A
- Status
M
Matt25
Guest
news.amnesty.org/index/ENGAMR510752005
Amnesty International considers Mr. Jeremy Hinzman to have a genuine conscientious objection to serving as a combatant in the US forces in Iraq. Amnesty International further considers that he took reasonable steps to register his conscientious objection through seeking non-combatant status in 2002, an application which was rejected. Accordingly, should he be imprisoned upon his return to the United States, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience.
Mr. Hinzman enlisted in the United States military on November, 27 2000 and during his course of training and service gradually came to the conclusion that he could not participate in offensive military operations as it would be contrary to his beliefs. He applied to the army for non-combatant status as a conscientious objector in August 2002. A few months later he submitted a second application as no action had been taken on the original one. While this was pending, he was deployed to Afghanistan where he had a hearing on his application for non-combative status in April 2003. His application was refused on the basis of a statement he made under questioning that, while not willing to conduct offensive operations, he was prepared to undertake defensive operations in certain circumstances. US law recognizes the right to conscientious objection only on grounds of opposition to participating in all war.
In December 2003, when he was back in the US, Mr Hinzman received notice of his unit’s deployment to Iraq and decided to leave the military without leave as he considered that his participation in the war in Iraq would be a violation of his conscience, religious principles, and international law. In early January 2004, he went to Canada together with his family where he submitted an inland refugee claims on January 22, 2004. The Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board denied Mr Hinzman asylum in March 2005. Amnesty International is of the view that the right to refuse to perform military service for reasons of conscience is inherent in the notion of freedom of thought, conscience and religion as recognised in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In its general comment No. 22 on article 18 of the ICCPR, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations has reaffirmed that the right to conscientious objection to military service is a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Amnesty International considers Mr. Jeremy Hinzman to have a genuine conscientious objection to serving as a combatant in the US forces in Iraq. Amnesty International further considers that he took reasonable steps to register his conscientious objection through seeking non-combatant status in 2002, an application which was rejected. Accordingly, should he be imprisoned upon his return to the United States, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience.
Mr. Hinzman enlisted in the United States military on November, 27 2000 and during his course of training and service gradually came to the conclusion that he could not participate in offensive military operations as it would be contrary to his beliefs. He applied to the army for non-combatant status as a conscientious objector in August 2002. A few months later he submitted a second application as no action had been taken on the original one. While this was pending, he was deployed to Afghanistan where he had a hearing on his application for non-combative status in April 2003. His application was refused on the basis of a statement he made under questioning that, while not willing to conduct offensive operations, he was prepared to undertake defensive operations in certain circumstances. US law recognizes the right to conscientious objection only on grounds of opposition to participating in all war.
In December 2003, when he was back in the US, Mr Hinzman received notice of his unit’s deployment to Iraq and decided to leave the military without leave as he considered that his participation in the war in Iraq would be a violation of his conscience, religious principles, and international law. In early January 2004, he went to Canada together with his family where he submitted an inland refugee claims on January 22, 2004. The Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board denied Mr Hinzman asylum in March 2005. Amnesty International is of the view that the right to refuse to perform military service for reasons of conscience is inherent in the notion of freedom of thought, conscience and religion as recognised in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In its general comment No. 22 on article 18 of the ICCPR, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations has reaffirmed that the right to conscientious objection to military service is a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
M
Matt25
Guest
nccbuscc.org/sdwp/peace/declarat.htm
The US Bishops said this about Conscientious Objection
In the light of the Gospel and from an analysis of the Church’s teaching on conscience, it is clear that a Catholic can be a conscientious objector to war in general or to a particular war “because of religious training and belief.” It is not enough, however, simply to declare that a Catholic can be a conscientious objector or a selective conscientious objector. Efforts must be made to help Catholics form a correct conscience in the matter, to discuss with them the duties of citizenship, and to provide them with adequate draft counseling and information services. in order to give them the full advantage of the law protecting their rights. Catholic organizations which could qualify as alternative service agencies should be encouraged to support and provide meaningful employment for the conscientious objector.** As we hold individuals in high esteem who conscientiously serve in the armed forces, so also we should regard conscientious objection and selective conscientious objection as positive indicators within the Church of a sound moral awareness and respect for human life.**
The status of the selective conscientious objector is complicated by the fact that the present law does not provide an exemption for this type of conscientious objection. We recognize the very complex procedural problems which selective conscientious objection poses for the civil community; we call upon moralists, lawyers and civil servants to work cooperatively toward a policy which can reconcile the demands of the moral and civic order concerning this issue…
… we are aware that a number of young men have left the country or have been imprisoned because of their opposition to compulsory military conscription. It is possible that in some cases this was done for unworthy motives, but in general we must presume sincere objections of conscience, especially on the part of those ready to suffer for their convictions. Since we have a pastoral concern for their welfare, we urge civil officials in revising the law to consider granting amnesty to those who have been imprisoned as selective conscientious objectors, and giving those who have emigrated an opportunity to return to the country to show responsibility for their conduct and to be ready to serve in other ways to show that they are sincere objectors.
