Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripper29 on March 25, 2005, 09:31:01 AM
-
U.S. deserter loses refugee claim
Several grounds for appeal of decision, Hinzman's lawyer says
Shannon Kari
For CanWest News Service
March 25, 2005
TORONTO - A U.S. soldier who deserted the military because of his opposition to the occupation of Iraq intends to appeal a ruling released Thursday that denied his request for refugee status in Canada.
An Immigration and Refugee Board adjudicator found that Jeremy Hinzman does not have a "well-founded" fear of prosecution and is not a person "in need of protection" if deported to the United States.
The adjudicator, Brian Goodman, also turned down refugee bids by Hinzman's wife and their two-year-old son, who arrived in Canada with the former infantryman in January 2004.
"I find that Jeremy Hinzman is not a conscientious objector because he is not opposed to war in any form, or to the bearing of arms in all circumstances due to his genuine political, religious or moral convictions," Goodman wrote.
The adjudicator also found that a potential penalty of between one to five years in jail if Hinzman is deported and prosecuted by the U.S. army "is not grossly disproportionate to the inherent seriousness of the offence of desertion."
Hinzman, 26, was a member of the 82nd Airborne Division when he deserted the army a few weeks before he was scheduled to be sent to Iraq. He is the first U.S. soldier to apply for refugee status in Canada as a result of the war in Iraq.
His lawyer, Jeffry House, said Thursday that while he is disappointed with the ruling, he believes there are a number of grounds to seek leave to appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Canada.
"The obvious basis of appeal is that they would not let us bring evidence that the war in Iraq is illegal," House said.
"You should not be sent to jail for refusing to do something that is illegal."
Goodman ruled last November that the legality of the war in Iraq was "not relevant" to the questions the board was required to answer in deciding whether Hinzman and his family qualified as refugees.
However, House said there are a number of precedents for looking at the legality of the U.S. actions in Iraq. He said the Immigration and Refugee Board has previously accepted refugee claims by soldiers who deserted the Serbian army and Russian soldiers who did not want to serve in Chechnya.
--------------------------------------------
1 down...5 more to go..
-
In other news, a Victoria Cross and a postumous Medal of Honor have recently come out of the war in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Ripper29
U.S. deserter loses refugee claim
Several grounds for appeal of decision, Hinzman's lawyer says
Shannon Kari
For CanWest News Service
March 25, 2005
TORONTO - A U.S. soldier who deserted the military because of his opposition to the occupation of Iraq intends to appeal a ruling released Thursday that denied his request for refugee status in Canada.
An Immigration and Refugee Board adjudicator found that Jeremy Hinzman does not have a "well-founded" fear of prosecution and is not a person "in need of protection" if deported to the United States.
The adjudicator, Brian Goodman, also turned down refugee bids by Hinzman's wife and their two-year-old son, who arrived in Canada with the former infantryman in January 2004.
"I find that Jeremy Hinzman is not a conscientious objector because he is not opposed to war in any form, or to the bearing of arms in all circumstances due to his genuine political, religious or moral convictions," Goodman wrote.
The adjudicator also found that a potential penalty of between one to five years in jail if Hinzman is deported and prosecuted by the U.S. army "is not grossly disproportionate to the inherent seriousness of the offence of desertion."
Hinzman, 26, was a member of the 82nd Airborne Division when he deserted the army a few weeks before he was scheduled to be sent to Iraq. He is the first U.S. soldier to apply for refugee status in Canada as a result of the war in Iraq.
His lawyer, Jeffry House, said Thursday that while he is disappointed with the ruling, he believes there are a number of grounds to seek leave to appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Canada.
"The obvious basis of appeal is that they would not let us bring evidence that the war in Iraq is illegal," House said.
"You should not be sent to jail for refusing to do something that is illegal."
Goodman ruled last November that the legality of the war in Iraq was "not relevant" to the questions the board was required to answer in deciding whether Hinzman and his family qualified as refugees.
However, House said there are a number of precedents for looking at the legality of the U.S. actions in Iraq. He said the Immigration and Refugee Board has previously accepted refugee claims by soldiers who deserted the Serbian army and Russian soldiers who did not want to serve in Chechnya.
