My grandma called earlier today, and apparently,

[TomorrowNeverKnows]

I was automatically signed up for selective service when I filed for a new social security card (because I lost the original 2 years ago) a couple weeks ago, because she got something in the mail that said so, with the number and everything. Needless to say, I was really angry. What the heck, do they normally sign people up for getting that? First they do that when getting driver's licenses, now this? I was planning on NEVER registering, I'm a pacifist and would never even consider being a soldier or going to war, or supporting war in any. Do they do this automatically with everyone now?

Thoughts?

[Common Sense Party]

1. Whom are you thinking of suing?

[OhioChick]

2. Suing Who? n/t

[virgogal]

3. Lighten up. eom

[Kerrytravelers]

4. Wouldn't it be easier to go and ask the Social Security office?

:shrug:

[elleng]

5. You are required to register.

There are several means to avoid SERVICE, such as medical, educational, and 'moral.' That's down the road for you, and it may never happen.

[TomorrowNeverKnows]

6. I know I'm required to,

but I still think it's wrong, especially when it's automatic like this.

[elleng]

10. Because its required, and its a big country,

I assume they take the opportunity to accomplish 2 requirements at one time to be efficient. I don't think its wrong, I think its efficient like registering to vote when getting driver's license.

[MADem]

48. Many states won't give you a driver's license if you aren't registered for selective service.

The act of applying for a license includes authorizing the DMV to register FOR you.

You want benefits from the government, they insist upon registration. The only way to avoid registration is to eschew all government benefits.

Example, Department of Motor Vehicles, Virginia: Selective Service Registration
Generally males under age 26 must register with the Selective Service. If you are required by federal law to register with the Selective Service, you must authorize DMV to forward your personal information to the Selective Service unless you have already registered.
http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/drivers/applying.asp

[Ms. Toad]

26. There are some religions which prohibit preparation for war,

not just the actual participation in war. Registering for the selective service, particularly without a means to declare conscientious objection is participating in preparation for war, and violates the religious teachings of many of the traditional peace churches.

[Buzz Clik]

7. I've been carrying my Selective Service card since 1972.

I think you'll be okay.

[Art_from_Ark]

44. You do realize that the draft was essentially ended in 1972

and officially ended shortly after that. Then when Carter started the registration process in 1979, it only targeted males born on January 1, 1960 or later. So really, you only had a few months at most to worry about the draft.

But it's a different world today.

[Buzz Clik]

45. Yes, but it says very clearly on the card:

"This card is to be carried at all times."

;)

[Brother Buzz]

76. I WAS drafted in 1972; us dumb draftees represented about 3 % of the US Army inductees at that time

I was the last draftee from my county. Someone on the board had a real issue with me, or my father, a very prominent trial lawyer at the time.

After I was drafted, I was issued another Selective Service card that classified me 1C, then later 4A. The cards instructed me to carry them at all times. I might still be carrying one today if it wasn't printed on paper that simply dissolved in my wallet

[yodoobo]

63. They have a card?

I must have lost that so long ago, that I have forgotten that it ever existed.

[imdjh]

8. I think your right is to ask for an exemption if you are drafted.

I'm not aware of you having a right to not be registered. Assessing military readiness is a legitimate function of the federal government.

[rustydog]

14. Shit, Cheny had 5 deferments don't sewat it!

Rush limpballs had "anal cysts"....kept his brave ass out of Vietnam.

[mitchum]

9. Not everybody, but all males are required to register...

and THAT'S why they will never actually bring back the draft.
Can you imagine the real gender war that would bring about?

[imdjh]

11. Not to mention a sudden rise in homosexual identification. nt

[tnlefty]

29. No, and I hope that you can explain it to me. I was asking questions

as a young person during the Viet Nam era about why only males were drafted. I was again asking loudly why so many of the mothers in my community were hawking Iraq, and if their daughters' would ever be subjected to a draft, how they would be with this warring crap.

Needless to say, I have neighbors who don't speak to me anymore.

[MADem]

12. Registering for the draft isn't optional. Even if you're a conscientious objector.

You're not incarcerated, are you? You're not in a mental institution? Then you don't have to register.

You're a US citizen, or an illegal alien living in the US? You "must" register, and you can be prosecuted if you don't. You're supposed to do it on your eighteenth birthday.

It's a good thing that someone took it upon themselves to do that for you--you could be prosecuted down the line in a Bushco-type regime if you didn't get it done.


You need to do your Selective Service homework--here's a start: http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm

Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. It's important to know that even though he is registered, a man will not automatically be inducted into the military. In a crisis requiring a draft, men would be called in sequence determined by random lottery number and year of birth. Then, they would be examined for mental, physical and moral fitness by the military before being deferred or exempted from military service or inducted into the Armed Forces.

A chart of who must register is also available.

NON-CITIZENS
Some non-citizens are required to register. Others are not. Noncitizens who are not required to register with Selective Service include men who are in the U.S. on student or visitor visas, and men who are part of a diplomatic or trade mission and their families. Almost all other male noncitizens are required to register, including illegal aliens, legal permanent residents, and refugees. The general rule is that if a male noncitizen takes up residency in the U.S. before his 26th birthday, he must register with Selective Service. For a more detailed list of which non-citizens must register, see Who Must Register - Chart .

DUAL NATIONALS
Dual nationals of the U.S. and another country are required to register, regardless of where they live, because they are U.S. nationals.
See also Aliens and Dual Nationals - Liability for Service

HOSPITALIZED OR INCARCERATED MEN
Young men in hospitals, mental institutions or prisons do not have to register while they are committed. However, they must register within 30 days after being released if they have not yet reached their 26th birthday.

