One Iraq War Resister Faces Trial, Another Fights to Stay in Canada

Two American soldiers who refused to deploy to Iraq now find themselves on opposite sides of a widening legal divide — one facing a return to the United States and near-certain court-martial, the other still fighting through Canada’s courts for the right to stay. Their diverging paths illustrate the increasingly precarious position of the hundreds of US service members who fled across the border rather than fight in a war they came to view as illegal or immoral.

A Movement Built on Individual Legal Battles

Since the Iraq War began, an estimated 200 to 300 American soldiers have crossed into Canada seeking refuge rather than deploy or redeploy to the conflict, according to figures cited in CBC coverage of the ongoing dispute. Roughly 45 of them have formally sought refugee protection, arguing they qualify as conscientious objectors under international law. The Canadian government, however, has consistently classified them as inadmissible criminals rather than refugees, setting up a years-long series of individual court fights that have played out one case at a time.

Jeremy Hinzman was the first to test that system. A former paratrooper with the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, Hinzman deserted in 2004 rather than deploy to Iraq, fleeing to Toronto with his wife and young son. He has remained in a prolonged legal battle ever since, with his case moving through Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board, the Federal Court, and eventually the Supreme Court of Canada, which declined to hear his final appeal. Hinzman has argued throughout that returning to the U.S. would mean facing a court-martial and up to five years in prison for a war he refused to fight on moral grounds.

Robin Long represents the other side of that same legal gamble gone wrong. After living in British Columbia for several years, Long was arrested by Canadian authorities and deported back to the United States, where the Army moved quickly: he was court-martialed at Fort Carson, Colorado, convicted of being absent without leave, and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment along with a dishonorable discharge, according to reporting from Common Dreams. His case sent a chilling message to the resisters still hoping Canada would grant them permanent sanctuary.

Parliament Weighs In, But Doesn’t Bind the Government

The resisters’ cause has found real, if so far symbolic, support inside Canada’s Parliament. Members from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, and Liberal Party joined together on a non-binding resolution asking the government not to deport war resisters “who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations.” But non-binding resolutions carry no legal force, and Canadian immigration authorities have continued to process deportation orders regardless — Long’s own deportation came barely a month after Parliament’s vote.

That gap between parliamentary sentiment and enforceable policy sits at the center of the resisters’ precarious legal position. Advocates argue Canada has both a legal and moral basis to grant refugee status, pointing to a landmark Federal Court ruling in the case of Joshua Key, another resister, which found that a soldier who refuses to take part in military conduct that “systematically degrades, abuses, or humiliates” combatants or civilians may have legitimate grounds for refugee protection — even without proving the U.S. military committed formal war crimes. That ruling opened a legal pathway that other resisters, including Hinzman, have tried to walk through in their own appeals.

What’s at Stake for Those Still Waiting

For the resisters who remain in Canada without resolved status, the stakes could hardly be higher. A ruling against them doesn’t simply mean deportation — it means a near-certain court-martial back in the United States, with sentences for desertion-related convictions typically ranging from several months to well over a year in military confinement, plus a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge that follows them for life.

For advocates in Canada’s War Resisters Support Campaign, each individual case functions as more than a personal legal fight — it’s also a test of how far Canadian courts and public opinion are willing to extend protection to Americans who refuse, on grounds of conscience, to fight in a war their own government eventually acknowledged was built on flawed intelligence. Whether the courts ultimately side with the resisters or continue upholding their deportation may shape how many of the estimated hundreds of others still living quietly in Canada choose to come forward with refugee claims of their own — or continue waiting in the shadows, hoping the legal tide eventually turns in their favor.

For related coverage of the anti-war movement’s broader critique of U.S. military policy abroad, see our piece on activists organizing against U.S. foreign military bases. More stories like this one are available in our International coverage.