--------------------------------------------
1 down...5 more to go..
And the American frogs are telling me that Canada is not occupied by the USA ? :rolleyes:
At least some Canadian judges are bought by the Pentagon.
:D
-
KEWL let him face the music.
-
He made his bed, it's now time for him to be held responsible for his actions.
-
I'm not at all surprised by the ruling and agree with it.
-
Joining the military and then deserting when you have to fight is about as weak as it gets. Do we still use a firing squad by any chance? Might teach these punks there is a right way to object to the war and then the ***** bellybutton way.
-
I don't...It takes ballz to raise a family and stand up to the military industrial complex.
Goodbye trust in government.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
I don't...It takes ballz to raise a family and stand up to the military industrial complex.
Goodbye trust in government.
Really?
I wonder why he joined up? He's just a loser who tried to get out of doing the job he signed up for.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
I don't...It takes ballz to raise a family and stand up to the military industrial complex.
Goodbye trust in government.
But he didn't stand up to the "military industrial complex". He ran from it.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
But he didn't stand up to the "military industrial complex". He ran from it.
exactly! I was coming back here to say just that Thrawn.
Anyone who thinks the guy did some nobel act must be off his rocker.
-
Did that guy even go to Iraq? or did he just up and run?
-
Hinzman, 26, was a member of the 82nd Airborne Division when he deserted the army a few weeks before he was scheduled to be sent to Iraq.
Before.
Slo will probably take him in and hide him. It'll all turn out OK.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Did that guy even go to Iraq? or did he just up and run?
He didn't serve in Iraq, but he did serve in Afghanistan.
-
No..You sign up expecting that ur Government won't start some illegall war and put good men in harms way...
But I guess ya gotta move the millitary invantory every decade or so(usually not long after Republicans get elected...we get one of these "New World Order"..wars/invasions)
and where is Osama?..
and where was GWB?..son of a famous pilot..ducks outta service
A coward with power..nothing more frightening
-
Drinking on Easter Sunday......wow.
-
Yep...How'd ya know that?.....:D
God Save Keith's Ale!
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
No..You sign up expecting that ur Government won't start some illegall war and put good men in harms way...
No question allowed, accept orders above all,
since when are soldiers allowed to have an own mind? lol
-
actually this guy has far better moral ground to desert.
From what ive read, he did serve in combat and returned to the US then he deserted before being sent back. In other words, he has a much better point of view than the guy who deserts before he is even sent overseas.
Call him coward or whatever you want. He went overseas once. He has a family. If he dont want to risk his neck after seeing the risks thats his choice in the matter.. and I bet that chances are, had he gone through concientious (sp?) objector he wouldve been turned down and probably jailed... and I dunno about you but if my choices was jail and miss a few years of my kid's life or desert to canada where theres a good chance of receiving asylum and raise his family in canada.... id go north.
Now he's being denied asylum in canada.. it doesnt mean he can apply for it somewhere else does it?
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
No..You sign up expecting that ur Government won't start some illegall war and put good men in harms way...
Indeed, but when a US soldier deems a war started by the President on approval from Congress to be illegal (or specifically "unconstitutional") they are obligated by their oath to take it the courts of the Judicial branch.
"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."
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm
This man did not. He broke his oath and fled the country.
"God Save Keith's Ale!"
Absolutely. ;)
-
Originally posted by OIO
Now he's being denied asylum in canada.. it doesnt mean he can apply for it somewhere else does it?
He certainly can, I suggest he apply for Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
No question allowed, accept orders above all,
since when are soldiers allowed to have an own mind? lol
Wrong, when given an illegal order such as to torture someone, they are legally bound to refuse it.
"893. ART. 93. CRUELTY AND MALTREATMENT
Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
http://www.army.mil/references/UCMJ/ucmj2.html#893.%20ART.%2093.%20CRUELTY%20AND%20MALTREATMENT
-
Originally posted by Maverick
He certainly can, I suggest he apply for Iraq.
Canada and the US have extradition treaties. This guy is a criminal and unless the US plans on executing him I imagine we will ship him back to the US to face courts martial.
-
""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"
maybe im dense but.. how is iraq threatening the US constitution?
"that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"
believe and trust in the constitution..ok....
"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."
which im sure includes something about being able to disobey orders he considers illegal or immoral.
So he breaks the last part of the oath for whatever reasons he has that he considers his orders to be redeployed are illegal or immoral.... a refusal to obey which you and I both know is likely to be dismissed by a tribunal and hed either be redeployed or jailed if he continues to refuse.
Either way the guy loses big time. Its no wonder he did what he did.
I say let him go. Revoke his citizenship and ban him from entering the US ever again. Easy as that.
-
Originally posted by OIO
""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"
maybe im dense but.. how is iraq threatening the US constitution?
"that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"
believe and trust in the constitution..ok....
"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."
which im sure includes something about being able to disobey orders he considers illegal or immoral.
So he breaks the last part of the oath for whatever reasons he has that he considers his orders to be redeployed are illegal or immoral.... a refusal to obey which you and I both know is likely to be dismissed by a tribunal and hed either be redeployed or jailed if he continues to refuse.
Either way the guy loses big time. Its no wonder he did what he did.
I say let him go. Revoke his citizenship and ban him from entering the US ever again. Easy as that.
how's your head.....cause that post flew right over it.
What thrawn is saying is the fact that this is NOT an illegal war (from a US standpoint) because IT was authorized by the president (who has the powers to act alone and send troops into combat for a certain time before congresional approval) but low and behold was approved by CONGRESS itself.
If the soldier, who has the duty to uphold the constitution, thaught his war was illegal (unconstitutional) he also has the duty to fight his orders in the judicial system. NOT desert his post.
YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY DESERTION BASED ON THE PREMISE OF AN ILLEGAL ORDER.
This guy is NOT a CO. Unless he faces the death penalty he does not have fear for wrongfull or unjust prosecution when he returns.........no political asylum is needed.
Mohamed Ali went to JAIL during the prime of his carreer because he did not beleive in veitnam. He could have fled to Canada but he stood up and payed the price for it. That's fighting the system....not running from it OR your obligations.
-
Originally posted by OIO
actually this guy has far better moral ground to desert.
From what ive read, he did serve in combat and returned to the US then he deserted before being sent back. In other words, he has a much better point of view than the guy who deserts before he is even sent overseas.
Call him coward or whatever you want. He went overseas once. He has a family. If he dont want to risk his neck after seeing the risks thats his choice in the matter.. and I bet that chances are, had he gone through concientious (sp?) objector he wouldve been turned down and probably jailed... and I dunno about you but if my choices was jail and miss a few years of my kid's life or desert to canada where theres a good chance of receiving asylum and raise his family in canada.... id go north.
This questioning culminated in Jeremy submitting an application to the Army requesting conscientious objector status in August of 2002. Apparently, the Army never received the application, so he resubmitted it on Halloween of 2002. Just over a month later his unit was deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
During the deployment, Jeremy was assigned to non combative duties while his application was being processed or transferred from pile to pile. He is now a stellar dishwasher. Eventually the application surfaced and a twenty five minute hearing was held. Jeremy stated that, should he be attacked, he could not always turn the other cheek. Thus, not meeting the Army's criteria for conscientious objector status, his application was denied.
After returning to normal duties with his unit Jeremy was, ironically enough, assigned to be his unit's armorer. In this position, he was responsible for the maintenance, inventory, and administrative aspects regarding his infantry company's weapon systems.
http://www.jeremyhinzman.net/background.html
Straight from his website...He never saw combat...His application was denied. He's a *****.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
What thrawn is saying is the fact that this is NOT an illegal war (from a US standpoint) because IT was authorized by the president (who has the powers to act alone and send troops into combat for a certain time before congresional approval) but low and behold was approved by CONGRESS itself.
Oh I think it was totally an illegal war. I just think that the soldier should have taken it court and did his time or proven his case.
Edit: But I don't want to side track the thread by getting into why.
-
"Mohamed Ali went to JAIL during the prime of his carreer because he did not beleive in veitnam. He could have fled to Canada but he stood up and payed the price for it. That's fighting the system....not running from it OR your obligations."
Exactly why I think he did what he did. If he faces up to 'the system' ... he goes to jail. If he 'runs' as you say, he has a good chance of being there with his kid as he grows up, not locked up in prision.
Besides, he DID file for conscientious objector but he was apparently refused by the army brass. So you cant say he didnt just pack up and leave without trying to go through the system.
So what do you expect him to do?
edit: heh someone replied with his website's addy after i had posted it here.
-
Originally posted by OIO
So what do you expect him to do?
Refuse his orders, face courts martial, and make his case.
-
oh c'mon! you really believe what you just said?
"I just think that the soldier should have taken it court and did his time or proven his case. "
Here's the catch with that: hes been denied already by, as far as I know, is the only way to refuse orders 'legally' (the CO thing)
So, if he takes it to court his chances of proving his case are very slim. And not slim because his reasons are not valid or whatever.. slim because the same court that is hearing his case belongs to the very organization that is quite hostile towards people that go against them (armed forces)..and is the same court that will convict him to jail time. And a court that is backed by a government who really does not want the image of their military affected in a time where the military is 'active' .
He knew hed be facing jail time if he couldn't prove his case.
So what alternative is there? Meekly accept going to jail or desert where he had a good chance of not missing years of his kid's life.
Like I said, he deserted... that means he doesnt want to be in the army for X or Y reason. Punishing him for it is only a waste of resources, especially for a so called volunteer army. Take his citizenship away, ban him from traveling to US & US territories. And let that be that.
-
Originally posted by OIO
oh c'mon! you really believe what you just said?
Yeah, I'm a big fan of the rule of law.
-
Unless you yanks plan on hanging this poor bugger, I imagine we'll be shipping him back.
-
OIO it's called being held responsible for ones actions. He took the oath, he violated it, now it's time to be held accountable for his desertion. Trying to use his child / family as an excuse is not a valid arguement nor is it justification any more than a criminal fleeing prosecution because he would miss his child growing up while he was in jail.
-
Simply put, if you want to enjoy the benefits of a career in the U.S. military, do your job.
If you don't want to do your job, don't volunteer... "there's always barber college".
-
"He took the oath, he violated it, now it's time to be held accountable for his desertion."
Did he? He did deploy once... and he did submit the CO and was denied. I believe at that point he was following the part of the oath that said "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"
Only difference is that the army decided NOT to accept his CO. So tell me, at that point what options does this guy have? Jail or go through the very thing he's objecting about? Not very good options if you ask me.
"Trying to use his child / family as an excuse is not a valid arguement nor is it justification"
I strongly disagree with you there. Thats one hell of a valid justification in my view.
"any more than a criminal fleeing prosecution because he would miss his child growing up while he was in jail."
Pray tell why you consider this guy a criminal? This is what I really dont understand about this.
Is there another way for this guy to leave the army without getting thrown in jail? I dont know much about it but I bet if he was told a dishonorable discharge was an option he'd have taken it.
-
Originally posted by OIO
"He took the oath, he violated it, now it's time to be held accountable for his desertion."
Did he? He did deploy once... and he did submit the CO and was denied. I believe at that point he was following the part of the oath that said "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"
Only difference is that the army decided NOT to accept his CO. So tell me, at that point what options does this guy have? Jail or go through the very thing he's objecting about? Not very good options if you ask me.
"Trying to use his child / family as an excuse is not a valid arguement nor is it justification"
I strongly disagree with you there. Thats one hell of a valid justification in my view.
"any more than a criminal fleeing prosecution because he would miss his child growing up while he was in jail."
Pray tell why you consider this guy a criminal? This is what I really dont understand about this.
Is there another way for this guy to leave the army without getting thrown in jail? I dont know much about it but I bet if he was told a dishonorable discharge was an option he'd have taken it.
Dang you just dont get it do you. We don't get to pick and choose the orders we follow. If we believe they are invalid there's a process you go through. It is not corrupted, it is not biased. If that process doesn't side with him or his beliefs he sucks it up and follows orders or goes to jail for refusing them.