[TomorrowNeverKnows]

15. I already turned 18 in late April n/t

[MADem]

23. They could have been jerks if they wanted to.

I'm guessing that young men between eighteen and twenty six who interact with the Fed gov't in any way get automatically "checked" and if they're not registered, they do it for them.

You'd best get that card from your grandma and hang on to it. You might need it if you interact with the gov't in other ways in the next seven years.

[dmr]

104. They send you a card to carry?

My son's 20, and has no card, he registered by mail.

Now I'm concerned that maybe the gov't never received his registration, or his card got lost in the mail. I'll tell him to check this out.

Last year he went down to the recruitment office a few times, but did not enlist - would they have checked for his registration?. He mentioned to me the other day he's reconsidering the Coast Guard.

[Historic NY]

24. thats why if you going to college or want student loans you need to be registered.

[Ms. Toad]

33. There are colleges which replace governmental loans

for students who have not registered for reasons of conscience (or at least there were when the law was originally implemented - I have not specifically checked recently).

[uppityperson]

38. That would be nice.Thank you for your input on this topic

I very much appreciate that there are people who are still interested in this and willing to post information, links, etc. I hadn't heard that about the colleges, would be nice since that is a sticking point for young adults.

[Ms. Toad]

57. Here are a couple of resources:

http://www.centeronconscience.org/feat/

http://www.centeronconscience.org/feat/alternatives.shtml

http://www.afsc.org/Youth&Militarism/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/18304

[uppityperson]

70. Thank you. I hope this information helps someone

I ama amazed at how many people are posting that you must register or you can't get out of registering. No, you don't need to register. Legally you do, but you don't have to if you are willing to break this law. The most difficult thing for the kids I know who have agonized over this is the college financial aid loss.

For some people, even registering is something they are not willing to do, is enough of a part of the war machine that they can't morally do it.

I recall in the last few yrs when there have been rumors over starting the draft process again, and even calls to do so, and it seems there was less call saying You Must.Perhaps having President Obama in charge makes people feel better about the draft than having mrbush at the helm, or maybe it just isn't such a pressing immediate issue? However, things can change, and I understand the reluctance of young men regarding registering.

[Ms. Toad]

72. All of the requirements for mandatory service

that have made it to bill stage in recent years have required military basic training. Fortunately none have made it past that stage - but that requirement, even if there are peaceful service alternatives, violates the conscience of many people who believe any participation in the war machine is wrong.

[uppityperson]

73. I also agree w/the poster who said many people don't know enough about avoiding it

Hence the "I'll sue" comments like were deleted from OP. Thank you for your help in helping others get the information they need to make a responsible reasoned decision.

[Ms. Toad]

74. You're welcome.

I just want people to understand they have a choice. It isn't a pretty choice, but when conscience conflicts with the law it never is. Often good comes out of it, even if the decision is ultimately to register, just by having gone through the process of working through what you really do believe - and where do you draw the line.

[Ms. Toad]

28. There is also such a thing as committing civil disobedience

against laws with which one cannot comply without violating one's conscience or religious beliefs.

If I were a late high school/early college male it would be a very difficult choice for me - for reasons having nothing to do with being ignorant of the law - and I would be angry as well if I had been automatically registered. (Of course, I would also have read the information I am pretty sure is available at the time I applied for the new SS card so it wouldn't have been a surprise.)

[MADem]

30. Yeah, and there's also risking imprisonment and denial of basic government benefits

like social security or other federal payouts. Unemployment, for example, or school loans....

Registering for the draft doesn't obviate declaring oneself a conscientious objector. They're two different processes.

I think they grab ya every and anytime you interact with the gov't, if they haven't gotten you already.

http://www.essortment.com/all/selectiveservic_roro.htm

[Ms. Toad]

32. First, risking imprisonmnt is part and parcel

of committing civil disobedience. If you don't believe in your cause strongly enough to risk that, you shouldn't break the law. That is, in fact, how the original option for conscientious objection was created in the first place. Serving in the military violated the consciences of some individuals so much that they refused to particpate in the armed services and risked jail rather than violate their consciences.

Second, as I noted earlier, conscientious objection also (for many of the peace churches) prohibits participating in preparation for war. For these individuals, registration for the selective service is participating in the preparation for war - it is not an inherently separate process - it is a continuum on the march to war.

Just because someone decides they cannot, in good conscience, register for the selective service does not mean they are ignorant of the law.

[MADem]

47. Again, being a CO is a separate issue entirely. You don't have to refuse to

register for the draft in order to be a CO, as I said before.

'Back in the day,' during Vietnam, the burning of the draft card was a symbolic gesture, also. It didn't result in the abrogation of your federal benefits or the possibility of fines up to a quarter of a million dollars and jail time. Nowadays, though conviction in this current environment is most unlikely, could, in a Bushco environment, lead to just that. It's how the law is written.

Thirdly, people who register for the draft and declare themselves to be COs when called by a draft board can be assigned to non-combatant duties. They don't have to "participate" in war or the preparation thereof. They can work in hospitals or do other work.

Fourth, selective service is not simply an instrument for prosecution of wars. That's the biggest misapprehension. SS would be used in the event of dire national emergency, where impossibly large numbers of able bodied personnel would need to be deployed in short order to, for example, combat a massive weather-related disaster affecting a large swathe of the nation, or a series of earthquakes wreaking a massive amount of havoc and requiring evacuation/relocation/recovery efforts that took, say, years. That may, or may not (depending on how forces are used) require changes in posse comitatus laws.

