General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsConscientious Objection poll
If a draft were reinstated, under what circumstances would you support granting draft-age people "conscientous objector" status?
9 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Only if the individual would refuse to serve in combat in ALL wars, no matter what | |
3 (33%) |
|
If the individual refused to serve in some wars, but not all wars | |
1 (11%) |
|
If the individual refused to serve in the conflict she or he was currently subject to induction for. | |
1 (11%) |
|
Never. Everyone should have to serve in any war the country gets into. | |
4 (44%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)not exclusively the military. Then conscientious objector status is unnecessary.
Face it, if there ever were a draft reinstated, the majority of Americans wouldn't be fit enough to serve in a combat capacity.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Congress doesn't have the authority to induct people into slavery.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and it was constitutional. Somehow you think it's okay if the labor is used to kill and not if it's used for public service? People are paid you know, and they aren't owned by anyone. All kinds of countries have national service requirements, and none consider it slavery.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Congress can force people into the military but not into domestic slavery.
Silent3
(15,212 posts)Perhaps a specifically legally enshrined form of slavery, but slavery nevertheless.
For myself, I see the idea of mandatory national service, military or not, as not being much different than a form of taxation. In fact you'd probably have a whole lot more personal rights and personal freedoms under any reasonable mandatory national service system than you'd have as a drafted member of the military.
While more burdensome than "mere" taxation, if you set up a spectrum of possible personal demands made on a person by their government, a requirement for national service is a whole lot closer to the taxation end of that spectrum than chattel slavery end of the spectrum. To claim otherwise is to not truly grasp the lack of personal rights in, not to mention horror of, chattel slavery.
bananas
(27,509 posts)which ruled:
Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, was a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the Selective Service Act of 1917, and more generally, upheld conscription in the United States. The Supreme Court upheld that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience.
U.S. Supreme Court
ARVER v. U.S. , 245 U.S. 366 (1918)
<snip>
The proclamation of the President calling the persons designated within the ages described in the statute was made and the plaintiffs in error who were in the class and under the statute were obliged to present themselves for registration and subject themselves to the law failed to do so and were prosecuted under the statute for the penalties for which it provided. They all defended by denying that there had been conferred by the Constitution upon Congress the power to compel military service by a selective draft and if such power had been given by the Constitution to Congress, the terms of the particular act for various reasons caused it to be beyond the power and repugnant to the Constitution. The cases are here for review because of the constitutional questions thus raised, convictions having resulted from instructions of the courts that the legal defences were without merit and that the statute was constitutional.
The possession of authority to enact the statute must be found in the clauses of the Constitution giving Congress power 'to declare war; ... to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; ... to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.' Article 1, 8. And of course the powers conferred by these provisions like all other powers given carry with them as provided by the Constitution the authority 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.' Article 1, 8.
As the mind cannot conceive an army without the men to compose it, on the face of the Constitution the objection that it does not give power to provide for such men would seem to be too frivolous for further notice. It is said, however, that since under the Constitution as originally framed state citizenship was primary and United States citizenship but derivative and dependent thereon, therefore the power conferred upon Congress to raise armies was only coterminous with United States citizenship and could not be exerted so as to cause that citizenship to lose its dependent character and dominate state citizenship. But the proposition simply denies to Congress the power to raise armies which the Constitution gives. That power by the very terms of the Constitution, being delegated, is supreme. Article 6.
<snip>
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and learn something about the subject before comparing serving one's country to being owned by another human being.
Do you have any actually SCOTUS law to support your view that it is unconstitutional? I understand that you prefer the current system where the poor and disadvantaged do the dirty work for the privileged, but what is the legal basis for these claims you keep making? Why should I believe you know enough about constitutional law to make such a claim? Three posts, and you have not sited a single legal precedent.
meow2u3
(24,764 posts)It's only slavery if you're drafted and not only are unpaid, but treated like chattel.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)to serving in Americorps.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime
Military conscription is legal:
The Supreme Court upheld that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience.
From the ruling:
U.S. Supreme Court
ARVER v. U.S. , 245 U.S. 366 (1918)
<snip>
They all defended by denying that there had been conferred by the Constitution upon Congress the power to compel military service by a selective draft and if such power had been given by the Constitution to Congress, the terms of the particular act for various reasons caused it to be beyond the power and repugnant to the Constitution. The cases are here for review because of the constitutional questions thus raised
<snip>
But the proposition simply denies to Congress the power to raise armies which the Constitution gives. That power by the very terms of the Constitution, being delegated, is supreme.
<snip>
stone space
(6,498 posts)...accomplished by simply offering a living wage on a voluntary basis?
I mean, things that specifically don't involve a lot or people killing and dying?