If you break the law in the US running to Canada is no excuse because you don't believe in the law or want to spend more time with your family. AND YES he broke the law. Violations of the uniformed code of military justice are felony convictions. Desertion is a violation of the UCMJ.
more than half a million others did what they were told and a hand full didn't. He is not justified by any means. He volunteered for this....no one put a gun to his head when he enlisted. There's way's of getting out of the military and this guy didn't choose any of them. He deserted no matter what the circumstances are. I've had a handfull of troops go AWOL for "humanitarion" reasons and they ALL got punished. It doesnt matter if they did it because their sick mother was dieing. There's a process to follow and if you don't follow it you are to be held accountable.
Thrawn,
I understand your beliefs about the war....but constituionally the war was completly legal. That was the point I was making.
-
Originally posted by OIO
"He took the oath, he violated it, now it's time to be held accountable for his desertion."
Did he? He did deploy once... and he did submit the CO and was denied. I believe at that point he was following the part of the oath that said "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"
Only difference is that the army decided NOT to accept his CO. So tell me, at that point what options does this guy have? Jail or go through the very thing he's objecting about? Not very good options if you ask me.
"Trying to use his child / family as an excuse is not a valid arguement nor is it justification"
I strongly disagree with you there. Thats one hell of a valid justification in my view.
"any more than a criminal fleeing prosecution because he would miss his child growing up while he was in jail."
Pray tell why you consider this guy a criminal? This is what I really dont understand about this.
Is there another way for this guy to leave the army without getting thrown in jail? I dont know much about it but I bet if he was told a dishonorable discharge was an option he'd have taken it.
CO? LMAO did you read why he got denied?
Jeremy stated that, should he be attacked, he could not always turn the other cheek. Thus, not meeting the Army's criteria for conscientious objector status, his application was denied.
Doesnt sound like an objector sounds like a punk-ass. An objector would not partake in any violence of any kind. Jeremy here says he would kill someone if they try to kill him.
Here is why he is a criminal, He has been in the military, getting benefits and all that goes along with it, with the understanding that when he is called to fight he will go. To me that is nothing more than a broken contract on his part. Tell him to fork the salary he got paid back over and we will call it even. Oh thats right he spent it. Screw that punk ass. Like he is the only one with a family that is over there. I agree with whoever said he should have took it like a man and went to jail over it. Bet he woulda got a nice lawyer from somewhere and gotten a discharge, now he is marked for the rest of his life.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
CO? LMAO did you read why he got denied?
Jeremy stated that, should he be attacked, he could not always turn the other cheek. Thus, not meeting the Army's criteria for conscientious objector status, his application was denied.
Doesnt sound like an objector sounds like a punk-ass. An objector would not partake in any violence of any kind. Jeremy here says he would kill someone if they try to kill him.
Here is why he is a criminal, He has been in the military, getting benefits and all that goes along with it, with the understanding that when he is called to fight he will go. To me that is nothing more than a broken contract on his part. Tell him to fork the salary he got paid back over and we will call it even. Oh thats right he spent it. Screw that punk ass. Like he is the only one with a family that is over there. I agree with whoever said he should have took it like a man and went to jail over it. Bet he woulda got a nice lawyer from somewhere and gotten a discharge, now he is marked for the rest of his life.
Yup refuse his orders take a courts martial. He'd probably get 6 months at best. After that they give hima BCD or ADMIN Sep and he's now a free man and go to Canada as he wishes.
-
OIO,
You are very right, you don't know anything about it.
His CO was not accepted. His option, suck it up and continue to serve as his oath stated he would.
Missing his family is not a justification for desertion, period. It isn't even sufficient for mitigating circumstances for sentencing purposes.
As to the dishonorable discharge, you can bet he'll see it. It will be handed down if he is convicted of desertion. It will come after he has served the sentence in Leavenworth. He will be sentenced to Leavenworth as that is the military's prison where convicted military people go after a Court Marshal.
Desertion is a very criminal offense in the Military. That makes him a criminal by no ones actions but his own. Desertion during a time of war used to be punishable by death, I don't know if it still applies as I no longer have access to the UCMJ.
After his sentence is served he is free to leave the country, I still sugest Iraq. Perhaps if he leaves his family behind thay can find a more suitable substitute for him. I doubt it would be hard to do so.