Let me put it this way--cutting off one's nose to spite one's face isn't "civil disobedience" so much as it is useless and self-important mutilation. Failure to register for SS does suggest a bit of ignorance of the law, or at least an automatic assumption of The Worst Case (aggressive war) Scenario, because the law isn't designed solely for war.

[Ms. Toad]

52. Just because your conscience does not lead you in that direction

is not an appropriate reason to insist that no one else's would, and to compare that difficult and complex decision to follow his conscience to "self-important mutilation" or to declare that it was done in ignorance of the law."

As one whose father was the first conscientious objector in the state in which I grew up, and as one who was involved in setting up counseling for young men faced with the choice as to registering for the selective service when the law was first introduced, and in discussions with a handful of young men facing this decision, I can tell you it is neither. Young men who make this decision as a matter of conscience do not do so lightly because there are serious consequences. At least with respect to our faith community part of the discernment process includes discussing the link between registration and preparing for war, and whether that is truly a barrier for the young man facing this choice. It involves discussing the real consequences, whether there are other alternatives that would allow registration without violating his conscience, and whether this particular act of civil disobedience is one this particular young man is called to. If, after lengthy discussion, he is clear to proceed with refusing to register our faith community supports him in that decision and in living with the many consequences of that decision.

From a factual standpoint, your assertion that the selective service is not simply an instrument for prosecution of wars is misinformed. If registration was really intended for emergency preparation, the requirement would be imposed on young women as well. The only justification for excluding young women from registration - and from the dire consequences of refusing to register - is because the registration is designed to create a ready army - the only body in which discrimination is not only permitted but mandated by law. Even if the registration list may incidentally be used to gather (half of) the able bodied people around (which was offered as a justification to make it more palatable to legislators) that does not change the primary purpose of requiring registration, which is preparation for war.

You also seem to be under the misimpression that only "aggressive war" or the "prosecution of war" would be a problem. All war is a problem for many conscientious objectors - whether aggressive or defensive. Although you may not share that belief it would be nice, on a progressive discussion board, if you did not characterize people who hold strong progressive positions of conscience and who are willing to risk severe consequences to act in ways that are consistent with that conscience as "ignorant" or their actions as "self-important mutilation."

[MADem]

78. You need to get your head out of the Vietnam era, grow up, and get real.

Your advising kids to ruin their lives is stupid, intemperate, and ill-advised. You might also try learning the purpose of SSS law as it exists TODAY--not as it did decades ago--and stop giving people crappy, lousy advice that has potential to ruin their lives.

It's obvious to me, with your multi-paragraph lectures, that what you don't "get"" is that SSS has applications BEYOND "war."

You can argue the "woman" clause all you want--but you seem to be the only person in the world who doesn't realize that there are still a bunch of chauvinist assholes in Congress who wouldn't want "the little women" to be pressed into service involuntarily stacking dead bodies as a consequence of a natural disaster.

You are giving HORRIBLE advice--stupid advice--to impressionable young lads. If we ever came to a situation where your crappy advice made a difference, and kids were fined and imprisoned, I think you should pay half the fines and do all their time, because you are a didactic scold who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk (and no, having a relative who opposed a draft doesn't count--anyone over fifty five has one of those and remembers the trips to Canada, or the backroom deals made by influential relatives to get little Fauntleroy into the Guard).

Your little lectures do the opposite of impress me. Actions have consequences, and your actions are dangerous and capable of ruining the lives of real people. Shame on you.

[Ms. Toad]

81. Go back and read what I actualy wrote

you might be surprised to find out that I never said anything about advising young men that they should break the law. If asked I can and have helped them make their own decision about whether their conscience will allow them to comply with the law. If they ultimately make the choice to commit civil disobedience, I will certainly support them - just as I will support them if they choose to register.

My point (past initially pointing out that these young men DO have a choice as to whether to comply with the law), is that people of conscience can reach different conclusions. Reaching a different conclusion than someone else reaches does not make their decision wrong, stupid, arrogant, self-serving, or whatever other negative characteristic you choose to throw at it. I hope someday you will realize how arrogant it is to characterize so condescendingly someone else's real struggles to live in a manner consistent with their conscience.

[uppityperson]

82. "Declare themselves to be CO...be assigned to non-combatant duties" It isn't that simple

You are wrong in what you write in "Third" above. No, you don't get to just "declare themselves to be COs" and be assigned to non-combatant duties. It is very difficult to get CO status, takes a lot of work over a lot of years. You also don't get CO status by saying "I don't agree with this war" but you have to prove that you have disagreed with all wars in general for a long time. Refusing to register, and/or registering under protest is one way to show you disagree with the military and selective service.

Secondly, IF someone were simply assigned to non-combatant duties, they would STILL be supporting the military, which is against what a CO stands for. Some may go willingly to non-fighting situations, IF they are able to get them (and there is no way to make sure that will happen since you are merely a cog in the machine), but some others feel that even that is supporting what they do not believe in.

[MADem]

89. Yes, they have to actually prove it, but there are ways to do that.

My point remains that "encouraging" or "counseling" someone to break a law that has many applications (including humanitarian ones) is flat-out dumb. The decision point when it comes to "participation in war" is at the point of INDUCTION. People who are inducted for the purpose of rescuing US citizens and disposing of the bodies of millions of dead, after, say, an asteroid hits California and breaks it off from the rest of the nation aren't participating in war, now, are they?

Between registration and induction there's time for the CO to establish a track record, and if the person is doubly clever they'd start even sooner.