The US Bishops said this about Conscientious Objection
In the light of the Gospel and from an analysis of the Church’s teaching on conscience, it is clear that a Catholic can be a conscientious objector to war in general or to a particular war “because of religious training and belief.” It is not enough, however, simply to declare that a Catholic can be a conscientious objector or a selective conscientious objector. Efforts must be made to help Catholics form a correct conscience in the matter, to discuss with them the duties of citizenship, and to provide them with adequate draft counseling and information services. in order to give them the full advantage of the law protecting their rights. Catholic organizations which could qualify as alternative service agencies should be encouraged to support and provide meaningful employment for the conscientious objector.** As we hold individuals in high esteem who conscientiously serve in the armed forces, so also we should regard conscientious objection and selective conscientious objection as positive indicators within the Church of a sound moral awareness and respect for human life.**
The status of the selective conscientious objector is complicated by the fact that the present law does not provide an exemption for this type of conscientious objection. We recognize the very complex procedural problems which selective conscientious objection poses for the civil community; we call upon moralists, lawyers and civil servants to work cooperatively toward a policy which can reconcile the demands of the moral and civic order concerning this issue…
… we are aware that a number of young men have left the country or have been imprisoned because of their opposition to compulsory military conscription. It is possible that in some cases this was done for unworthy motives, but in general we must presume sincere objections of conscience, especially on the part of those ready to suffer for their convictions. Since we have a pastoral concern for their welfare, we urge civil officials in revising the law to consider granting amnesty to those who have been imprisoned as selective conscientious objectors, and giving those who have emigrated an opportunity to return to the country to show responsibility for their conduct and to be ready to serve in other ways to show that they are sincere objectors.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
Ani Ibi said:
Guy doesnt want to serve-I say give him a dishonorable discharge and let him get on with his life.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
What is the penalty for desertion?
Could this gentleman not go through the procedure for challenging an “unlawful command” if he in fact thought that human rights abuses were taking place?
In the Nam era we took a fair number of deserters from the States and gave them shelter in Canada. That was when you had the draft. You don’t have the draft anymore.
Those folks that signed up to be in the military, knew they could be sent into a war zone, but nonetheless volunteered. The fact that they refused an order has to be dealt with now, particularly as it impacts the morale of the troops who did obey their orders.
I don’t think I go along with the idea of just letting this young man get on with his life.
A friend of mine up here in the CF told me that the CF has a rate of recidivism of 1% because the conditions in a military prison are so extremely harsh. Instead of tossing out a lot of rhetoric about human rights abuses for which the young man had the opportunity to air through the approved channels – perhaps he ought to see what prison is actually like and why it is like that.
M
Matt25
Guest
Ani Ibi:
The man honoroubly served in Afghanistan which means he served in more wars than his Commander in Chief who didn’t need to go to Canada to dodge personal danger.
G
gilliam
Guest
A soldier doesn’t pick and choose his deployments. This isn’t college. :banghead:
E
estesbob
Guest
Oh Im sorry-I thought you were serious when you posted the story. i should have known better-Just anothe Matt25 “I HATE BUSH” thread. Waste of mine and everyone elses time.
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
**General Reminder:
**This discussion has strayed from its original topic of War dodger gets help from human rights groups. Please return to the original topic under discussion. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
**This discussion has strayed from its original topic of War dodger gets help from human rights groups. Please return to the original topic under discussion. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
L
Leeta
Guest
My son is a Marine. Before he swore his oath to join, they went over the consequences of his not keeping his oath really thoroughly. He and this fellow were made fully aware of what would happen. The fellow volunteered. He could have talked with an ombudsman or whatever to try to arbitrate. Also, life is that way. There are consequences that one has to face whether it be fighting in a war or going to jail for desertion.
It sounds like a case of immaturity. Sometimes you get into something and you find out you don’t like it, but many times you still have to go through with the original plan.
Now there have been 3 generations of total and partial conscientious objection in my family which is Protestant. My grandfather in WWI, my father in WWII and my brother in Vietnam. My two uncles were total objectors in WWII.
But in my husband’s family which only recently converted, they have had soldiers for 742 years or more.
So it was shocking for me to have my son tell us he wanted to join the Marines! He will probably go to Iraq in August.
It sounds like a case of immaturity. Sometimes you get into something and you find out you don’t like it, but many times you still have to go through with the original plan.
Now there have been 3 generations of total and partial conscientious objection in my family which is Protestant. My grandfather in WWI, my father in WWII and my brother in Vietnam. My two uncles were total objectors in WWII.
But in my husband’s family which only recently converted, they have had soldiers for 742 years or more.
So it was shocking for me to have my son tell us he wanted to join the Marines! He will probably go to Iraq in August.
G
gilliam
Guest
Give you son my best. I will keep your family in my prayers.
Hurah!
Hurah!
