I Wasn’t Holding Out a Lot of Hope
– but it would have been nice. I briefly met Jeremy Hinzman last year, he appears to be a genuine in his thoughts and ideas on the subject, lets hope there is an appeal and that it goes better.
– but it would have been nice. I briefly met Jeremy Hinzman last year, he appears to be a genuine in his thoughts and ideas on the subject, lets hope there is an appeal and that it goes better.
Designed by Gabfire slightly modified by stageleft
Guess court rulings are only the final word when we agree with them, huh? Maybe if he was a starving woman you’d like the decision a little better.
It would be different if there was currently a draft in place. Then i might have some sympathy for this young man.
Goodness, a Vinny/Labby double-header. Karl Rove must have gotten an increase in his “No Shill Left Behind” budget.
This isn’t the final word in this case. You might wait until all appeals have been exhausted until you start claiming victory.
Personally I don’t agree this ruling, I hope there will be an appeal, and I hope that appeal is successful – the way our laws are worded though I am not under any illusions that it will….. I am quite sure that there will be those who attempt to make the appropriate changes to the law that would allow such an appeal to succeed, and it’s a cause I would lend my support to.
This case has a couple of elements in it, there is the contract law aspect where the US government has, we assume, fulfilled it’s obligations and can quite reasonably expect Hinzman to fulfill his. On the other hand we have Hinzmans personal moral issues regarding the war…. which take precendent? US national law? Contract law? Personal moral values?
As with most complex issues there is rarely a simple answer.
Comes back to a discussion we’ve had on a million different occasions…
If you don’t wanna be a soldier, don’t join the military.
The should hang the sonofabitch.
Who’s “they?”. If you mean Canadians, well, that’s not likely to happen, since there is no capital punishment in this country. If by “they” you mean Americans, then…*ding ding ding*, you win the Daily Double! It’s unlikely for a refugee claimant in Canada to be deported if he/she faces capital punishment.
I think I’ll just send this little tid-bit to Hinzman’s defense lawyer. Keep talking, Vinny.
Obviously the US if he isn’t going to be granted asylum in Canada.
Ass.
God, you’re dumb. And it’s spelled “arse.”
Pot? Meet kettle.
Pot? Meet kettle.
Have some people just learned the expression “it’s like the pot calling the kettle black?” They allude to this aphorism all the time as if it’s the holy grail of show-stopping, debate-ending, slam-dunking final word on any subject?
It’s kind of embarrassing, really.
Embarrassing? That’s a word I definitely think of when I see a comment from Ti-Guy!
I know I’m going to get some amazing topical and deeply thought out comment. Then I move to the next one on the list and it’s yours.
Ok, I’m starting to get the hang of it. It’s a Brooklynese thing. You take the last (or near last) word of the rhetorical thrust or parry and turn it into an insult.
So, I’ve got choices among “move”, “list” and “your.”
Ok, so here goes…Vinny…Your mother!
My other choice was “move” and I was going to make a complicated joke about bowel movements, but, quite frankly…who are we kidding?
I’m not from Brooklyn, ass.
But thanks for pointing out your boundless stupidity.
Oh, well now, I am embarrassed. And here I thought you were from Brooklyn.
Boy, don’t I look foolish.
“You might wait until all appeals have been exhausted until you start claiming victory.”
What the hell are you talking about Tri – Guy? When did i start “claiming victory” I stated my opinion, this Hinzman signed upon his own free will. He must have forgot his spine at Customs!!
You’re right, Labby. I shouldn’t have accused you of claiming victory. Apparently immoral wars are qualitatively different depeding on whether there’s a draft in place or not.
Hang him? Possible of course, but unlikely… if I recall my reading on this from down there correctly the state hasn’t killed a deserter since WW2 – and I think the last one was for desertion in the face of the enemy.
On the law side of it you win hands down Vinny but I do note that the moral issue is apparently not an issue at all. Hinzman is not, to the best of my knowledge, claiming to be a pacifist or against war – he is against , and unwilling to participate in, a war that he considers to be illegal, unjust, and amoral. Hinzman and I share that particular feeling, do moral issues surrounding life and death simply cease to exist because the killing and dieing is done on the orders of the state?
I think it unlikely any court in Canada or the US is going to risk muddying the line between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. As a voluntary enlistee, Hinzman’s lane is the latter and under his applicable codes of discipline his freedoms to speak to the former are less than those of non-serving citizens. The same applies in Canada. Once the politicians decided to war on Serbia, it was not within the purview of anyone assigned to the forces in, say, Aviano to refuse orders.
If Canada makes the mistake of passing legislation which allows such a protest to succeed, I suspect we’ll pretty much have set the legal framework for every member of the CF to choose whether to deploy or be released, and Canada’s ability to use armed force in pursuit of objectives noble or otherwise will be severely curtailed.
Soldiers do not have the ability to make those choices for themselves. You don’t wanna fight wars you might not agree with? Don’t join.
Done.
He did. He abandoned the army and fled the country.
I still say hang the sonofabitch.
Well, colour me surprised. You really did introduce a novel point in the whole Jerry Hinzman affair. Mainly with “jus ad bellum” and “jus in bello.” Nice touch.
You’re not fooling anyone, IrC. You could make the same argument in Sanskrit, it won’t make any substantive difference.
Soldiers do not have the ability to make those choices for themselves. You don’t wanna fight wars you might not agree with? Don’t join.
I’m so loath to make this point, but Vinny’s pissing me off. Had you been drafted into the Reichswehr during WW2, you would have shipped people off to Auschwitz, wouldn’t you have?
You should be loath to make that point because its a pretty bad comparison. War in Iraq vs. Holocaust??? You seem to be reaching for anything here Tri – Guy. And by the way, Wehrmacht, not Reichswehr.