You're saying, in your second point--and I don't think you're correct at all--that CO's are persnickety assholes who wouldn't provide care to someone wounded, in pain, in need of help, based on the "reason" they got that way or the outfit they were associated with?

How....sick. That's being quite the opposite of a humanitarian. I know a few COs, and I don't know a single one with that attitude.

[uppityperson]

94. I know CO's also, including some who spent VietNam in jail and none of them are persinckety assholes

That is not what I am saying at all. They will not participate in the military, in wars AT ALL. They would rather spend the time in jail than in a war EVEN helping provide care to those in pain. They would not be associated with an "outfit" at all since they would not be in the military since they believe that participating at all is participating and ethically and morally they can not do that.

And no, it is not easy to establish a track record "between registration and induction". Wrong.

I know quite a few COs and none of them have that attitude you assume I am saying. Don't assume and don't try to put your nasty ass assumptions on me.

[MADem]

96. The jail time is longer now. The fines are a quarter million dollars now.

Now, the government isn't prosecuting, but what if they decided they wanted to do just that?

My point remains, that couseling a kid to refuse to register for SSS is intemperate. SSS "can" be used in times of natural disaster that have nothing to do with war. As I said elsewhere, the decision point when it comes to war is at INDUCTION, not registration.

It's very easy to establish that CO track record--the Society of Friends can help. During the Viet Nam era, they were at the forefront of those efforts.

If you don't want me to "put nasty ass assumptions" (your words) on you, then perhaps you should work on expressing yourself more clearly. Anyone who refuses to aid someone who is in need because of their affiliation with the military is not a humanitarian, and would have a hard time proving themselves to be "conscientiously objecting" to anything in a believable way.

COs are supposed to value life above all else, hence the objection to war--refusing help to someone who plainly needs it in order to stay alive, because they are grievously wounded, suggests a selfish attitude, not the attitude of a genuine CO.

[uppityperson]

99. Giving info to someone who wants to refuse to register is not "counseling them to refuse"

That is a big difference that you seem to miss here and no, it is not "very easy" to establish a CO track record. Yes the Society of Friends can and do help but no, it is not "very easy", either now or during Viet Nam era.

CO's I know would not refuse to help someone in need, but do refuse to join the military to do so. That is the difference.

[MADem]

100. You're lumping. Either that or you only know COs defined as "absolutists."

There are COs who serve, who will take alternative service, and "absolutists." The latter are the ones who would end up paying the quarter million dollar fines, if it came to that, and doing the heavy jail time.

History: http://www.friendsjournal.org/u-s-conscientious-objectors-world-war-ii

Recent history: http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/CO.html

Includes the process for declaring CO status from within, briefly described. The individual is not deployed while the issue is under review:

...Although each branch has its own regulations, those applying for a CO classification – either 1-O, a request for a full discharge, or 1-A-O, a request to stay in the military but be assigned a non-combat role - must submit written answers to questions about how, when and why their feelings changed since joining. They also undergo interviews with a military chaplain, a psychiatrist and a base investigating officer. Supporting documents, such as letters from religious leaders, teachers or friends can also be submitted by the applicant. A final decision, usually within 6 months, is made by a branch Pentagon review board.

...As the court ruled in 1965 and reaffirmed in 1970, belief in a “Supreme Being” or membership in an organized religion which forbids violence isn’t necessary. The test is whether or not the belief claimed is sincere and occupies a place in the applicant’s life “parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption.” In 1971 the Supreme Court also made clear there could be no such thing as a “selective conscientious objector,” meaning you can’t pick and choose – for religious, moral or ethical reasons - your own battles.

[slampoet]

102. I second that. My parents have been involved in getting healthcare for everybody all their lives

and this is a result of being forced to work for the VA during the war as my father's alternative CO service.

There are TENS OF THOUSANDS of children running around healthier due to my parents.

[slampoet]

86. I was threatened with 5 years for not registering.

[uppityperson]

95. When and by whom were you threatened?

[slampoet]

101. The Government sent me a letter about 18 months after i had refused to register.

[Selatius]

13. Unless you're in your 20s or 30s and a major war is imminent, you should be OK.

Of course, I was registered with selective service when I went and applied for student aid. All students who need tuition assistance are required to be signed up with selective service, first. At 18, technically everybody should be signed up according to the law, I believe. It is draft age, after all.

[uppityperson]

16. I understand what you mean, have several young male friends who aren't signing up

However, if you are applying for financial aid for college, you can maybey get by 1 quarter or semester. Then they will not give you your financial aid until you sign up.

I hadn't heard of this happening when you get a new ss card, will ask around and see if this has happened to anyone I know. Most of the young adults I know got their ss# at birth, most probably never had a card. I haven't seen my card for over 30 yrs, but my passport works when I apply for a job.

To get Co status, you still have to sign up. You can't apply for CO status unless you are signed up, and you can't apply until there is a draftable war. Here is a link to a local group that works with this issue, they might have info of interest to you.

[uppityperson]

20. forgot the link. Here you go. Contact these people for more thoughts on it.

http://www.teenpeace.org/

[Ms. Toad]

34. Here is some more information

http://www.nyym.org/qr/co-info.html

[DesertRat]

17. No worries

At least for the foreseeable future there is no draft. :hi:

[TomorrowNeverKnows]

18. Yeah, at least there's that.

But if there is a draft...hello Europe!

[DesertRat]

19. Or Canada

:)

[uppityperson]

21. Canada officially has said that they would now return draftees

whether or not that would happen, we will have to wait and see, but their official policy is if they catch you they send you back.

