own priciples then to die for a cause you believe is unjust.

I hope he likes it up there. We don't want him back, unless he does his time behind bars. But he'll always be labeled a deserter or a traitor or a chicken, punk ass, coward...in his OWN MIND.

Correction, you don't want him back. I as an American have no problems if he were to return to this country and not even have to do community service for his actions.

And I highly doubt he has that kind of self loathing attitude.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Athens:
Prob cuz at the time he didnt think the US Government would invade another country and break international law? Prob at the time he thought his country was noble.

Good answer. I agree.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by James L:
See koogz... THAT is how you write a retort!
SNIP
James

After thousands of words back and forth, I ask everyone this:

1) Is it possible that a POTUS could genuinely know of a danger which he can't, in good conscience, reveal?

2a) Is it possible that a POTUS who gets conflicting messages from intelligence analysts simply doesn't know the truth of a potential pending threat?

2b) If convinced of the possibility of a pending attack what is the prudent course of action?

2c) If the POTUS is so convinced and decided to pre-empt that danger, what case could he present the world to receive the world's assent for military action?

3) Is it possible for a pending danger to the US go undetected?

Before you answer, assume the pending danger is of the type experienced on 9/11 or worse...suitcase nuke, dirty bomb, bio-attack and etc. on a highly concentrated US population center. NYC, D.C., LA or Chicago for example.

[aberdeenwriter]

Here is the oath of enlistment. No provisions made for noble causes, or anything else. He didn't HAVE to join. He could have even backed out and refused taking the oath. But...well, you know.


"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)

[Troll]

Originally posted by koogz:
What two wrongs?

The wrong Saddam did by using weapons of mass destruction on the Kurds?
The wrong Saddam did by torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of his own people?
The wrong France, Germany, Russia and Leadership / Relatives did by undermining the Food for Oil program? (Causing many innocent loss of life)

Do you lump these together into just one or two wrongs?
You can't mean the USA and Coalition forces bringing down Saddam Hussein can you?

Rediculous.

When I read your posts, a vision comes to me of a swimmer 200m offshore flailing around and evidently drowning but screaming, "I'm fine, I'm fine," at the same time. It's bluediculous.

The fact is that the UN did not sanction the invasion. The US did not have the authority of UN resolutions nor was it enforcing them. The fact that Iraq did not in fact have WMD shows just how succesful the UN response was. Even if impropriety is ever proved on the part of individuals using the OFFP (it's Oil for Food not Food for Oil), I'd think the millions of lives that were saved as a result of the programme would justify some skimming by Saddam particularly since it's evident that none of the money skimmed became WMD. More than likely any money Saddam made went into palaces and mosques. Anyone who thought you could run a programme like this in a country like Iraq with absolutely no leakage is mental. In any event, look at the alternative approach - a war which has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, a country that has been plunged into a violent crisis with terrorist attacks being the order of the day, billions of dollars being pumped into security, services are still below pre-Saddam levels and can't be fixed because of escalating violence, much of the money that is going into Iraq is being skimmed off by Halliburton and other corrupt US individuals and companies.

You keep repeating the mantra that France and Germany and Russia undermined the OFFP and caused civilians to lose lives. Will you please explain that statement because to me it makes no sense at all. The OFFP was a swap - we will give you food and medicines in exchange for your oil. It was instituted because millions of Iraqis were dying as a result of UN sanctions. These people died before the OFFP not as a result of it! Russia participated in that programme. That meant that Russian companies and individuals could source medicine and food and sell it through the OFFP to Iraq. Any contracts between Iraq and the Russian company or individual had to be checked by the OFFP and signed off on by members of the UNSC including the United States of America. All of the contracts that are in dispute were signed off by the USA. In addition, the actual shipments were inspected by inspectors from members of the UNSC, including American inspectors. AFAIK neither Russia nor France nor Germany (the States) ever supplied food for oil. Nationals from many countries around the world stand accused of impropriety including US and UK nationals. A member of the UK parliament is accused! Why do you consistently leave the US and the UK out of your list?

I think you need to get some basic facts right, or at least amend your argument when your basic errors are pointed out to you. Otherwise you will slowly drown in a lack of credibility.

