The judge ruled that officially sanctioned brutality, even when it does not rise to the level of a crime against humanity, is sufficient to merit refugee status:

…..

While the immigration board concluded that some of the alleged conduct by the U.S military included a “disturbing level of brutality,” it said the conduct did not meet the definition of a war crime or a crime against humanity.

Barnes said the board erred “by concluding that refugee protection for military deserters and evaders is only available where the conduct objected to amounts to a war crime, a crime against peace or a crime against humanity.”

Citing a case from the U.S. Federal Court of Appeal, Barnes said officially condoned military misconduct could still support a refugee claim, even if it falls short of a war crime.

“The authorities indicate that military action which systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates either combatants or non-combatants is capable of supporting a refugee claim where that is the proven reason for refusing to serve,” Barnes wrote.

Barnes said the board imposed a legal standard that was “too restrictive” on Key, who lives in Saskatchewan.

Key’s lawyer, Jeffry House, said the ruling expands a soldier’s right to refuse military service.

…..

(emphasis mine)

They broke this man, the story mentions debilitating nightmares, and I’m sure that an examination would find more evidence of damage, and they wanted to send him back.

For us as a society, what should bother us is the broken men who go back to Iraq, and then, one day, they come home, because this will come home with them.