[tularetom]

22. Among the thousands of restrictions on freedom here in the "land of the free"

Being required to register for the draft is surely among the least onerous.

[spanone]

27. especially since their is NO draft

[truedelphi]

25. Here's a small

:toast: to you for your pacifist beliefs.

Long may you hold on to them.

And hopefully you won't need to worry about it. It's not like we have the money to keep waging wars.

[scheming daemons]

31. "I was planning of never registering"

You don't have that option, kid.

They've been doing it with everyone since 1973.


You're not special.

[Ms. Toad]

35. There are a number of people who chosen not to comply

with the law.

There are consequences - some very serious ones so it is not something to be undertaken lightly - but civil disobedience is an option.

[RoyGBiv]

36. It is an option ...

I'm curious how committed to that option the OP actually is.

I've personally known many, many people who have bravely declared they have no intention of registering with selective service. I known precisely none who have gone through with it once the reality of the consequences actually stared them in the face.

People often talk big and do small.

[uppityperson]

39. I know some who haven't and are early 20s.

I also know many that registered under protest, and yes there is a way to do that, simply because of college funding needs.

[RoyGBiv]

41. Okay ...

I'm not claiming such people don't exist. I know *of* people who haven't registered and have lived with the consequences, just not any personally.

The point is simply one of scale and is an old song. Many more people exist in this country who are willing to protest with words than with actions, particularly when those actions cause them personal discomfort. I'm not saying and do not know if that is true of the OP, thus the wondering. The OP, as originally written, seemed to indicate a person who didn't clearly understand what all this was about. Note the early comments about "suing" someone.

As for registering with a protest, that's perfectly legal and has no immediate ramifications. It's the official advice given by many anti-war organizations and those committed to non-violence. In and of itself, it is not a matter of civil disobedience. It is the first step in building a case for conscientious objector status. I registered with a protest when I turned 18. No one ever said "boo" about it to me, and I knew at the time they wouldn't. It would never come up again unless a draft were instituted.

[conscious evolution]

46. I did not register

and as a result have been unable to get federal school loans (Pell grants,etc) or other federal benefits such as SS disability nor be employed by the federal goverment.I am also inelegible for goverment (HUD,Fannae Mae) home loans or SBA loans
I also get nasty grams from them every few years threatening dire consequences if I do not register.

[MADem]

50. Depending on your state, if you renew your license, you might be agreeing to let the

DMV register you.

[conscious evolution]

54. Not in Georgia

Here you have to register at the Post Office or through schools.

[MADem]

56. You can't get a license in Georgia without being registered with the draft, if you're required to do

so (of the appropriate age). That's been GA law for over eight years now.

Georgia: Requires Selective Service registration as a precondition for state student financial aid. Signed by Gov. Joe Frank Harris in 1986. A law signed by Gov. Zell Miller effective, July 1, 1998, requires proof of registration as a precondition for state employment. On July 1, 2001, a Georgia law became effective which requires men to be registered with Selective Service to obtain a state driver's license. Gov. Roy Barnes signed this legislation on April 18, 2001.


http://askville.amazon.com/SimilarQuestions.do?req=USA+26+years+register+selective+service+financial+aid

[conscious evolution]

66. Interesting

Fortunately I was already over the registration age when the law was changed.
As for the financial aid thing I learned that when I was turned down so I paid for school out of my own pocket.Being a dissedent does have a price and I was well aware of it at the time.

[RoyGBiv]

59. You sir ...

Walk the walk then, and I salute you.

Could to provide me with some insight on this? I'm not at all trying to be confrontational or flippant. I'm genuinely curious.

I don't quite understand the motive in refusing to register. Opposing a draft, if one were in effect, is something else altogether, and I would understand that and most likely (I think) be involved in that opposition myself, but avoiding the selective service registration process altogether seems an ineffective way to go about this.

[conscious evolution]

64. Youthful rebellion?

They started the registration when I was a senior in high school under raygun.My age group,with VietNam still fresh in our minds,did not want anything to do with the war machine.We had seen to many of our older brothers come home all fucked up from that war.

When I had a top secret security check for a Department of the Army contract position it made a few heads spin.They could not understand why I would work for the green machine yet refuse the chance to get drafted.I told them I have no problem VOLUNTARILY working for my country-I just had issues with being FORCED to take part.They must have liked that answer because I got my clearance.

[uppityperson]

69. I am in agreement with you.

I didn't see the "suing" comments, and also agree that that would show the OP didn't know whatths was allabout.

[MADem]

49. They'd better not get, or renew, their driver's licenses between age 18 and 25, then.

Many DMVs require that, if you register for a license, that you agree to the DMV registering you for the Selective Service. No draft card, no driver's license.

http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/drivers/applying.asp

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2005/Introduced/SF0032.pdf

You can't get any government benefits, from unemployment to a school loan, without complying with the law. And the consequences are rather onerous, if they were ever enforced (they haven't been, thus far). A quarter million dollar fine is a lot of scratch.

[Ms. Toad]

55. You are correct - I did not say the decision was without

consequences - or easy to carry out. They are even more severe if you persist in following your consequence past age 26. Up until that time you can change your mind. After age 26 your decision is set in stone and the consequences follow you forever.

You seem not to get the point that for some people registration poses a major conscientious barrier. Following your conscious when doing so is against the law is rarely easy, and the consequences often quite severe. Nonetheless, there are people who feel strongly enough about this that they feel compelled not to register. They forfeit the opportunity for federal jobs, and many state jobs, and for federal assistance, they complete their education without student loans - or with loans not subsidized by the federal government, they move to places where a driver's license is not required - at least between the ages of 18 and 26. They risk imprisonment and fines.

