| Submit your comments on this article |
| Great White North |
| U.S. deserters lose bid for Canada refugee status |
| 2007-11-16 |
| Two Americans who deserted the U.S. Army to protest against the war in Iraq lost their bid for refugee status in Canada on Thursday, and the Canadian government made it clear they were no longer welcome. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear appeals from the two men, Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, over decisions by immigration authorities -- backed in two subsequent court rulings -- that they were not refugees in need of protection. Opposing the war on the belief that it was illegal and immoral, the two deserted when they learned their units would be deployed to Iraq, and came to Canada. If deported to the United States, they say they face a court martial and up to five years in prison. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #13 Maybe Kimmie can offer them asylum... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-11-16 22:19 |
| #12 10 easy years at Leavenworth Penitentiary followed by a Public Stripping of their US Citizen Status and then finally a Speedy Deportation to Cuba. Hopefully, by then Castro will be dead and his regime will have crumbled. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-11-16 17:34 |
| #11 ...There may be public dissatisfaction in Canada with the US, but they made it clear back in 91 that there would NEVER again be the kind of unlimited sanctuary that evaders had during Vietnam. I sincerely hope these little darlings are figuring out exactly what's waiting for them. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-11-16 16:44 |
| #10 re: Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, 10 easy years at Leavenworth Penitentiary followed by a Public Stripping of their US Citizen Status and then finally a Speedy Deportation to Cuba. Sounds Eminently Fair and Sets a Fine Example. |
| Posted by: Red Dawg 2007-11-16 13:51 |
| #9 To follow up on P2K's comment, Article VI of the Constitution, says: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Which makes clear that the Constitution is above any treaty that the Congress sits below the Constitution and above the laws of any State (that is, any of our states). |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-11-16 10:52 |
| #8 He will get all the socialism in prison he wants. He can even be someone's girlfriend for more cigarettes! |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-11-16 10:14 |
| #7 Whaattt?! This isn't the Red Army? |
| Posted by: Hinzie 2007-11-16 09:59 |
| #6 This would be the same UN sanctioned coalition presence in Iraq? Not that I care what the UN has to say about anything. But these deserters have no coherent argument even in the terms they choose to frame it. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-11-16 09:47 |
| #5 Feb, 2004: Hinzman, who grew up in Rapid City, S.D., joined the Army in January 2001. The socialist structure of the military appealed to him, he said. He liked the subsidized housing and groceries and, at the end of his service, the money for college. "It seemed like a good financial decision," he said. And, he said, "I had a romantic vision of what the Army was." But from the beginning, basic training bothered him. He said he was horrified by the chanting about blood and killing during marches, by the shooting at targets without faces and by what he called the dehumanization of the enemy. If he loved the subsidized housing and food, then he'll probably love Leavenworth. They'll take care of all that hard stuff for him... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-11-16 09:41 |
| #4 JFM - it's a desperate attempt by their lawyers seeking a friendly judge who'd grasp at any rationale without reference to real law to make a personal judgment call. The 'rituals', legislative and executive, on the American side of the border have been done to meet legal standards IAW the [US] Constitution. And, the UN, as much as it would wish, doesn't displace the American Constitution in legal authority as far as the majority of Americans are concerned [not counting the usual suspects]. While not specific to this case, the Supreme Court ruled in Reid vs Covert, circa 1957 that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-11-16 09:22 |
| #3 Illegal? AFAIK, in the US a war is "legal" when it has beeen approved by Congress and there is no provision in the Constitution for empowering that bunch of pedofilic thugs called the United Nations. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-11-16 05:45 |
| #2 Next stop, the brig. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-11-16 05:24 |
| #1 Perhaps the Taliban in Pakistan would accept them as guests. |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-11-16 04:15 |