Comments:American war deserter given stay of deportation in Canada

Should Canada risk a dispute with the U.S. to give refuge to those who refuse to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan?Edit

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

About time.Edit

It is about time that a country stood up to America over this. I used to think that if I was drafted, that I would go, but you know what, I would rather be labeled as a criminal from an unjust war then be force to work for this corrupt government as a murderer. Good for deserters. They will help show the government that we will not fear them.

We need to get back to the day when the government feared the people, and worked for the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Drafted? Listen to what America's Last Great Composer had to say on the topic... --Brian McNeil / talk 10:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The Drafted been dead for years, idiots.-- 15:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
And every time there is a major conflict some politician slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun trots it out as a solution. Considering it dead and buried is a sure-fire way to see some such muppet resurrect it, idiot. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
In the US organisations like Americans for the National Service Act (which is part of Service Nation) and Service Nation (until it changed it's website) support this form of slavery. Note that these are not small groups, the recent Service Nation conference was attended by both Obama and McCain and was widely reported on in the news media.Military Slavery is not dead and buried. Anonymous101talk 15:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
wow you both are fucking idiots. Every time the Draft comes up it's shot down even by the President Bush. And calling it slavery? So serving you county is slavery now? Both of guys are the type to defend anything anti Gov or military. And sadly this Slaves are the ones making sure assholes like you have the freedom of speech. Makes me sick if i think about it.-- 16:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Slave: (definition from Wiktionary) "A person who is forced to work for another." In the draft a person is forced to work for another. It is slavery. Simple. Also, remember to be civil. Anonymous101talk 16:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
So, since prison inmates are forced to work within the prisons, they are slaves as well?
Technically, yes, although, in my opinion there is nothing morally wrong with this if the person has committed a crime and any income from it is given to the harmed party (if no one is harmed, it should not be a crime) Anonymous101talk 17:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the guy who insists on dropping the fbomb, Constitutional rights dont apply anymore. I can think of a dozen ways I could nail someone for using their first amenedment rights. Defamation Anyone? (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick way to immigrate to Canada?Edit

So, is this just a quick way to immigrate? When I brought my husband here from the US it took 3 years. Maybe he should have just enlisted in the military and deserted here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


This man voluntarily signed up for military duty then decided that he didn't like fighting. If he doesn't like fighting why sign up in the first place? Furthermore, we as Canadians shouldn't be supporting or rewarding this kind of dereliction of duty. What kind of message are we sending to our own soldiers when we allow things like this to happen? That its OK to play army and fool around with guns and big boy toys but when we actually need you to fight you can desert and we won't mind? Hinzman should be sent back to America and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Spacehusky (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Because they signed up for the military to defend the United States, and defend the constitution. This war was both unconstitutional under US law and illegal under international law. Therefore, they should be allowed to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what he said ^ . Did we find WMD's? I still cant understand why anyone would be still be behind the war in Iraq after all of the pretenses have been proven false. Why fight a war that you have no just reason to fight? We found Saddam, but we did not find Bin Laden. Or so we did and "we let him go" but thats a whole other topic. The reason we went overseas was to fight a war on terror, not to help and aid other countries that need help after starting a war in thier land over FALSE PRETENSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


All he should get is a firing squad. Over 4000 Good man and women die (by choice) for the Freedom of the Iraqi and Afghan People and this guy pussy out and find a age old reason not to fight (religion). He is a typical scum who took the Military benefits but dos not want to fight for his county. And Canada is showing it's a haven for traitors and cowards yet again. -- 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt he's received any military benefits in a long time. Besides, he's choosing to break a contract instead of killing people he has no right to kill. So what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Canada should hand these theses deserter back to USA before it is too late. How dare these people to leave the army. They should be given maximum punishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

during the vietnam war people moved to canada to avoid conscription. This soldier volunteered. He had signed a contract that was legally giving up his rights to the government. It seems real glamorous to sign up and be a hero but the truth is war is ugly. He has realized this but is still held by the contract. There should be a way to legally remove yourself from service without legal recourse. Thats the problem you see,its not that canada shouldn't send him back. They should. Its that the the services should have a cancel contract clause. This of course can't apply during tours in foreign countries. But barring a history of m.i.a. or you should be able to remove from service when stationed in a us base with viable transportation to a location attainable to there final destination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note, he did serve in Afganistan. This was going to be his second deployment. However, since the Iraq war was started illegally and under false pretenses he has moral objections. It is the duty of an officer to refuse to follow orders he feels are unlawful. I believe starting a war under a false guise would count. He is clearly not afraid to fight because he has already done for. Simply put, he doesn't want to fight for the wrong reasons. And neither would I. 18:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All these crazy jingoist idiots have no idea what war is really like. The contract between soliders and the state has been broken by the state. The regulations on the time length for deployment and troop rotations have been violated. I am glad this guy is safe now. All of the other allied soliders should be recalled. This war is a travesty to military planning and seves no legitimate national interests for anyone other than Israel. Let them fight it. 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Blind PatriotismEdit

There's no relevance between loving the country you're in and agreeing with every decision it makes. There arises a problem when citizens of a nation do not question the decisions being made for them. I love the United States of America, and most of what it stands for. I've lived here all my life, but that is not to say that I love all the decisions being made for its citizens by its leaders. Those who oppose anyone that voices their [controversial] opinion, especially when the opinion is shared by nearly half the nation, do not deserve the label of faithful patriots. Rather, they should be known and should call themselves blind patriots. The foundation of this country is based primarily on opposition to misaligned or corrupt leadership that would've otherwise been blindly accepted by all.

If a man is opposed to an order given to him, which is followed by an outstanding percentage of the population, and takes the proper steps to avoid conflict, is he not exhibiting the same ideology as that of our founding fathers? After all, who knows whats better for you than yourself?

Belief is irrelevantEdit

The simple fact is that desertion is a crime, in any country. This is not an issue of conscription, these people voluntarily signed on the dotted line, and agreed to fight; in that regard, they should face the consequences that coincide with breaking that oath. As a Canadian, I believe it isn't our place to be deciding who is sent home to face crimes they have committed. Whether or not we as Canadians disagree with the Iraq War, or even the War in Afghanistan is a topic for another forum of discussion. The law is the law, these people agreed to abide by it, regardless of their personal views. That is military service; if you can't handle it, don't join. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, my thoughts exactly. I will help people escape conscription, and would flee it myself as I am pacifistish ('ish' because I will pull the trigger to, say, stop a marauding gunman) but if you agreed to do it then, well, no sympathy. Different if he had cracked up, that's essential being incapacitated, but he evidently didn't. All that said however, I must point out that 'calling the war illegal means a harder sentence' is well, probably illegal and certainly not a fair operation of a system that claims to allow free speech. Maybe he could be sentenced by Canadians under US law? (Theoretically possible, though in practise I can't see them doing it). As in to is Canada right: If they believe America is wrong, they should stand up. If not, they should shut up. I know what I believe, but the question is Canada, not me. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The 'it's the law so obey it' argument really doesn't work. Rosa Parks voluntarily didn't give up her seat on the bus, yet I am 99% sure that you wouldn't be criticizing the Canadian government for allowing Rosa Parks to stay in Canada to avoid imprisonment. Sure, they are different things, but the 'it's the law so obey it' argument only works if all laws are perfect, and they are not. Anonymous101talk 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
He did serve the country, he fought for us in Afghanistan, which most of the country was behind. I give him alot of credit for that, and if he decided he no longer wants to serve the country then its his prerogative and he needs to move to another country, which he did. I'm not exactly sure of all the details with contracts and laws pertaining to military service, but I sure as hell would not sign any of it if it says I have to unconditionally take orders against my will or face imprisonment. Perhaps thats why I don't serve. Just as the soldiers have to deal with that fact by law, the country and its people should deal with the fact that by law theres not a thing a country could do if one of its citizens decides it no longer wants to be a part of it and goes to another country. If the law is the law, then by law he did not desert anyone, he basically changed who he wants to serve.
But the problem is that if he signed up and then saw what he felt was an immoral war, it's wrong to force him to continue to fight in it. If soldiers discovered once they went to war that they would have to do immoral things (like killing children or something), is it really okay to force them to do these things? And just because something is the law doesn't mean it's okay: that's why we change our laws all the time and protest them through civil disobedience. --Poisonous (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Poisonous, I completely agree with you. Anonymous101talk 15:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

While he did Sign on the Big red line, he realized what he was doing was wrong, and fled. Its not glamoruos, But it was -Probably- the right thing to do, Morally. Considering if this was truely against his consience, the guilt would drive him mad. (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This isnt newEdit

Canada has already had problems with draft dodgers. I used to visit Nelson, BC every summer, and you would think you are back in the 60s because of the number of them. They even wanted to have a monument for the dodgers. However, I would not like to be in their place... [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)