I am very grateful there are people that committed to their beliefs, and support them in carrying it out. If I were faced with the same decision, I am not sure what my decision would be. For better or worse, I am too old and the wrong gender - and I have a girl child who does not have to make that decision.

Edited to add second and third paragraphs.

[MADem]

58. No offense, but in this environment that perspective is just stupid and

attention seeking. It's dramatics for the sake of dramatics, in most cases--not the act of anyone who has given the matter any real thought, because if they did give the matter real thought, they'd realize that the "protest" part comes when the draft is enacted for the purpose of WAR (as opposed to the purpose of, for example, rescuing the citizens of California after a month of massive earthquakes, requiring years of digging through rubble to find bodies and rehabilitate the environment, or something of that nature).

They'd also realize that following one's 'conscience' (as opposed to being not comatose, or 'conscious') has nothing to do with selective service if the law is applied for purposes OTHER THAN WAR. And the way the law is written, it's not written just for "war"--it's also written to provide a ready pool of manpower in response to national emergency. You may not realize it, but there's a classification system that is part and parcel of the SSS that includes medical skillsets.

The act of refusing to register for the draft is more likely to be the rash, uninformed act of a dumb kid who doesn't appreciate the full purpose of the law or the consequences of doing such a thing, who is doing it to be "cool" or to stand out from his peers. That "being a rebel" bullshit gets old sooner than most kids think.

"Protesting the draft" when there is no such thing going on is, if I may be blunt, fucking stupid. It also can screw a kid up when he grows up, and later decides he wants to take that job at HHS, or the Forest Service, or the Department of State and do some real good around the world. It'll screw over the kid wanting to get that education to learn how to help his fellow humans in a useful way, because he'll be unable to get that school loan. When he marries and goes to buy a house, and wants a federal loan, he'll be told "Fuck you, ya putz, you couldn't do your bit, now you're hosed. No loan for you!" And in many states, you get a license, or interact with the government in any way, you're registered--like it, or not.

Citizenship has rewards and responsibilities. It's all very well and good to challenge the constitutionality of the law if one believes it is unfairly applied (for example, I think selective service should apply to all citizens, male and female, and regardless of age, like many other nations do--citizenship is a bit of work, and a trade-off) but to simply say "I don't like that law so I'm going to ignore it," is just dumb--particularly when the consequences are so apparent and can affect a person decades later.

[Ms. Toad]

60. Calling someone else's decision of conscience stupid

IS offensive, and I cannot see how you can defend it otherwise.

Have you actually sat for hours with any of these young men called to make this decision and helped them examine their options and their beliefs, thinking through the law, the intent of the law, the short and long term consequences of taking this action, and helped them sort out whether this is an act of civil disobedience they are called on to make? I suspect not based on how you have characterized it.

Committing an act of civil disobedience is not saying "I don't like that law so I'm going to ignore it," it is saying complying with this law violates my deeply held beliefs so much that if the choice is complying or facing the consequences I choose to face the consequences. Characterizing that serious life altering choice the way you have IS offensive, regardless of your throw-away line that you do not intend to offend.

[MADem]

62. It's only offensive if you're easily offended by the opinions of others.

And that's usually what happens when an argument fails.

My opinion remains that making a dumbass decision is stupid. Ruining one's life and future prospects based on a stupid, false premise is an idiotic thing to do, and serves no purpose except to make a public statement about one's inability to do basic research re: the laws of the land.

If I "sat for hours with any of these young men" they'd come away with a clear understanding of what the SSS law actually entails, and not a load of half-truth bullshit and misunderstanding. They'd understand that if they wanted to protest "war," the decision point does not happen with REGISTRATION, but with INDUCTION. Of course, you'd have to actually understand the law to be able to transmit that viewpoint to "any of these young men." So stow your little lecture.

One more time, since it's not sinking in, apparently--there is intent in the law BEYOND WAR. There is intent in the law that is entirely congruent with a "pacifist" philosophy.

Too easy to be a knee-jerker, though, I guess, and dramatically scold people on the internet. Real easy to encourage others to ruin their lives, too, I'm sure.

I find your inability to comprehend these truths "offensive" and I am poutraged about it. Furthermore, lameass declarations of "offense" are tiresome, especially when you don't have your facts in order.

:eyes:

[Ms. Toad]

71. No. It is just rude to try to insist that your personal

belief system about what constitutes preparation for war is the only valid one and to insist that anyone reaching a different conclusion is stupid or ignorant.

My personal position is neither for nor against registration. I am in favor of seriously considering the consequences, both pro and con, for anyone facing this decision. I have helped young men considering whether their consciences permit registration, some of whom have registered and some of whom have not. That is their decision. My role is to help them sort through the consequences and help them discern what is right for them without deciding in advance what that decision should be, and to support them in carrying out whatever decision they make.

That is where you and I differ. If this discussion is any indication, you would insist that if they don't ultimately agree with you (1) that no matter how well they understand the law if it doesn't agree with your understanding it is "half-truth bullshit" and that (2) furthermore their conscience must conform to whatever you believe the legislators intended with respect to to whether complying with the law is congruent with whatever generic pacifist philosophy you have in your mind.

Again - you are free to make whatever decision you believe is right for you on this issue. My beef comes when you insist there is only one position of conscience, and that position is yours - that every other position is ignorant, stupid, self aggrandizing, and a whole host of other derogatory characterizations I'm not going to go back and bother to find. By your own admission you have not spent the time with any of these young men to find out whether any of those characterizations are accurate. I have, and to characterize in any of the derogatory ways you have the deliberations that they have gone through in determining whether their conscience permits registration is disrespectful.