Are we going to draft people to pick fruit?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)that is policy in many European nations and in Israel, is that we are all citizens of the nation and should all contribute to it. The upper-middle and upper-class don't worry about a living wage, and they don't serve in the military. Instead, people are very happy to allow the poor and disadvantaged to do the dirty work for them. The idea is shared responsibility, shared rights, and shared sacrifice, rather than foisting it all on the poor and people of color.
onecaliberal
(32,861 posts)NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Yes! I will sign the petition to tell President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and my Senators and Representative in Congress that we cannot abandon women and girls in Afghanistan again! If we withdraw support troops, the Taliban could return and devastate a country that has worked so hard to rebuild.
Afghan women and girls have worked so hard and have shown so much courage - they deserve our support.
- See more at: http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1269/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=11000#sthash.4lltduhr.dpuf
credit to marym625 for bringing this up
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)and help them get started in a safe new life.
onecaliberal
(32,861 posts)I'm just sick of this country invading other countries to control whatever natural resource we're after at the time. The insane money we pour into military could feed millions and provide for healthcare, rebuild vital infrastructure and ob and on.,.
When did it become en vogue to destroy your own country?
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Which is why I hold off criticizing CIC, especially this one
onecaliberal
(32,861 posts)It's not simple or black and white. The shit bush started in the Middle East was unnecessary and has spawned a lot of hatred for America. It has made us less safe. We are starving children here so we can pay for more war. I don't agree with that in any way shape or form.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)no circumstances can a draftee turn it down. Otherwise we will have the Vietnam war mess all over again where any little thing would get someone out of serving. Nope if we do this then do it right otherwise what is the point.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You're assuming wars are still winnable.
The Middle East should have destroyed that assumption for all of us.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)It would never be done fairly and it would be a big bust and really not necessary. We have 1.3 million in the military now including reservists. I don't think we need anymore except maybe World War III and if we ever go there, it's over anyway.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)They explained to the military chiefs and to the politicians why they would not fight and why they could not be forced to fight.
And the military chiefs and the politicians listened and understood that this was a good thing, this was not a bad thing to be punished.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)in that scenario, because that would be the greatest
problem for TPTB to keep us in wars.
Our situation right now has only approximately
1% involved in the military, which gives the other
99% the reasons to scream "Hurray"!
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)There are all sorts of positions in the military guaranteed to be out of harms way and close to all the creature comforts the 1% expects.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)because there's always something a person can do to help the war effort - opening mail, etc., errands for officials, etc...in D. C., or National Parks tree service. (after being cleared)
Lots of openings in peacetime places when others are called to serve in war or war training...
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Give peace a chance. It's bound to break out.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)We have other agreements signed with other countries that bind us to help in time of war. Some are calling us.
Rex
(65,616 posts)We have enough people to fill the ranks, plenty will volunteer if an actual war of global magnitude broke out. You forget how reverently patriotic we can get when the war drums bang and the media parade trumpets the horns of glory! If nothing else, they can serve in a support role where it is safe...unless we are losing then they will be the last line of defense.
So for someone that won't shoot a gun...just hope your comrades don't lose, you will be the last line of defense.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)anotojefiremnesuka
(198 posts)the vast majority of people will never even pull the trigger of a gun beyond boot camp and maybe annual refresher training/requalification.
HeiressofBickworth
(2,682 posts)Yet another question about the draft. As I've said in another thread, NO DRAFT, NO TIME, NO HOW.
During the Vietnam era, my brother, age 18, had to register for the draft. At the same time he applied for CO status but was denied on religious grounds. At that time, only two organized religions were eligible for CO status. Our family was opposed to the war in Vietnam as being against international law and immoral. He appealed the denial. We wrote letters to the draft board in support of his application pointing out that one did not have to be a member of an organized religion to have ethics and morals. Then my mother, brother and sister moved to Australia where they have been ever since. He was sent a draft notice but his attorney sent a letter to the draft board reminding them of their own rule that they can't draft someone with an appeal pending; they had to do something about the appeal. To this very day, his appeal has not been adjudicated.
Coming from a background of opposing the draft back then, I certainly am against a draft at this or any other time.
rgbecker
(4,831 posts)I'm impressed at the courage your family showed. Those were crazy times and a lot of people had to make hard decisions.
anotojefiremnesuka
(198 posts)either.
If one is physically and mentally able to serve in the military they are draft eligible.
Plenty of positions in the military don't require killing anyone.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I think that conscription is always wrong, except conceivably in the face of existential threat, and in the US the court case that decreed it to be constitutional was probably wrongly decided.
But it's not obvious to me that a draft that anyone can declare they object to and be exempt from is a thing,
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I'd grant any person conscientious objector status who wanted to claim it at any time, no reason necessary.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i put this out in an off the top of my head manner. subject to reevaluate with argument.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)so your premise that there will always be enough people to volunteer conflicts with what the government at the time of those respective wars thought.
I have been a volunteer soldier and I am very strongly opposed to a draft, but if there is going to be a draft, there will be NO deferments, except possibly those mentally incapable of performing some form of military service, which would be determined by career military doctors, not civilian doctors. An idea of what I mean by mentally incapable would be those people in this country who require daily care of a parent, guardian or the state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)anymore because korea and vietnam taught them it was a poor decision for many reasons. and since, they have had more than enough volunteers, and turn them away.
so, i disagree with your argument.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)prior to WWII (1940) and from 1948 to 1973, regardless of whether the United States was at war or not.
The real change was the better pay and benefits the all volunteer military got and continues to get. If that changes for some reason and if the military can no longer meet their responsibilities and manpower needs you will see one of two things: an increase in salaries and benefits sufficient to encourage people to join the military again or the reinstatement of the draft.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that continually shifts. i get that. but, those IF's are not today nor what we see in the future. who knows..... down the road. reevaluate.
madokie
(51,076 posts)It did neither me nor the country any good for the war I was in so I have to say based on that I am against war so no one should be forced to fight. If we're invaded I'd be the first one in line otherwise fuck that noise
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I think it should extend to paying for foreign wars.
Let only the people who WANT foreign wars pay for them, out of pocket. Let the oil companies finance their own global attempts to subjugate other peoples and access their oilfields.
rgbecker
(4,831 posts)Let the tax payer check off what they want their taxes to pay for.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)H2O Man
(73,537 posts)8-0 decision in the US Supreme Court.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Supposedly Conscientious Objectors have made some of the best and most unselfish medics the services have ever seen.
hunter
(38,312 posts)He wouldn't hold a gun.
He missed out on active duty in Korea by strange fortune. Instead they used him in atomic bomb experiments. He's one of the few people I've met who has witnessed atomic bomb explosions up close and once walked into ground zero while things were still on fire. Afterwards, him and all the guys he was with discarded their clothing and scrubbed the fallout off themselves until the radiation detectors said they were "safe." It wasn't a safe level for many people. My father-in-law was lucky.
My dad's eyes weren't good, so the Army made him a clerk. He'd probably have been a M.A.S.H. "Radar" sort of character if they'd sent him to Korea. He's an artist and a lover and a gardener among his many talents, not a warrior.
My dad's dad was an Army Air Force officer in World War II. He was obsessed with airplanes, in what we now know as an "autistic spectrum" kind of way. He wanted to fly, really really very badly, but his physical coordination and sense of balance were not adequate. He was a bit of a klutz. Hell, I can say it now, many years after his passing, he was frightened by bicycles. How do those things stay up? He couldn't do the math in his head fast enough. But otherwise he was very gifted with mechanical things.
He was later one of the many engineers who worked on the Apollo Project. Somewhere in his military service he'd acquired a familiarity with titanium. My grandfather never ever talked about his military service, I think some of it may have been dirty and abhorrent, but I got my enthusiasm for science and engineering and space exploration from him. His contributions to the moon landing were his proudest achievement.
My mom's dad was a Conscientious Objector during World War II. My mom's family were religious dissidents and pacifists, which is why they left Europe in the 1800's and ran as fast as they could into America's Wild West, later to find themselves in the heart of Mormon country, where they could make a living raising cattle, procuring booze, and mediating unseemly disputes between Mormons, very, very discreetly. The U.S.A. military gave my mom's dad a choice: prison or building Liberty and Victory ships. He chose to build ships. During the war he once got beaten bloody by the cops for protesting the Japanese Internment. They were taking away his neighbors.
My mom has a friend who was coincidently protected by a Mormon family. They "bought" the family's California property and invited them to work for them in Utah. When the war was over they "sold" the property back to the Japanese family, honest dealings all around, all profit to the original Japanese owners, enough to get them back on their feet again. Unfortunately that was not the norm in such dealings. Many very valuable Pacific Coast properties were lost to Japanese-American families by false promises.
My parents raised me and all my siblings as pacifists. When the war in Vietnam ended we were all thoroughly Quaker, and I was not yet quite old enough to be drafted. Had I been, I'm pretty sure they'd have bought me safe passage to someplace beyond the U.S.A. draft boards' reach.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)So that is my choice.
valerief
(53,235 posts)who'll profit from war the most. That'll never happen.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)I can see arguing for or against all of the options you mentioned, but my reason would be they just plain flat out don't trust the military and do not want to be subjected to the types of psychopaths that have been allowed in (they changed a lot of rules to get some of the worst of the worst riff raff in there) since 9/11.
I will have to vote pass, because if they reinstate the draft, I'm going to try to find someone in Canada to pay to marry me long enough to give me citizenship. If I could do that, anyhow, with or without a draft, I would do it. I don't feel the least bit patriotic any more and I hate living in a country that has so many right wing homophobic assholes controlling every aspect of local politics, including both parties where I live. If I had the money and the ability to do it, America would have seen my ass end leaving years ago and never have to see me again.