-
http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Stripes=finish.wav
http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Stripes=51_52.wav
-
Originally posted by RedTop
http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Stripes=finish.wav
http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Stripes=51_52.wav
Classic :aok
"ARMY TRAINING SIR!"
-
Originally posted by Maverick
OIO,
You are very right, you don't know anything about it.
His CO was not accepted. His option, suck it up and continue to serve as his oath stated he would.
Missing his family is not a justification for desertion, period. It isn't even sufficient for mitigating circumstances for sentencing purposes.
As to the dishonorable discharge, you can bet he'll see it. It will be handed down if he is convicted of desertion. It will come after he has served the sentence in Leavenworth. He will be sentenced to Leavenworth as that is the military's prison where convicted military people go after a Court Marshal.
Desertion is a very criminal offense in the Military. That makes him a criminal by no ones actions but his own. Desertion during a time of war used to be punishable by death, I don't know if it still applies as I no longer have access to the UCMJ.
After his sentence is served he is free to leave the country, I still sugest Iraq. Perhaps if he leaves his family behind thay can find a more suitable substitute for him. I doubt it would be hard to do so.
Think I read somewhere he could get 5 years.
ok found it 5 years...
Hinzman could face charges of desertion if sent home and would face up to five years in prison.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/03/24/canada.soldier.ap/index.html
-
http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Stripes=10_and_1.wav
http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Stripes=training.wav
http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Stripes=blownup.wav
:lol
-
This guy is a coward. I served in the Gulf with people who disagreed with our premise of going to war but they still went because the order was lawful. The Congress authorized this war, the orders were given and we went.
Soldiers do not, nor should, have the 'option' to pick and chose which wars they fight in. If he felt that the order to deploy was unlawful then he had the obligation to protest the order through his chain of command. He did not have the legal right to run away. At the worst he probably would have been given a bad conduct discharge and kicked out of the Army. His little stunt is called desertion, plain and simple and that means he will go to jail, as he should.
He signed all the contracts and he, as an adult, agreed to sign up as a soldier in the US Army. He joined the Army as an infantryman (11B) and went to airborne school. This is not a kid that joined the Air Force to work on B-2 bombers, he joined up as a grunt.
Also remember that this is an all volunteer force. There is no one in the US military that was 'drafted'. Every one of us signed up to serve our country. When you volunteer you have the obligation to follow the legal orders of your superiors. He failed to do that. His opposition to the war is inconsequential.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Stripes=10_and_1.wav
http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Stripes=training.wav
http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Stripes=blownup.wav
:lol
LOL Off topic but classic
http://www.moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/spies_like_us/finger.wav
http://www.moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/spies_like_us/plan.wav
http://soundamerica.com/sounds/movies/S-T/Stripes/loofah.wav
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
LOL Off topic but classic
Hmmm....only a tiiinnnyyyy bit off topic....At least we in the army area:lol
-
Desertion in time of war is punishable by DEATH in accordance with the UCMJ. And thats what all deserters should get.
I'm sick of all these little snot-nosed bastards that only signed up to get free college money then whine about having to do their job. Some of us joined up for patriotic duty to a country we love. Some of us make careers out of it. They should change the rules to where you no college money until after completion of a 2nd enlistment term that way we can weed out all the non hackers that don't belong.
-
What legal options did soldier have at that time to avoid service ?
-
He didn't have to join, that was his option.
As I said before, this is an all volunteer army. If there had been a draft initiated I could have understood, if not condoned, his running off to Canada but not someone who voluntarily joined not only the US Army but became an infantryman as well.
If he really didn't want to go, if it was totally against his new found concience then he simply should have refused to go. The Army doesn't hogtie and ship people to combat zones. That would cause too much trouble. He probably would have been placed under arrest and court marshalled. He probably then would have spent about 6 months in jail for deriliction of duty and refusal to obey a direct order and then would have been given either a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge.
Those were his 'correct' options. Desertion is not a very good one if you ask me. He is going to seriously regret his decision, he will be lucky if he gets off with 15 years after his little stunt. He wanted to see his kids grow up, well, he is going to miss a lot.
Stupid decision on his part. Every decision has a consequence, he should have thought of it before 'going over the wall'.