[MADem]

79. This isn't a "personal belief system"--it is a clear eyed understanding of the LAW

Your "advice has the potentional to really screw up a kid's life FOREVER. Destroy their futures. Make federal employment impossible. Make it difficult for them to buy a home or live in the USA without being singled out and pestered at every turn. All as a consequence of stupid, lousy and completely wrong-headed, ignorant advice.

So don't give me "offensive" when you plainly don't understand that the purpose of the law isn't solely dedicated to purposes of war. And don't give me lectures on civil disobedience and "counselling young men" when you aren't the one at risk of doing the stretch in jail or paying the quarter million dollar fine. It's real easy to counsel someone to break the law when there's no risk that your bank account will take the hit--yeah, that's real "bravery."

You plainly do not understand that the decision point with regard to objecting to war/pacifism is not the registration process, it's the induction process. You also don't "get" that SSS is about much more than just "war," so stow the Vietnam era paradigm--that crap is history.

People who are registered for the SSS can be called up to participate in a massive national effort as a consequence of, say, a natural disaster such as a series of devastating earthquakes that tear apart an entire region, massive flooding, even an asteroid impact. And with weather patterns changing, and simple odds as time goes by, any of that isn't beyond the realm of possiblity.

For someone who's so damned didactic and "easily offended," you ought to go back to school and educate yourself, and stop encouraging young and very impressionable kids to do something that is dumb, stupid, pointless and ill-advised.

:eyes:

[Ms. Toad]

80. There are two aspects involved

First is the law, what it requires, and the penalties for breaking the law. That is factual. You do have a choice as to whether to comply with the law or not or not. (That is the first point I responded to - there were numerous false assertions that individuals have no choice).

Second is how your own conscience fits with the law. (That is the second point I have been responding following your first characterization of someone whose conscience leads them to a different decision than you would make as you as being stupid or ignorant.) How your own conscience fits with the law is not factual. It is not the simple black and white line you would like it to be that is in a fixed location for everyone - or even a fixed location for the same person over time. It is a complex process of sorting out where you draw the line regarding how much participation in war or preparation for war your conscience can tolerate. Some individuals who believe war is wrong find no conflict with their belief system in serving as military medics - a line on the far side of induction. Others find they cannot in good conscience register for the selective service - their line is on well on this side of induction. Some believe, at the time of induction or entry to the military, that they can participate in the military (or in this war) and find later they cannot. Not all of these fall neatly within where the law would draw the line.

The essence of the work I have done for nearly 50 years (with regard to this decision of conscience and others) would be described in the secular world as active listening, although since it is work within our faith community there is a spiritual aspect to that active listening.
The essence of assisting someone in conscientious discernment is helping them come to, and test, their own decision. Encouraging or advocating a particular outcome of that decision is entirely inconsistent with the process. Our role is solely to assist the young man in making the decision that is right for him.

With respect to making this particular decision, our faith community does provide - or help the young man find - factual information about the law, but that is a minor part of our role.

Primarily, we assist by listening to concerns, asking questions to clarify where his conscience is leading him, helping him test the boundaries and strength of his convictions. Where does he personally draw the line? Why does he draw it there rather than elsewhere? Is he just blindly following his parents wishes, or is it a sincere belief of his own? How does this decision fit with other decisions about participation in war? Has he thought through the short and long term consequences (lack of student loans, potential loss of driving privileges if he needs to live without a driver's license until he is 26, loss of potential employment, the creation of an FBI file or being added to the no fly list or potentially failing a security clearance, the different consequences between never registering v. registering late but before his 26th birthday, jail, and fines, and the potential consequences for a future spouse). When he has made his decision and is comfortable with it, we support him in that decision - whether it is to register, not to register, or to delay registration until the day before his 26th birthday, to register with annotations on the registration card, or any one of a number of other possibilities. If he needs to re-test that decision at a later date, we go through the same discernment process again.

You are absolutely right - I don't live with the legal consequences. It is not my decision to make or my role to advocate one way or another. I don't do that, and nothing I have said in any of these posts suggests I have ever done that.

Similarly, it is not your conscience that has to live with the decision. None of the young men I know who have personally struggled with this decision, and who happen to have reached a different decision than you would have reached, are stupid, ignorant, or impressionable.

It would be nice if you could acknowledge that people of conscience can reach different conclusions when faced with a moral dilemma (and can even differ with integrity as to whether something is a moral dilemma or not).

[MADem]

87. I find it unconscionable that anyone would counsel someone to

break the law, when the "no war" decision point isn't even AT the point of complying with that law. And my opinion remains that doing so is STUPID. It's flat out dumb to suggest it, and it's dumb to not dissuade someone from taking that course of action. Eighteen year old kids think they're invincible. It's only when they get a few decades under their belts that they realize that actions can have irrevocable consequences--life-ruining ones.

I have absoutely no problem with people who are geniune COs, who resist induction as a matter of conscience, but I would never tell one to refuse SSS registration, because there's more than one purpose implicit in that law. I would also encourage people to work to make that registration universal, because right now it is discriminatory. An ERA would fix that but that is a topic for another thread.

There may come a day when that SSS registration is used in support of a massive natural disaster. Anyone who thinks that could never happen probably thought that the Supreme Court would never pick the President of the US.