E
estesbob
Guest
OOPS!!! I though Matt started this thread! I was wrong! Sorry!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif
W
Wolseley
Guest
There’s a little thing you’re expected to do when you join the American armed forces…it’s called “the Oath of Enlistment”. It is fully explained to you before you take the oath, and you are free to leave the examining center before you actually commit yourself to it.
When I enlisted, they gave us several chances, in fact----an Army master sergeant and an Air Force captain both asked us several times if we were really sure this is what we wanted to do. The captain finally said, “This is the last time before we administer the Oath which has been explained to you. If anyone is having doubts or you’re not absolutely sure this is what you want to do, this is your last chance to leave.” He waited, and nobody moved, and he said, “Anybody? No? Then raise your right hands…”
And you repeat the following Oath:
“I, (state your name), do solemly swear 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.”
This is a binding contract between you and the govenment, and it is upheld in law. If the governement tells you to deploy to Iraq, then it doesn’t matter if you’ve already been deployed to Afghanistan, Khazakstan, Somalia, Pakistan, Korea, Turkey, the Philippines and the Aleutians. You will go to Iraq.
I don’t have a problem with anybody saying they don’t want to go to Iraq because of whatever reason, and either not joining up or applying for CO status. What I have the problem with are people who join up (as infantrymen or some other combat arms specialty in particular), and then all of a sudden saying, “Oh, gee, I don’t want to do this any more. Sorry! See ya.”
It doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t work that way in real life, kids. You paid for your ticket, now you have to take your ride.
When I enlisted, they gave us several chances, in fact----an Army master sergeant and an Air Force captain both asked us several times if we were really sure this is what we wanted to do. The captain finally said, “This is the last time before we administer the Oath which has been explained to you. If anyone is having doubts or you’re not absolutely sure this is what you want to do, this is your last chance to leave.” He waited, and nobody moved, and he said, “Anybody? No? Then raise your right hands…”
And you repeat the following Oath:
“I, (state your name), do solemly swear 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.”
This is a binding contract between you and the govenment, and it is upheld in law. If the governement tells you to deploy to Iraq, then it doesn’t matter if you’ve already been deployed to Afghanistan, Khazakstan, Somalia, Pakistan, Korea, Turkey, the Philippines and the Aleutians. You will go to Iraq.
I don’t have a problem with anybody saying they don’t want to go to Iraq because of whatever reason, and either not joining up or applying for CO status. What I have the problem with are people who join up (as infantrymen or some other combat arms specialty in particular), and then all of a sudden saying, “Oh, gee, I don’t want to do this any more. Sorry! See ya.”
It doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t work that way in real life, kids. You paid for your ticket, now you have to take your ride.
W
wabrams
Guest
I say bring him back to the US, give him a chance to redeem himself if he has a change of heart. If he doesn’t want to, give him a dishonorable discharge and get him on out.
E
estesbob
Guest
The idea, BTW, that there is anything honorable about his stance(as those supporting him say) is nonsense. He made a commitment, took an oath and then tried to back out qhwen he realized he might have to go into combat.
If we still had the draft I would not recommend leniency at all as once you make exceptions you would have a rush of people trying to get out. But we have a volunteer army-the people in it are there becuase they WANT to be there. Better to cut him loose and quit making those who are honorably serving their country having to deal with him.
I wonder how he will feel when he starts finding prosepctive employers dont find a dishonorable discharge to be anything honorable at all. Do you think these gorups who are using him for propoganda purposes will help him get a job?
W
wabrams
Guest
I didn’t say there was anything honorable about what he is doing. I do think if he feels he made a mistake, then he should be punished then returned to his unit.
No leniency for a draftee, but leniency for someone who voluntarily enlisted? Would you mind explaining your viewpoint a little more?
Won’t really matter since most employers can’t ask about military service unless you are trying to use your military experience to get a specific job; i.e. a computer programmer in the Air Force using his experience to get a job programming computers with a civilian company.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Let’s look at those who volunteer, serve their country even though it gets tough, obey difficult orders, dig deep for courage and stamina. By letting a deserter go, what message does that send to those who stay loyal?
My hope is this: That the Canadian government extradict and/or deport him to the United States. That the US military court martial him and send him to military prison. I believe the max in a military prison is two very very very long years.
You do the crime. You do the time.
Is people can sign up for the military on the understanding that they can disobey orders any time they feel like it, then what – praytell – is the purpose of boot camp?
W
wabrams
Guest
Ani Ibi:
I think it shows that their ranks are tainted with desenters and tax payer dollars aren’t wasted on tracking down AWOL troops, processecuting them, then jailing them; the money is instead put back into the system for better weapons, armor, etc.
M
Monica
Guest
“I, (state your name), do solemly swear 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.”
I wonder which part is most important, bc one surely can’t serve in Iraq & uphold the Constitution of the United States at the same time!
I wonder which part is most important, bc one surely can’t serve in Iraq & uphold the Constitution of the United States at the same time!
- Status