12/16/2004: Here's a much more deserving candidate for that medal....
AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about the decision that you made, why you decided you did not want to go to Iraq?
JEREMY HINZMAN: Well, I think it was -- if you are ever going to go destroy a country or wreak havoc on a country, it would need to be justified. Every justification or rationale that we have ever offered for going to Iraq has been bogus. There were no weapons of mass destruction there. There have been no links established between Saddam and international terrorists, and then the notion that we're going to bring democracy to Iraq is -- we'll see if that comes to fruition, but I don't think we'll see it, unless it's convenient to America's agenda. So anyway, I felt that we had attacked Iraq without any defensive basis, and I think it's been well established at Nuremburg that in those instances, you cannot simply just say that you're following orders, but you have a duty and obligation to disobey. [emphasis supplied --LRC]
Hinzman is apparently a deserter from the Army currently seeking asylum in Canada. While I can see a legitimate argument that Hinzman is wrong in deserting and going to Canada (in that view he should stay, face a court martial, and interpose the illegality of the Iraq war a a defense; a guaranteed loser, no doubt, but there are times when martyrdom may be the most noble course), I applaud his courage and strength of conscience in his refusal to participate in a clearly unjust and illegal (under international law) war. If the Nuremberg precedents mean anything, Hinzman should be acquitted, and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried and punished as the criminals against humanity that they are.
Source: Democracy Now!
Len on 12.16.04 @ 12:36 PM CST