[DaveinJapan]

98. This "it isn't just for war" notion you've mentioned many times...

I'm just curious, have you ever heard of such a thing actually happening in modern times anywhere?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the sort of disaster (aside from an escalating war) that would be so vast and of such a lengthy nature that it couldn't possibly be handled by the reserves, the local authorities, international volunteer coalitions, and those sorts of things that are normally utilized in such events.

I mean just to fire up the draft suddenly, register and train the conscripts properly, and get them on sight would take, I would think, weeks if not months.

[MADem]

77. dupe.

[RoyGBiv]

37. Out of curiosity ...

Are you saying you do not have a driver's license?

I notice your profile says you live in Ohio.

If you do have a driver's license, you were already registered.

[uppityperson]

40. Here in WA I don't think that is the case.

Knowing young men who have drivers license and aren't registered.

[RoyGBiv]

42. It's not universal ...

That mechanism for registration exists on a state-by-state basis. Ohio is one of those states that does this.

Even in some of the states that do, you can opt-out of it, but that of course means you have to take action to avoid the automatic process, after which you're in a position of being flagged as non-registered unless you do it using some other method.

[TomorrowNeverKnows]

83. No, I only have my temps. nm

[RoyGBiv]

84. You have a temporary DL?

You got this through the DMV?

Are you avoiding getting a regular DL in an attempt to avoid registration?

[Raine]

43. During Viet Nam my brother registered as a Conscientious Objector

right from the start and never had a problem (course this was late in the game and the draft was close to ending). Often the problem was that some just registered and later tried to change to CO but you had to do it from the start to be taken as a serious CO.

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. Yes you have to register

It's a law.

[havocmom]

53. You want our "Thoughts?" Really? OK: Being an American citizen comes with obligations

And yeah, I DO think laws requiring males to register with Selective Service but not requiring same for females is discriminatory. And yeah, I have written a congress critter or hundred about my views, probably starting LONG before you were a gleam in your daddy's eyes.

But it is law. So boo-hoo. If you don't like the law, work to change the law. THAT is also an obligation for Americans.

[Historic NY]

61. The big point is there is NO DRAFT at this time...period....registration

of draft age men has been around since before Lexington & Concord, then they even had men over 60. If you don't want to register fine but when your denied benefits, programs etc. because you chose to opt out then you have no complaint. I still have my card from the Vietnam era, I ended up with a low number but they ended the draft then. I haven't heard of a new one since then. When I was growing up it was a rite of passage another form of ID to get into bars at 18.

Its better to be on the list then to find out 20yrs down the line you can't get a benefit for not complying with the law.

[rucky]

65. Cross that bridge when you're drafted. n/t

[Pharlo]

67. You can't outrun Selective Service registration.

Not even death will stop that department. When my younger brother died, we notified the DMV, Social Security, and all other relevant gov. departments - including selective service (sent a copy of the death certificate even).

We (the family) kept getting notices saying he HAD to go register. I kept replying with 'He can't, he's dead. (Copy of death certificate attached.)' I mean, in the six months between the first letter and the cessation of contact from the Selective Service people, I swear I replicated the entire Monty Python 'Dead Parrot' spiel at least twice.

Didn't matter. The last two notices kept asking for his 'change of address'. The first time they requested that information, I did the 'He is deceased - copy of Death Certificate attached.' approach. The second time, I sent them the address to the cemetery. I have no idea if they actually stopped sending him letters, or if they just started sending them to the cemetery, but we didn't receive any further notices or requests.

[mudplanet]

68. You can choose not to serve but you can't choose not to register

I'm in favor of having an alternative to serving in the armed forces for pacifists, but still, national service is not a bad idea.

In WWII some pacifists, notably some Mennonites, had to do time in federal facilities in order to avoid carrying arms. Some served in the forces but refused to carry arms.

If you're against required national service, I respect your position. But it doesn't preclude you from being a pacifist.

[Odin2005]

75. Find a legit "conscientious objector" excuse or accept your duties as a citizen.

And that includes being eligible for a draft should it be necessary.

[Strong Atheist]

85. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[Pavulon]

88. Yep, good news is the Military does not want you.

the logic of the volunteer force is that everyone chose to be there. That does not mean they still WANT to be there now but we all made a choice aided by the helpful recruiter.

I had a combat mos and never fired my weapon in anger while deployed (in my 20 year old brain handing out bottled water was the extend of the NG) I . Even if you were drafted, which in not plausible unless some major war happens, there is a path for registering as a CO.

Unless you are bored and just want to see if you can fuck your life up, do the paperwork.

[Taitertots]

90. If you are unwilling to face the obligations of citizenship

then I suggest you just move to Europe or Canada right now.

If it gets to the point where people are getting drafted and you refuse, then I hope they make you spend a long time in prison.

How do people confuse cowardice with righteous indignation?

[lunatica]

91. I had only known about going to the register at the Post Office

on your 18th birthday if you're a man. But things may have changed in the last 18 years.

[southernyankeebelle]

92. I think in the state of TN you have to register for the military after

you get out of high school.

[Hippo_Tron]

93. I got either automatically registered either when I registered to vote or get a drivers' license

I don't know which one it was since I did both before turning 18.

[BlueCollar]

97. Not registering with the selective service

will end up costing you more grief than if you register and look for a way out in the unlikely event of a draft.

[Bill McBlueState]

103. I threw my card away as soon as I got it

One way or another I got registered after I turned 18. When the card came, I threw it away as a symbolic protest. This has never caused a problem; I'm 29 now.

[TomorrowNeverKnows]

105. That's what I plan on doing when I get back from vacation;

That, or burning it. :evilgrin: