March 25, 2005
Hinzman's wife and son were also denied asylum by the board. It's interesting that they even applied since there's no apparent basis. If convicted of desertion in a court martial, Hinzman may be sentenced to five years in federal prison. Frankly, that seems like a light sentence for someone who deserts in a time of war.
Hinzman and his supporters argue that he is not a deserter, rather a war resister who traveled to Canada because the Iraq war was immoral and violated human rights. He deserted in January 2004, just before his unit, the 82nd Airborne Division, deployed to Iraq.
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
03:14 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.
Welcome home. We've made accomadations for you at the lovely hotel Leavenworth. Hope you enjoy your stay.
Posted by: Nylarthotep at March 25, 2005 05:20 AM (dp+Jb)
Posted by: donny at March 25, 2005 06:12 AM (mLS4x)
Posted by: elliott at March 25, 2005 06:53 AM (0WSZ2)
Chris
Posted by: Chris at March 25, 2005 06:54 AM (JcF9r)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 25, 2005 07:11 AM (CBNGy)
Posted by: Obsnooks at March 25, 2005 07:41 AM (yBHNA)
Posted by: Wittysexkitten at March 25, 2005 07:44 AM (3U9Vx)
Posted by: FIlthy Allah at March 25, 2005 07:59 AM (yBHNA)
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 25, 2005 08:03 AM (JQjhA)
No...wait... He will only get jail time. We only starve invalids to death in this country. Next, if we are lucky, the state will order retards and others who cannot feed themselves to starve.
Posted by: OBSNOOKS at March 25, 2005 08:06 AM (yBHNA)
Posted by: Collin Baber at March 25, 2005 07:18 PM (fufbw)
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at March 25, 2005 08:57 PM (PEKrh)
Posted by: jelly at March 26, 2005 01:43 PM (xXq5j)
Posted by: Seth at March 26, 2005 08:32 PM (Hq9Vz)
Posted by: Collin Baber at March 27, 2005 01:43 AM (fufbw)
Posted by: Carlos at March 27, 2005 10:34 AM (8e/V4)
This is guts:
What Happens when 9 American MP's and a medic leap into the fray against 50 heavily-armed Iraqi insurgents ambushing a supply convoy? They win.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/03/after_action_re.html#more
Posted by: Carlos at March 27, 2005 10:37 AM (8e/V4)
Did he think the free education meant he just had to wear the uniform? The military expects you to do the heavy lifting, too.
He should have read the contract.
Posted by: Pat at March 27, 2005 06:36 PM (J6TkX)
Posted by: Collin Baber at March 27, 2005 07:20 PM (FV4oJ)
Anybody who signs up, takes military pay, training, and whatever perks that come with it, education, etc. had best be ready to pack their shit and git when the balloon goes up . . why else did they pay you for all that sitting around and playing those macho games? . . . dickweed!
And that goes for the Nookie Gobblers too, piss and moan because you got called up, what the Hell did you think you joined, the Boy Scouts?
Posted by: large at March 27, 2005 07:21 PM (VRK2g)
Your knowledge of law, like your common sense, leaves much to be desired.
A contract is void only if BOTH parties misunderstood it, NOT one party.
Posted by: Carlos at March 27, 2005 07:44 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Collin Baber at March 27, 2005 10:19 PM (FV4oJ)
In addition, I didn't get mine from having a desk job during peacetime. Nor will my son.
Now, what the hell do you know about serving your country?
You sure as hell aren't serving it now. You and the traitor Collin Babler should get along great.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 28, 2005 07:25 AM (CBNGy)
you're obviously not a lawyer. I just took the bar, and can assure you that UCC contracts law only applies to the sale of goods. Here we have a performance of services. Nice try though.
Posted by: Carlos at March 28, 2005 11:40 AM (Pqt3/)
You are right about the UCC - and I thank you. We should all know more about contracts.
Which law allows a contract to remain valid if one party does not understand the terms of it and contests it?
Posted by: Collin Baber at March 28, 2005 06:05 PM (Hkppj)
Collin,
the terms of a K are presumed understood, unless of course he can make a showing of A) fraud, or B) that a reasonable person in his position would not have understood. He must meet either element. Notice however, he cannot merely show that HE didn't understand, as that would not meet the standard of "reasonable person." He has to show that a REASONABLE person in his position would not have understood. It is an objective standard, rather than a subjective one.
Fraud will not be presumed simply because he didn't understand, and most reasonable people know what they're signing up for. He'll fail both tests.
But wait, he still may have an out. If memory serves me, the "small print" in a K can sometimes be shown to be unconscionable. But that's only in cases where A) the terms are opporessive, and B) the plaintiff had no choice but to sign. He must meet BOTH elements. Sure, in this case he can argue that the terms in the small print are oppressive, but he did have a choice. He didn't have to join. So he fails to meet the required elements.
Face it, he gambled and he lost. Why can't he be a man about it? It's not "guts" to walk away from your commitments. That's the difference between a man and a boy. Some would argue that's the difference between Liberals and conservatives. We play by the rules, and we suck it up. That boy needs to suck it up too, and you Libs need to stop enabling that type of anti-social behaviour.
Posted by: Carlos at March 28, 2005 07:29 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 29, 2005 01:51 PM (xauGB)
Jeremy Hinzman went to Afghanistan and served there. He felt, as do I, that we were justified in our efforts in Afghanistan to try to find bin Laden. However, when he returned home he found that he would be sent to Iraq, a country that did not have anything to do with 9-11, and a country we invaded without letting the United Nations do its job. If every enlisted person had fled to Canada instead of going to Iraq, we would not have over 1400 families in mourning in the U.S. and thousands and thousands in Iraq.
Also, just today there was a report that before we invaded, 4% of the children in Iraq were malnourished. Now over 7.5% are malnourished and starving due to destruction of water supplies and food supplies.
It is interesting that many of the letters above have spelling errors such as death "penity"...too bad some of the writers posting to this site did not enlist and receive an education. Obviously, they have less than or equal to a high school education which is not good enough in this country to hold a decent job.
My father was in World War I, my uncles in World War II (one of whom was killed) and my brother and cousins in Viet Nam. I know the two world wars were justified; however, I certainly wish my brother would have deserted to Canada rather than serve his time in Viet Nam, a disaster of our making.
I'm sorry, Jeremy, but I certainly wish you the best.
Posted by: Linda Dittmar at March 31, 2005 05:05 PM (frMuz)
34 queries taking 0.3891 seconds, 183 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.