# Canadian Supremes: AWOL U.S. soldiers are not refugees **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2007, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634 "2007-11-16T01:48:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/1 "2007-11-16T01:48:21Z")
The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected the claims of US military deserters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey that they are refugees from an illegal war. Hinzman and Hughey fled to Canada to avoid going to Iraq, and claimed that since military action in Iraq is illegal, the United Nations convention on refugees prohibits their prosecution for failure to serve in such an illegal conflict. The Supreme Court dsiagreed with this conclusion. Absent some sort of legislative action on the part of Parliament, this means that the soldiers can be deported back to the US to face the penalty for desertion. I agree with the Supreme Court of Canada. The legality of the war is irrelevant for the purposes of refugee status, and theproper venue to try such claims is in US courts-martial, where the soldiers are free to argue their desertion was legal in an effort to avoid conviction. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/2 "2007-11-16T02:02:30Z")
Good. It’s another headache we don’t need. ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/3 "2007-11-16T02:11:18Z")
Legal issues frighten and confuse me, but I am curious as to whether you, **Bricker** , feel the court would have been legally justified in finding for the defendants were they deserting a different war. Or would that depend on the circumstances? I realize this question is open-ended, but I’m largely ignorant in legal matters. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/4 "2007-11-16T03:04:36Z")
So, now the laws and rulings of other countries are supposed to matter to those of us in the USofA? Interesting concept. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/5 "2007-11-16T03:05:47Z")
Was it a unanimous decision, or were there dissenting Justices? There doesn’t appear to be a copy of the judgement yet on the [CanLII](http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/index.html) site. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/6 "2007-11-16T03:17:46Z")
There was no decision. The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/7 "2007-11-16T03:20:12Z")
[QUOTE=Rysto] There was no decision. The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. [/QUOTE] Ah, I see. Thanks **Rysto**. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/8 "2007-11-16T03:53:02Z")
If they were draftees, I might see the point. But they were volunteers. Presumably, volunteers for millitary service understand that they might actually have to use violence in their country’s service, and even that you might not personally agree with the reasons for going into combat. So tough noogies for them. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/9 "2007-11-16T03:57:09Z")
Yeah. What kind of scoundrel would be AWOL in a time of war? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/10 "2007-11-16T04:02:55Z")
[QUOTE=Merijeek] So, now the laws and rulings of other countries are supposed to matter to those of us in the USofA? Interesting concept. -Joe [/QUOTE] I’m not sure what to make of this comment. Since the two soldiers in question were in Canada, and appealing an adverse decision from a lower Canadian court to the Supreme Court, the decision (or, technically, the decision to not hear the appeal, thus cementing the lower court’s ruling) is obviously of importance. If the Court had heard the case and overturned the lower court, the way might have opened for these soldiers to remain in Canada. Since the U.S. sought those soldiers as deserters, such a decision would obviously have some import to us. On the other hand, perhaps you are obliquely referring to the controversy over US courts citing foreign law as persuasive reasoning. If so, you’re barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest; this has nothing to do with that. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/11 "2007-11-16T04:05:15Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] If they were draftees, I might see the point. But they were volunteers. Presumably, volunteers for millitary service understand that they might actually have to use violence in their country’s service, and even that you might not personally agree with the reasons for going into combat. So tough noogies for them. [/QUOTE] Good heavens, I agree with **Sam Stone**. > [@elucidator](#): > > Yeah. What kind of scoundrel would be AWOL in a time of war? Quite frankly, **elucidator** , I have a hard time thinking of them as anything but scoundrels. Volunteering for the military entails certain obligations, certain responsibilities, certain duties. If they can’t take the heat, they should have stayed out of the kitchen. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/12 "2007-11-16T04:06:26Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] If they were draftees, I might see the point. But they were volunteers. Presumably, volunteers for millitary service understand that they might actually have to use violence in their country’s service, and even that you might not personally agree with the reasons for going into combat. So tough noogies for them. [/QUOTE] So they should do what they are told, no matter what they are told ? That puts them in an interesting posion of damned if they do, damned if they don’t. If they don’t want to kill innocent people it’s “tough noogies you volunteered”, but if they go ahead and do so it’s "Tough noogies, ‘I was just following orders’ is no excuse ! " ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/13 "2007-11-16T04:09:34Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] So they should do what they are told, no matter what they are told ? That puts them in an interesting posion of damned if they do, damned if they don’t. If they don’t want to kill innocent people it’s “tough noogies you volunteered”, but if they go ahead and do so it’s "Tough noogies, ‘I was just following orders’ is no excuse ! " [/QUOTE] Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! Excluded middle. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/14 "2007-11-16T04:11:10Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] Quite frankly, **elucidator** , I have a hard time thinking of them as anything but scoundrels. Volunteering for the military entails certain obligations, certain responsibilities, certain duties. If they can’t take the heat, they should have stayed out of the kitchen. [/QUOTE] Did they expect to be ordered into a war of conquest when they joined, or did they expect to defend the country ? When did they join ? Whether it’s before or after the Iraq invasion makes a moral difference if not a legal one. And if they HAd fouhgt for Bush, they’d DEFINITELY be “scoundrels”. And that’s putting it kindly. Killing people in a war of conquest is far, far worse than deserting. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/15 "2007-11-16T04:12:44Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! Excluded middle. [/QUOTE] What “middle” is there ? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/16 "2007-11-16T04:18:13Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] What “middle” is there ? [/QUOTE] They are allowed to fight according to the laws of war. As, of course, is the Iraqi resistance. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/17 "2007-11-16T04:26:57Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] So they should do what they are told, no matter what they are told ? [/QUOTE] They voluntarily joined the armed forces. They were not given any illegal orders - they didn’t even get close enough to Iraq for that to happen. They chose to desert because they were being asked to place themselves in a degree of personal danger. New flash: **If you don’t want to go to war, don’t join the fucking Army!** Now having said that, it has nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s decision. The morality of the Iraq War isn’t relevant to the case. Canada’s courts were asked not if the Iraq War was justified, but if these men were refugees under the laws of Canada that so define refugee status. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/18 "2007-11-16T04:28:39Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] They are allowed to fight according to the laws of war. [/QUOTE] Which immediately puts them into the “scoundrel” catagory. There is no moral way to fight a war of conquest. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/19 "2007-11-16T04:30:58Z")
Is it one of the laws of war that one nation does not make war on another save in self defense? If it isn’t, shouldn’t it be? And the consequences of such shirking or evasion of duty? For exceptionally worthy men, of exceptionally worthy parents, the consequences can be quite mild. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634/20 "2007-11-16T04:47:18Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Is it one of the laws of war that one nation does not make war on another save in self defense? If it isn’t, shouldn’t it be? [/quote] Sure. Absolutely. Look, you’re not talking to Hillary Clinton or somebody here. I have opposed the war from day one. I was called a traitor in March of 2003. Closest I’ve been to a bar fight since one day in Lexington Park, Maryland over a pool game. > [@](#): > > And the consequences of such shirking or evasion of duty? For exceptionally worthy men, of exceptionally worthy parents, the consequences can be quite mild. Sure. And so were the consequences for those who went to Canada. That’s irrelevant to this issue. I remind you that there is no draft now, nor has there been for some decades. The volunteer military of today consists solely of men and women who have joined of their own free will. They have voluntarily agreed to follow orders, no matter whether they are invading Grenada or Panama, or firing missiles at the Sudan and Afghanistan, or invading Iraq. If they do not, how can we depend on them for anything? Should repurcussions be necessary, it is the political masters that should feel them. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-supremes-awol-u-s-soldiers-are-not-refugees/426634.md?page=2)