[typoon]

The guy is a "former" Paratrooper in the US Army. Why the heck did he join? Are these people who desert really that stupid that they think the Military will not be used for a war or conflict at sometime? Are these people so stupid to think that the military is there for them to get a free ride off the US Gov't? From the sounds of it Apparently so. What do these people think the Military is for? Why join and WASTE my Tax dollars if you are going to desert? You may not believe in the conflict or whatever mission you are on but as a soldier you have a JOB fighting Wars and defending the country is YOUR job. If you don't like that responsiblity Don't F'ing Join.


I would say Court Martial his ass let him sit in Jail for Desertion then when he gets out give him a one way ticket to Canada.

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Here is the oath of enlistment. No provisions made for noble causes, or anything else. He didn't HAVE to join. He could have even backed out and refused taking the oath. But...well, you know.


"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)

Yeah and I said the pledge of allegiance every single day in kindergarden.

When it's your limbs and life on the line, then come back
and tell me what he did was wrong.

[macintologist]

I have a question for the Saddam apologists:

Does the United States need a permission slip from the UN in order to take military action? Shouldn't the United States decide what is in its best interest and not the UN?

[Troll]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Does the United States need a permission slip from the UN in order to take military action?

Do you need a permission slip from your US government to kill someone? No you don't. You can kill them without a permission slip. Similarly, the US doesn't need permission from anyone to take military action, but if it wants to kill people legally then it needs to establish a right to kill under international law. In the absence of a direct threat to its security, getting a UN resolution is the only way to establish legitimacy.

Originally posted by macintologist:
Shouldn't the United States decide what is in its best interest and not the UN?

It might be in your best interests to murder your neighbour so he stops making a noise at night. Does that mean you should be allowed to do it? Does that mean the rest of the community should praise you when you deal with the menace?

Of course the US should decide what is in its best interests. But there are ways in which you can justifiably pursue your interests and ways that the community doesn't accept. Killing tens of thousands of people because you don't like their leader anymore isn't legitimate.

You might not care about legitimacy but history has shown that no matter how strong you think you are, without legitimacy it's very difficult to achieve anything. Arbitrary violence breeds arbitrary violence. Collective security (which is what the UN is based on) is the best response we've come up with for dealing with conflict on an international level. Imperialism we already know doesn't work.

[macintologist]

Now go make your argument at http://forum.protestwarrior.com and see how you do

[SimeyTheLimey]

A fate of a handful of soldiers isn't in and of itself all that interesting. There are always malcontents and misfits in any Army. I certainly served with a few, the Army was glad to be rid of them.

His legal arguments sound shaky at best. I did a little puttering around the internet to see what he argues. He argues that the Iraq war is illegal under international law using a construction of international law as superior to the US Constitution. No US court would accept that, the precedents are clear -- when there is a conflict, if the two can't be reconciled, the US Constitution is superior to international law. Obviously, a Canadian court has to rule by their standards, but usually when a court decides an issue that turns on foreign law, they make an effort to do so in accordance with the foreign (in this case, US) courts. If so, he loses.

The same goes for treaties. No treaty can change the US Constitution, and the oath he took was to the US Constitution and the Commander in Chief and the officers appointed above him, not anything else. And furthermore, no US court would rule on any of these questions to do with a military deployment. Those would be considered political questions, and not justiciable. The courts just don't decide these questions.

Beyond that, his argument about the go-to-war issue is moot even if the international law-trumps-all argument is accepted. Notwithstanding the circumstances that first put US troops in Iraq, their status is now explicitly ratified by the UN Security Council. So even if a restrictive view of international law governs the matter (and I have no idea what standards Canadian courts use), the presence of US troops in Iraq is now indisputably legal. They are there with the blessing of both the Security Council, and the recognized interim Iraqi government. I don't see how any Canadian court can decide to overturn that.

Finally, he claims that he would be ordered to commit war crimes. No soldier under US regulations is obligated to carry out any order he believes to be unlawful. The proper course for him would be to serve, and then if that speculative situation were ever to arise, he should refuse an order he believes to be unlawful and take the consequences of his actions. If a court agrees that the order was unlawful, he will not only be exonerated of disobeying an order, he'd be honored for it. That's what happened to the soldiers who reported the abuse at Abu Ghraib.

I have faith that the Canadian courts will do the right thing and reject this deserter's claim. He isn't facing persecution in the US, and he isn't a conscientious objector. He volunteered for service, nobody drafted him. He should live up to his decision. It also seems unlikely to me that the courts would seriously want to create an international incident that ruling in his favor would entail. This all sounds to me like one of those test cases that some activist lawyers love to bring. The arguments are specious, they know they won't win. But it's all a cause to them.