Reichswehr war von 1921 bis 1935, während der Weimarer Republik und den ersten Jahren der Zeit des Dritten Reiches, der offizielle Name der deutschen Streitkräfte…Wikipedia.
So, Labby, it’s Reichswehr in the context I meant it; before the war actually started; during the Weimar Republic and the first years of the 3rd Reich. Although I admit I confused things by referring to the draft and WW2 and the Reichswehr all at the same time, the idea was to allude to the loss of the Republic and the ascension of the totalitarian Reich, during which time, some people thought things were just hunky-dory.
War in Iraq vs Holocaust???
Are you sure 3 question marks were enough?
As I say lrC, a complex issue – unfortunately one where theres really not a lot of wriggle room as far as the laws as they are written are concerned.
I’m still wondering if anyone is gonna try and tackle the subcurrent of morality on this to any degree other than to dismiss that idea as part of the discussion completely and call for a good old fashioned lynching.
Hey Titty-Guy…
Why don’t you ask Balbulican, a poster on this very blog, how he feels about guys line Hinzman?
I mean, since it’s a great big Nazi (yawn) thing, you know… Maybe he agrees with you, right?
Go ahead! Ask him!
Ass.
There is no subcurrent of morality. Soldiers are not in a position to make moral judgments on wars, fights, battles, or anything else. That’s why they’re soldiers.
If you want to make judgments, decisions, plans, evaluations, etc., stay a civilian. It’s a volunteer army. No one forces you to join.
>You’re not fooling anyone, IrC. You could make the same argument in Sanskrit, it won’t make any substantive difference.
Do you have a clue what the substantive issues are which I addressed by raising those concepts? I invite you to offer more than your usual dribble of excrement this time.
I hear that at one point during Basic Training you turn your soul and conscience in to a military doctor. Or was it a lawyer? At any rate you get it back at the end of your service, before you return to civilian life.
Oh, sorry. I was just trying to imagine the mechanic’s of Vinny’s army. Bit of a scary head trip, I must say.
Can I decline? I generally don’t respond to invitations to excrete.
…and I’m not so sure I could “dribble” excrement, anyway.
There is no subcurrent of morality. Soldiers are not in a position to make moral judgments on wars, fights, battles, or anything else. That’s why they’re soldiers.
Ah, shut up, Corporal Vinny of the 101st First Keyboard Fighters.
I’ve been keeping my head low (this is fiscal year end, and any self employed Canadian knows what kind of 18-hour-7 day week hell that means). But since Vinny indirectly asked, here’s my two cents worth.
I agree with Jeremy Hinzman that the American invasion of Iraq was immoral, and possibly illegal: and I honour his desire not to participate in it.
But Hinzman willingly entered in to a contract, legal and morally binding, with the US when he enlisted. It specified, in some form or another, that he would serve in the armed forces, follow orders, and accept the duties assigned to him. It also specified the penalties for abrogation of that contract.
Hinzman knew that enlisting meant the possibility of being called on to serve in combat. There has never been a war in which civilians have not died, and I doubt very much that there has ever been a war in which what we now call “war crimes” have not been committed (although not always detected or prosecuted). Hintzman knew all that. He enlisted anyway, and he accepted the benefits of enlistment. The US honoured its side of the contract. They paid him, fed him and trained him.
Hinzman converted to pacifism during the period of his service. Some of his critics are sceptical about that: I don’t know the man, and can’t judge his sincerity. But it really doesn’t matter. He had, and has, a perfectly honourable course of action open to him: he can abrogate his contract, and accept the penalties that come with it.
I have a huge amount of respect for the British “conshies” who refused military service during WW1, willingly stood trial, and were convincted and imprisoned. I have less respect for someone who accepted the benefits of enlistment, then backs out on the job he was paid and trained to do.
An army cannot function if every soldier reserves the right to approve or disapprove of the government’s foreign policy decisions.
Having said all that, Vinny – don’t be calling for hanging. That silliness just pushes the discussion to the foolish extremes of opinion that make reasonable discussion impossible.
I would have to say that balbulican said it best. I think it also important to realize that not only did he abandon the Armed Forces, but more importantly, his unit. I wonder how they feel about his decision.
An your still wrong Tri-Guy, the name changed to Wehrmacht in 1935, and Auschwitz did not begin liquidating Jews until after the beggining of the war. So dont pretend like you had your facts in order. Not to mention that most of the transporting to Auschwitz wasnt even done by the Wehrmacht, but by the Gestapo and SS.
I wonder how much personal decision making should really have to do with how his unit, or anyone else for that matter, feels about what is being contemplated? How many of us make our decisions with the heaviest weight among the factors considered being “I wonder what X, Y, or Z, will think about this?”… especially personal moral decisions.
I am in complete agreement with sending Mr Hinzman back to face the music. Having a bit of experience in these things, the individual soldier is completely responsible for the morality and legality of his own actions. Just ask the MP’s from Abu Gharaib who are being court-martialled. Nobody makes you shoot unarmed civilians. The ROE (rules of engagement) exist to ensure that non-combatant security is balanced with the security of the soldiers. Studies conducted during the cold war showed that the majority of troops would not fire their weapons during their first combat experience. Hinzman’s demonstrated lack of moral fibre and cowardice in accepting responsibility (and consequences)for his decision to not go to war should not be rewarded by Canada and they have not been. Well done!
Well I must say, this thread has almost put me back on the fence on this issue. My initial reaction was, he was sent to an illegal war, where countless war crimes have already been committed, so I thought his claim had some validity.
However, in this day and age, with the amount of information available to those who want it, I think any American that joins the army and expects to be only going on missions of liberation and freedom bringing are deluding themselves. I wouldn’t take a job without finding out what the companies all about, and I think Hinzman should have put some more thought into what kind of organization he was signing on with.