So long, dorks: American deserters denied by Supreme Court of Canada

us-deserters.jpg

Common sense from Canada’s Supreme Court? I can hardly believe it. The SCC today denied the petition of cowardly narcissists Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, paving the way for these two US Army deserters to finally be returned to the States after nearly four years:

In reaction to the court decree, Lee Zaslofsky of War Resisters Support Campaign lamented, “I am a deserter from the Vietnam war and I think it is a disgrace that it was relatively easy for me to come to Canada and settle here and it’s been so difficult for Iraq war resisters.”

Lee: do you honestly believe there is a comparison between Vietnam draft-dodgers and these dorks? Not that I respect Vietnam deserters much more, but at least there was some moral justification behind that position: Vietnam draftees were being sent to war against their will. Today’s deserters are VOLUNTEERS! They joined the army of their own free will, and enjoyed all the benefits of a military association. Running away when the going gets tough…that’s just pathetic. Goodbye, boys! And don’t try to claim your GST back on your way out.

Of course, this raises two pertinent questions: 1) when will immigration authorities actually get around to physically deporting these guys, and 2) will the Supreme Court now work on getting rid of the thousands of war criminals and terrorists who came here from overseas as bogus refugee claimants?

Advertisements

17 Comments

Filed under Iraq, Left-Wing Causes Celebre, The Confusion of The Left

17 responses to “So long, dorks: American deserters denied by Supreme Court of Canada

  1. Sean

    About time.

    Very good point about those two being volunteers versus draftees. Their situation does not compare to that of draft dodgers in the least bit. Huge difference there, when people ELECT to sign on the dotted line, versus those who had no choice.

    What really gets me (correct me if I’m wrong on this), was that Hinzman was a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne, arguably America’s preeminent military first responders. Did he think his unit would be confined to barracks in the event of conflict? Did he think his “objection” to the war more informed than that of Congress, who voted with the PUSA to go to war?

  2. Fred

    how this case, featuring two complete morons, was allowed to use up Supreme Court time is beyond me.

    They signed a contract. They broke it.

    Game set & match.

    Boot the scum buckets out.

  3. Agree with the sentiment completely, Fred. But to correct: the Supreme Court rejected their appeal, so no time was wasted.

  4. philanthropist

    Morons.

  5. Dale

    You guys are a bunch of ingnorant fucks. You have no idea what these two men have been through, or would have had to do in Iraq. I´m with them whole heartedly.

  6. While I normally don’t stand for curse words on this blog, I’ll leave your comment up only as a demonstration of how lefties like you think only emotionally, without reason.

    God Bless America, and learn how to spell ignorant!

  7. Sean

    Dale:

    What they “went through” was entirely self-inflicted, something you willfully ignore. They CHOOSE to desert, unlike tens of thousands of their compatriots who haven’t. They violated the oath of enlistment they swore to, and bear full responsibility for their decision.

  8. Dale

    Well Sean, you like so many other people apparently don’t know what the Oath of Enlistment actually says. ‘…that I will defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC…’ Now, the U.N. defines a crime against peace as; Wars of Aggression, Preemptive Wars and so on. George Bush defined the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a preemptive strike. Therefore qualifying it as a Crime Against Peace. Which is in violation of International Law and the U.N. Charter, of which the U.S. is a signatory, and therefore is in violation of U.S. law. Also the Nuremberg Principles clearly state that people who perpetrate War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Crimes Against Peace are not absolved from responsibility just because they acted under orders from their Government or in a Governmental position. So you can see that they are not in reality breaking their Oath of Enlistment, they are upholding it. By the way it should be noted that I am also a deserter who lives in Canada and I know Jeremy and Brandon and they are great examples of morality.

  9. Sean

    Excellent Dale
    Lets complete the Oath of Enlistment, shall we? “…
    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.” As I stated previously, once you sign on the dotted line…

    The wisdom of the Iraqi venture is something I question myself, however, when your President and Congress authorize the decision to go to war, all else follows. As far as I know the U.S. is not answerable to the UN when it comes to pursuing its national security interests (rightly or wrongly).

    Please tell me how the Iraqi venture is a “war crime”. Hussein had plenty of warning, and a record of violation of UN sanctions, justifying military action regardless of whether the WMD threat was real or not.

    Was the pre-emptive action by Clinton against Serbia a “crime against peace”? What the hell does that mean anyway? Turning to the UN as the ultimate standard of international normative behaviour is laughable.

  10. Dale, your thought process is stuck in some odd space between self-obsessed 16-year-old and academy-warped liberal arts post-graduate student. The bottom line is, you deserters are a shame to your own country, America, the most free, prosperous, fair, progressive country in the world. You are a blight on Canada when you come here and expect us all to think the way you and your leftist extremist friends do. Fact is, most Canadians are just like Americans, we love freedom and understand it isn’t free.

  11. Dale

    Sean, the Orders of the POTUS are trumped by the constitution. Period. The US is answerable to the UN, just like every other signatory. And by signing the UN Charter, the US acknowledges the UN as the authority on International Law. The bottom line is that the war was not sanctioned by the UN and therefore illegal under the law. And you are right Hussein did have plenty of warning and the International community had elected to give him one last shot… until the US broke the law and intervened. The fact is that if the UN had seen a threat UN troops (mostly US) would have been sent in. They did not. Mark my words someone will pay dearly for the bloodshed. And I refuse to have their blood on my hands.

  12. Sean

    Dale

    Congress VOTED with the POTUS to go to war in Iraq. There is no constitutional violation there. If there was one, you’d better believe the Democrats or any other opposition would take the administration to court over it.
    The UN (or more precisely, the Security Council) didn’t “sanction” the war not out of any concern for legalities, but for purely political reasons. Period. They didn’t sanction the war in the same way that actions by the U.S. in the Balkans weren’t “sanctioned”. Just as no action was taken by the UN in Rwanda, the same is happening with the genocide in the Sudan. Both are clear examples of violation of international law (to say the very least), yet the UN remains inactive about it. So don’t harp on the issue of legalities when they conveniently get ignored by an organization with a history of choosing what law gets applied. Just as the constitutional issue is a red herring, so is the canard of the war “violating” international law.

  13. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. No matter what the high-minded ideals of the U.N. Charter say, the fact is: the U.N. is a protection racket for dictators, murderers, kleptocrats, and creeps.

  14. Dale

    Sean, you might think me a blight on Canada, however it doesn’t appear you elected officials do.

    39th Parliament, 2nd Session
    The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has the honour to present its
    THIRD REPORT

    In accordance with its mandate pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your Committee has considered the issue of Iraq war resisters.

    The Committee recommends that the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals.

    NORMAN DOYLE
    Chair

  15. Dale

    Excuse me, that was for Flaggman.

  16. Sean

    I was just going to say…

    I am not against people following their conscience, Dale, but rather I fully expect they acknowledge the consequences of their decisions. U.S. servicemen swear an oath to their country, not the UN, and should be judged by the terms of the Oath, nothing more, nothing less.

    I have already brought up the lack of consistency on the part of the UN’s position with various military involvements, so I will not belabor the point. Abrogating one’s security responsibilities to an unelected, unaccountable body such as the UN is supreme folly, and a pure cop out anyway. You may not agree with the actions in Iraq, but deferring anything military to the UN because it best articulates international law goes against its track record. If you don’t realize by now that UN objections to US intervention are hypocritical and entirely political, there is nothing more I can add.

  17. Ed

    The US is not answerable to the UN!

    The UN is just a go-between created (by the US) as a neutral body for the resolution of conflicts between nations. Nothing more.

    But, the UN wants to be sooo000 much more! The UN is deliberately prohibited from collecting taxes or having their own army to prevent them from rising as a world power of their own. The UN actually has no jurisdiction in the US, or any other country for that matter.

    But if people want to bend over and bare all to the UN (or any other self proclaimed “authority”), then it is their own fault.

    You ever noticed how little of the Constitution and history they teach in public (government) schools? Notice how much they teach about sex education and other non-academic subjects.

    Knowledge (or the control of knowledge) is power.

    The UN wants to control the internet!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s