But that doesn't mean it has merit. He should get his due process in court -- and then be sent packing.

[Spliff]

Here's an article with more details from today's Globe and Mail:

U.S. deserter 'didn't want to have to kill babies'
By_MARINA JIM�NEZ
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
POSTED AT 12:58 AM EST
Tuesday, Dec 7, 2004

An American army deserter who fled the 82nd Airborne Division to avoid being deployed to Iraq told his refugee hearing yesterday that no amount of training could convince him that killing the enemy was a noble pursuit.

Jeremy Hinzman, 26, testified that despite stabbing his bayonet into a plastic dummy during training, and repeatedly chanting "What makes grass grow? Blood, blood, bright red blood" and "Train to kill; Kill we will," he could not "dehumanize" the enemy.

"We were on the run [in training], singing cadences about raping and pillaging. At first I thought it was all in good fun. Then I started to question it," Mr. Hinzman told Immigration and Refugee board member Brian Goodman.

He is seeking asylum in Canada, along with his wife Nga Nguyen and 21/2-year-old son Liam.

Mr. Hinzman said his uncertainty about war was cemented after the birth of his son Liam in May, 2002. "I didn't want to have to kill babies," he testified. A barefoot Liam ran around yesterday's hearing, reading Bob the Builder books and eating Cheerios, as television journalists crowded into the room.

Mr. Hinzman's is a test case for at least three other claims from U.S. army deserters and has attracted the attention of the international media and the anti-war movement, whose proponents picketed in the snow outside.

But even Jeffry House, Mr. Hinzman's lawyer, conceded that it will be difficult to establish his client will be persecuted if returned to the U.S., especially after Mr. Goodman ruled he will not consider evidence that U.S. military action in Iraq has been condemned by the international community as illegal.

The maximum penalty for desertion is a five-year prison sentence, and yesterday Mr. Hinzman was asked why he didn't request a discharge, instead of conscientious objector status, once he decided he had a moral stance against killing.

"Although I didn't feel I could kill, I did sign up to be in the army for four years and would have been content being a medic, truck driver, cook or administrator," Mr. Hinzman explained.

Ultimately, his superiors rejected his CO application, after he told them that he could defend an airfield under attack but could not pull the trigger in an offensive operation.

"We believe there is a moral difference between offence and defence," Mr. House said. Government lawyers will say he doesn't face persecution but prosecution in the United States, Mr. House explained. "We say, where the basis for prosecution is wrong, in its essence it becomes persecution."

Mr. House will argue that American soldiers are guilty of war crimes and that forcing Mr. Hinzman to fight in Iraq would have made him a war criminal.

He will call as a witness former U.S. Marine Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey, who is expected to testify that he and other soldiers shot more than 30 unarmed Iraqis, including women and a six-year-old child, at a U.S. military checkpoint.

If Mr. Hinzman's claim is rejected, he will appeal to the Federal Court of Canada and will also file a humanitarian and compassionate application to stay in this country. Normally, IRB hearings are not open to the public, but Mr. Hinzman requested the media be allowed to attend.

A native of Rapid City, S.D., Mr. Hinzman said he enlisted in the army primarily because he wanted it to fund his university education.

In some ways, he was a "soldier's soldier," applying for the 82nd Airborne because "I did enjoy falling out of aircraft." He was sent to Fort Bragg, in Fayetteville, N.C., where he received his Airborne wings and expert infantryman's badge and was trained to operate a variety of weaponry and to blow up enemy airfields and "eliminate" the enemy.

Inwardly, he said, he was tormented, and couldn't be convinced taking human lives was right. He filed his conscientious-objector application in August 2002, before he knew his regiment was being deployed to Afghanistan.

The application was lost, and he refiled it and had a hearing after he was deployed to Afghanistan.

Brandon Hughey, another U.S. soldier seeking asylum, attended yesterday's hearing, and said he was hopeful the case would succeed, given Canada's decision not to send troops to Iraq.

Some army deserters from Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Israel have been granted asylum in Canada, but none from countries without conscription. The IRB said very few, if any, Americans have ever been accepted as refugees in Canada. A decision in the Hinzman case is expected next year.

US Deserter

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by macintologist:
I have a question for the Saddam apologists:

Does the United States need a permission slip from the UN in order to take military action? Shouldn't the United States decide what is in its best interest and not the UN?

Nah.

Ya need Rummy's handshake...

[cpt kangarooski]

macintologist--

]I have a question for the Saddam apologists:

Does the United States need a permission slip from the UN in order to take military action? Shouldn't the United States decide what is in its best interest and not the UN?

I'm no apologist, but I'll answer your question. The answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no.

The US agreed to the UN Charter. The Charter states, in pertinent part, the following:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

So basically, if it's an entirely internal matter, or in limited cases if it's a matter of individual or collective self defense, then we can use force.

Otherwise we promised we'd only do so if called upon by the UN. We would be breaking our obligations to do otherwise, and if we do, why shouldn't everyone else?

The reason is that the next time that everyone in the world acts in their own self interest, we'll get WWIII and the world will probably end. The UN is supposed to stabilize things so that small conflicts don't arise, or if they do, they don't spiral out of control and everybody dies.

Call me crazy, but I think that if the US not doing whatever it feels like is what it takes to prevent a nuclear armageddon, then it's ****ing well worth it.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by typoon:
The guy is a "former" Paratrooper in the US Army. Why the heck did he join? Are these people who desert really that stupid that they think the Military will not be used for a war or conflict at sometime? Are these people so stupid to think that the military is there for them to get a free ride off the US Gov't? From the sounds of it Apparently so. What do these people think the Military is for? Why join and WASTE my Tax dollars if you are going to desert? You may not believe in the conflict or whatever mission you are on but as a soldier you have a JOB fighting Wars and defending the country is YOUR job. If you don't like that responsiblity Don't F'ing Join.

I would say Court Martial his ass let him sit in Jail for Desertion then when he gets out give him a one way ticket to Canada.

You know, I've been thinking about this the past day or so.

If you look at the recruitment ads you'll see a crucial disconnect between the sizzzle and the steak.

The sizzle is represented as a 'cool' patriotic appeal to the rough & tough individual (or those who would become so) to enlist and enjoy an adventurous road to getting in shape, learning a job skill, wearing nifty uniforms, ribbons and insignia, earning money for college, gaining leadership experience as well as the admiration of friends and the ladies and getting paid to do so.

The steak is the unspoken reality that Armed Forces exist for a reason, that the time may come when killing and dying are necessary.

Even if one has a cook, a truck driver, photographer or a construction military occupational specialty (MOS), that reality can't be ignored. You're a rifleman FIRST, a clerk second.

This guy chose to go airborne. It's tough training and it has to be. Airborne units must assume they will be dropped into the thick of fighting or even behind enemy lines. This means they would be surrounded. It takes a special kind of person to even qualify for an airborne unit. The swagger, cockiness or quiet confidence of paratroopers is earned.

Nonetheless, it can't be easy to bring oneself to face the reality that the training, no matter how difficult, will actually be put to the test. How many thousands of our fighting men (and women) through the years wouldn't have taken this same 'out' had it been available to them?

I withdraw my condemnation of him (for what it's worth) and soberly reflect on the courage of those who went all the way. Those who were lucky to return. Those who lost their innocence, their friends and parts of themselves fighting our battles. And, of course, those who will be forever young.

I was lucky. Men were still dying in Viet Nam when I enlisted 30 days after my 18th birthday. I would have gone if ordered. I was never ordered. My greatest fear, other than dying in combat, was that of acting cowardly in the face of danger.

I have refrained from reading any of the posts since my last one so that I would report the results of my own cogitation before being influenced by other views.

It is important to have a strong and ready military. They must be ready and willing to serve at the command of the CiC. With only very few exceptions, they can't question their orders. They can't act on their understandable fears. To deal compassionately with this young man would send the wrong message to the remainder of our armed forces who have the same fears but still do their duty. It would be the wrong message to send our adversaries.

I feel for his family. I regret his choices. Unfortunately, he's already become a casualty but he may not yet know how badly he's been 'wounded.'

May God bless him.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Nah.

Ya need Rummy's handshake...

Simple Life, would you care to take a stab at my questions from above?

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...56#post2315201

[James L]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
You know, I've been thinking about this the past day or so.

If you look at the recruitment ads you'll see a crucial disconnect between the sizzzle and the steak.

The sizzle is represented as a 'cool' patriotic appeal to the rough & tough individual (or those who would become so) to enlist and enjoy an adventurous road to getting in shape, learning a job skill, wearing nifty uniforms, ribbons and insignia, earning money for college, gaining leadership experience as well as the admiration of friends and the ladies and getting paid to do so.

The steak is the unspoken reality that Armed Forces exist for a reason, that the time may come when killing and dying are necessary.

Even if one has a cook, a truck driver, photographer or a construction military occupational specialty (MOS), that reality can't be ignored. You're a rifleman FIRST, a clerk second.

This guy chose to go airborne. It's tough training and it has to be. Airborne units must assume they will be dropped into the thick of fighting or even behind enemy lines. This means they would be surrounded. It takes a special kind of person to even qualify for an airborne unit. The swagger, cockiness or quiet confidence of paratroopers is earned.

Nonetheless, it can't be easy to bring oneself to face the reality that the training, no matter how difficult, will actually be put to the test. How many thousands of our fighting men (and women) through the years wouldn't have taken this same 'out' had it been available to them?

I withdraw my condemnation of him (for what it's worth) and soberly reflect on the courage of those who went all the way. Those who were lucky to return. Those who lost their innocence, their friends and parts of themselves fighting our battles. And, of course, those who will be forever young.

I was lucky. Men were still dying in Viet Nam when I enlisted 30 days after my 18th birthday. I would have gone if ordered. I was never ordered. My greatest fear, other than dying in combat, was that of acting cowardly in the face of danger.

I have refrained from reading any of the posts since my last one so that I would report the results of my own cogitation before being influenced by other views.

It is important to have a strong and ready military. They must be ready and willing to serve at the command of the CiC. With only very few exceptions, they can't question their orders. They can't act on their understandable fears. To deal compassionately with this young man would send the wrong message to the remainder of our armed forces who have the same fears but still do their duty. It would be the wrong message to send our adversaries.

I feel for his family. I regret his choices. Unfortunately, he's already become a casualty but he may not yet know how badly he's been 'wounded.'

May God bless him.

One of the most thought provoking posts I have ever read from you.

Thanks.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
This guy chose to go airborne. It's tough training and it has to be.

Actually, Airborne training isn't in and of itself especially tough. In fact, its a lot of fun -- like the best Six Flags you can imagine (except for the Georgia weather -- I went in August!). It's a 3 week course that is additional to your basic training, and MOS training. All that is taught in jump school itself is the business of jumping out of an airplane and landing safely. All of the tactical combat aspects to being a paratrooper is covered elsewhere -- whether in basic training or advanced individual training, or other more advanced schools -- or in the final permanent party unit.

The rest of your post is correct. The first business of every soldier is to fight, but in certain MOSs that becomes easy to forget. None of the articles i saw indicated what this person's specialty is. A paratrooper could be alsmost anything. However, if he is in the 82nd Airborne, it's statistically more likely that he is either combat arms, or combat support. Most of the more REMF-y jobs would be in the 18th Airborne Corps, or 1st COSCOM. So he probably was regularly exposed to realistic combat training that would leave him with little doubt about what his job actually was.

In other words, he has little excuse. He was in a Rapid Deployment Force division -- one of the most likely units to be deployed to any combat operation. If he thought it was all about jumping out of planes and getting the GI Bill, he was a fool.

[Spliffdaddy]

There's a good reason he doesn't want to stay in the US.

Lots of folks here would love to beat his ass.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
There's a good reason he doesn't want to stay in the US.

Lots of folks here would love to beat his ass.

I don't know which I find more bothersome, the soldier's actions or your response here?

We have had some very thoughtful, engaging discussion with Aberdeen, Simey, Troll and a few others. It has been illuminating. And while I don't support the war in Iraq I am ALL about personal responsibility. And this guy made a pledge to the US military, the US government . . . and to himself. He has willfully failed his obligation to all three and should be punished as a result.

I say give him three years and a dishonorable discharge. His life is pretty much ruined at this point. Just wait until he fills out the first job application post-incarceration and he gets to the section about military service: How is that going to look to a prospective employer? He'll be saying essentially "Yeah, I'm the guy that chickened out of doing the hard part of my military obligation and spent time in prison as a result. But I will work really hard for you . . . unless I think it is too hard." This guy is screwed.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, Airborne training isn't in and of itself especially tough. In fact, its a lot of fun -- like the best Six Flags you can imagine (except for the Georgia weather -- I went in August!). It's a 3 week course that is additional to your basic training, and MOS training. All that is taught in jump school itself is the business of jumping out of an airplane and landing safely. All of the tactical combat aspects to being a paratrooper is covered elsewhere -- whether in basic training or advanced individual training, or other more advanced schools -- or in the final permanent party unit.

The rest of your post is correct. The first business of every soldier is to fight, but in certain MOSs that becomes easy to forget. None of the articles i saw indicated what this person's specialty is. A paratrooper could be alsmost anything. However, if he is in the 82nd Airborne, it's statistically more likely that he is either combat arms, or combat support. Most of the more REMF-y jobs would be in the 18th Airborne Corps, or 1st COSCOM. So he probably was regularly exposed to realistic combat training that would leave him with little doubt about what his job actually was.

In other words, he has little excuse. He was in a Rapid Deployment Force division -- one of the most likely units to be deployed to any combat operation. If he thought it was all about jumping out of planes and getting the GI Bill, he was a fool.

Of course some people would question the sanity of anyone who would voluntarily jump out of a perfectly functional aircraft.

I appreciate your modesty.

Simey, I gotta say, you never fail to surprise! What's next? Personal audiences with the Pope and the Dalai Lama? Former Olympian? Studied with Dr. Ben Carson? The 'Donald' calls you before making big real estate deals???

All joking aside, I'm impressed.

BASIC AIRBORNE COURSE

http://www.calguard.ca.gov/128qm/airborne.htm

The purpose of the BAC is to qualify the volunteer in the use of the parachute as a means of combat deployment and to develop leadership, self-confidence, and an aggressive spirit through mental and physical conditioning.

Airborne soldiers have a long and distinguished tradition of being an elite body of fighting men and women--people who have always set the example for determination and courage. When you volunteer for this training, you accept the challenge of continuing this tradition. The highest standards have been set--it is now up to you to maintain them!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Of course some people would question the sanity of anyone who would voluntarily jump out of a perfectly functional aircraft.

I appreciate your modesty.

Simey, I gotta say, you never fail to surprise! What's next? Personal audiences with the Pope and the Dalai Lama? Former Olympian? Studied with Dr. Ben Carson? The 'Donald' calls you before making big real estate deals???

All joking aside, I'm impressed.

"A perfectly functional aircraft." We are talking about an Air Force aircraft. Plus, I had a Chinook start squirting out hydraulic fluid one time. Seeing that would encourage anyone to jump.

Anyway, don't be impressed by me. My jump career was cut severly short by a transfer to the mechanized infantry. There are some real paratroopers on the board, I'm little more than a cherry jumper.

The physical training part of jump school would be more than I could cope with now. The runs in particular are pretty fast even by Army standards. But I went to jump school in 1989 when I was 22. Back then I would have said (correctly) that jump school is something that any reasonably fit soldier could do with ease -- and literally thousands do every year. I'm proud of my wings for personal reasons, not because they are especially impressive or hard to earn.

[James L]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
There's a good reason he doesn't want to stay in the US.

Lots of folks here would love to beat his ass.

Edit: Comment removed...what's the point?

Back to the interesting conversation...

[James L]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
"A perfectly functional aircraft." We are talking about an Air Force aircraft. Plus, I had a Chinook start squirting out hydraulic fluid one time. Seeing that would encourage anyone to jump.

This must be a common thing because when I went through the progressive free fall course to learn how to jump (civilian life), we used an old Beech airplane that had duct tape on a wing and was the worst ride ever. You were almost happy to jump out of it!

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Here's an article with more details from today's Globe and Mail:

He sounds like John Kerry 30+ years ago.

Look for the Democratic Party to put Mr. Hinzman (Heinz-man) on the fast track to political stardom, prepping him for a run at the WHite House in 2032. Unfortunately for Hinzman, I project Chelsea Clinton will beat him out for the nomination.

[Athens]

Originally posted by koogz:
What two wrongs?

The wrong Saddam did by using weapons of mass destruction on the Kurds?
The wrong Saddam did by torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of his own people?
The wrong France, Germany, Russia and Leadership / Relatives did by undermining the Food for Oil program? (Causing many innocent loss of life)

Do you lump these together into just one or two wrongs?
You can't mean the USA and Coalition forces bringing down Saddam Hussein can you?

Rediculous.

Ok how can a new wrong make a bunch of wrongs right... and your dam right I ment the USA invading another country as wrong. Key word INVADING. Didn't the first gulf war happen because Iraq invaded another country?

[Athens]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Saddam was leading everyone to believe he had WMD's. He was making nice with terrorists. His evil intentions toward the US were clear. President Bush wanted to deter future 9/11 style attacks. The US couldn't/wouldn't rely on appeasement, lying down and ass-kissing to prevent future attacks. The gun was pointing at US not Canada.

President Bush had no choice in invading Iraq if he were to effectively deter future attacks. There were many reasons for the invasion. All of them valid. But the only decisive reason was 'self defense.'

Many Canadiens (as well as some others) find it hard to believe we were threatened or that we believed we were under threat from Iraq.

Well, if/when you ever feel threatened by some force (natural disaster or foreign threat) how would you like it if we said, "No, Canada, you are wrong to feel alarmed. Furthermore, you are wrong to address that threat until it ravages thousands of your citizens."

You would, rightfully, tell us to kiss your asses and you would do what you thought was best to protect your interests, as YOU see it.

Then, when one of your 'fine' young citizens - who had a sudden wake up call - deserted your military and came here for refuge from your justice, we'd say, "Welcome, son! Those moronic Canadian war criminals in Ottawa won't get their blood thirsty hands on you!"

When all you were trying to do in the first place was defend your citizens from further attack.

It wasn't wrong and just because someone else says it is doesn't make it so.

Back on topic, the deserter didn't want to risk his life. It is understandable. He KNEW what he signed up for, trained for and was paid for. He is just taking advantage of the situation and hoping to save his skin by appealling to a convenient alternative to doing his duty.

You can feel noble and high minded all you want but what you are doing is encouraging these young people to give in to their fears and to spend the rest of their lives living in shame and self reproach.

A saying comes to mind, "Death Before Dishonor."

I hope he likes it up there. We don't want him back, unless he does his time behind bars. But he'll always be labeled a deserter or a traitor or a chicken, punk ass, coward...in his OWN MIND.

Way to go, Canada.

The US created its problems, and now suffering for it.

On the remark "Bush wanted to deter future 9/11 style attacks" how does invading another country deter anything, all he has done is created a new breed of future attackers and even more ppl that hate the US.

[Athens]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Here is the oath of enlistment. No provisions made for noble causes, or anything else. He didn't HAVE to join. He could have even backed out and refused taking the oath. But...well, you know.


"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)

Sounds to me the first oath is to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, if the invasion of another country is unconstitutional and ordered by a domestic leader in this case bush, dosent that alone allow him to disobay the orders of the President and commanding officers if they are in contradiction?

[Athens]

Originally posted by typoon:
The guy is a "former" Paratrooper in the US Army. Why the heck did he join? Are these people who desert really that stupid that they think the Military will not be used for a war or conflict at sometime? Are these people so stupid to think that the military is there for them to get a free ride off the US Gov't? From the sounds of it Apparently so. What do these people think the Military is for? Why join and WASTE my Tax dollars if you are going to desert? You may not believe in the conflict or whatever mission you are on but as a soldier you have a JOB fighting Wars and defending the country is YOUR job. If you don't like that responsiblity Don't F'ing Join.


I would say Court Martial his ass let him sit in Jail for Desertion then when he gets out give him a one way ticket to Canada.

But he wasent defending a country, he didnt want to help invade another country. Im sure if the US was attacked and not the attacker he would still be in the army.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Athens:
Sounds to me the first oath is to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, if the invasion of another country is unconstitutional and ordered by a domestic leader in this case bush, dosent that alone allow him to disobay the orders of the President and commanding officers if they are in contradiction?

Notice the logical "if." The war isn't unconstitutional. He doesn't get to make that argument.

When you are a soldier, protecting and defending the Constitution means obeying the lawful orders of the president. It is the Constitution that appoints the president the Commander in Chief as his superior officer, and as such, the Commander in Chief can order his deployment. His oath also means following the rules and regulations made by Congress persuant to its Constitutional Article 1, Section 8 powers. He broke those rules and regulations by deserting. Now he wants to evade responsibility for his decision by fleeing to a foreign country. Wrong.