Action: Help the US Conscientious Objectors in Canada

Hinzman enlisted for four years in November 2000 to earn financial support from the military for a university degree.

He became a crack infantryman but gradually came to believe that taking part in offensive military operations would violate his personal beliefs.

During a stint in Afghanistan, his request for permanent non-combative status as a conscientious objector was rejected.

The Canadian refugee tribunal ruled that Hinzman would face due process in the U.S. that did not amount to persecution, even if he did end up in jail for deserting.

If his Federal Court challenge is denied, Hinzman would face immediate deportation to the U.S.

In a decision taken at Amnesty’s international office in London, the organization said it considered Hinzman “to have a genuine conscientious objection” to serving as a combatant in Iraq.

“Accordingly, should he be imprisoned upon his return to the United States, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience,” the group said in a statement.

The designation is important, at least symbolically, because it will raise awareness of the issue and put public pressure on American authorities, said Gloria Nafziger, a refugee co-ordinator with Amnesty’s Canadian section.

“People would write letters to the U.S. government asking that he be released and stating their objection to his imprisonment,” Nafziger said.

“We have varying degrees of success when we take that position.”

Hinzman’s lawyer Jeffry House said Amnesty’s decision cuts to the core of the case.

“It means that if the Canadian government sends Jeremy back to imprisonment in the United States, it will be complicit in a serious violation of human rights,” House said.

“Amnesty recognized that a deeply held ethical refusal to kill other human beings cannot justify a jail term, however powerful the country which proposes to do so.”

JEREMY HINZMAN: Well, before the hearing even commenced, we had our hands tied a bit. As you have stated, the solicitor general of the Canadian government intervened in our case, and that’s only done in about 5% of cases. Anyway, they raised the issue that they felt that the legality of the war in Iraq was irrelevant to our refugee claims. So, we were unable to argue that in any way.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what that means.

JEREMY HINZMAN: Well, basically, they said whether the war is legal or whether it’s illegal, it’s irrelevant to what you are trying to do here. Which, I mean, I would argue is pretty ludicrous, because that was almost my entire rationale for coming here in the first place.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what did you do?

JEREMY HINZMAN: We still argued our case. I mean, we — every day we see things happening in Iraq of an atrocious nature, and I think based upon how often they’re occurring, it’s clear that they are not merely anomalies, but that they’re systemic, and we tried to illustrate that through both submitted evidence and then also a former marine staff sergeant, who took part in the Iraqi war testified in my hearing.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Jimmy Massey?

JEREMY HINZMAN: Correct.

AMY GOODMAN: Jimmy Massey, who was also on Democracy Now!, talked about the killing of unarmed civilians in Iraq?

JEREMY HINZMAN: Correct. He spelled that out in the case. It was very powerful. You could hear a pin drop in the room when he was giving his accounts of what happened. I think it made an impression on the — well, Canada in general, but the hearing officer in particular. And then it’s one thing if we say all of this stuff is happening in Iraq, or if it’s illegal, but if you actually see the face of what happened over there, it’s a lot more powerful.