Draft Realities: An unpopular truth

National War Review Online ^ | October 24, 2001 | Stanley War Kurtz

[annieokie]

My opinion also. First let's go after the street gangs, we do have terrorist right here in good ole USA, street gangs. These little punks have been terrorizing our neighborhoods for years and getting away with it. Draft the little hood's, send them to about 2 years of GOOD OLD FASHIONED BOOT CAMP. Why should they wander the streets as if they haven't a care in the world, while our other better educated, more motivated get themself killed for them?

[sailor4321]

My sentiments, exactly. I would not have gone unless drafted (being married at the time and operating under the theory that if they really needed me they'd tell me), but felt it was my duty to go and give it all I had once the notice they needed me came ("From the President of the United States, Greeting: You are hereby ordered..."). Low and behold, when we took the oath, we (the volunteer "RA's" and draftee "US's") were all herded into the SAME room and we took the SAME oath. And, frankly, it appeared to me that when it came to performance, the performance was the SAME.

The only time I met anyone who resented having been drafted (and that included service stateside and in Vietnam) was when a guy was assigned to me in my position one night as an "augmentee". I started getting to know something about him (like could he load and fire his M-16) and learned he was from Puerto Rico: he could be drafted but could not vote. That seemed unfair to me and really pissed me off. The rest of us just accepted that we should defend the country.

[OWK]

The rest of us just accepted that we should defend the country.

Some of us simply accept the fact that we should defend our country voluntarily.

I volunteered once, and if the nation were in peril and a call went out for volunteers, I would do so again. The question is not whether the defense of the nation is a noble end... clearly it is (that's why I volunteered the first time)

The question is whether or not involuntary servitude is moral. And the answer, is that it is not.

[Sabertooth]

If a power isn't in the Constitution, it's out.

Conscription was omitted.

[sailor4321]

I guess we just disagree.

I believe my country can make demands of me with which I disagree (taxes, laws, regulations, etc.), including military service (although I did not in fact disagree) --- all provided my basic rights are respected and I have input via my representatives. I don't believe that system of my having to comply with demands with which I may disagree is fundamentally immoral (as long as the conditions above are met); although it can lead to situations which I believe are immoral (e.g., forcing me to pay taxes which are used for purposes which are immoral)

[sailor4321]

So was the FAA omitted from the Constitution (and lots of other things addressed via laws passed by Congress).

[Sabertooth]

Agreed.

[OWK]

So was the FAA omitted from the Constitution (and lots of other things addressed via laws passed by Congress).

All of which are of course, extra-constitutional abuses of federal power.

[jackbill]

The draft would tie our hands as the president can dispatch volunteers where he needs them more easily than draftees.

President Harry S. Truman didn't have any problem dispatching draftees (including me) to Korea. And nobody complained.

[sailor4321]

No, they aren't. They are exactly what was contemplated by the Federalists. In fact, the Federalists didn't even think we needed a Bill of Rights, arguing that if there were ever any sort of problem there the people would complain to Congress and Congress would handle it. The Bill of Rights was adopted and is supposed to be a constraint on Congress (and actually is, from time to time).

Hate to tell you this, but the Articles of Confederation were superceded. Congress does have the right to make laws, levy taxes, etc. If you argue that they have exceeded their powers in the scope of their activity, I might agree with you, but not with where you are evidently coming from.

[OWK]

No, they aren't. They are exactly what was contemplated by the Federalists. In fact, the Federalists didn't even think we needed a Bill of Rights, arguing that if there were ever any sort of problem there the people would complain to Congress and Congress would handle it. The Bill of Rights was adopted and is supposed to be a constraint on Congress (and actually is, from time to time).

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
- James Madison, 1792

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

I'd suggest you spend a bit more time learning your nation's history, and the intent of it's founders. You'd look a bit less ridiculous if you did.

[sailor4321]

And if you would do some more reading, enough to understand various clauses and statements within the overall contex, you wouldn't sound like a spoiled, ignorant child. You must be a baby boomer because you can't think beyond wanting what you want and wanting it now and to hell with everyone else. That's why, your protestations to the contrary, you really don't give a damn about your country --- you don't have the guts to do your duty on principle despite the fact that you might not fully understand or agree with the policy. A summer patriot, so to speak.

[OWK]

Wow... great rebuttal.

Nitwit.

[sailor4321]

Just responding appropriately to your truly screwed thinking. Grow up, son.

[OWK]

you don't have the guts to do your duty on principle....

I served in the United States Army for five years as a volunteer, and you somehow think I showed less "guts" than if I had served as a conscript.

Like I said.... Nitwit.

[tpaine]

Owk:

I said absolutely nothing about the constitutional status of the militia (which is a voluntary organization as envisioned by the founders) -#24-

US Constitution, Article II, Section 8:

[Congress has the power:]

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; ----

-------------------------------

As sailor said, a voluntary militia is not mentioned, while 'discipline prescribed by congress', is. - In fact, the death penalty is even mentioned for militia, in another section, as authorized discipline in time of war.
So, -- the question remains, if congress can call forth, & even discipline militia with a death penalty, just how can militia service be viewed as voluntary?

Seems to me we have a duty to defend our country, [in declared wars] and have authorized congress to so conscript us as militia.

[GCSmith]

Out of interest, as I'm really not decided on this matter, I have a few questions for anyone from either side willing to answer. To those who want the draft, especially those who think the US should never have dropped it and it should be used during peace time, can I ask:

1) Would it include:
a) Women?
b) Legal immigrants?
c) Those with minor or educational disabilities (deafness, dyslexia, ADD, etc.)?
d) Gays?
e) University students?
f) Children of affluent, or non-affluent but stable families, and who have benefitted from a decent education, who don't apparently need the military to have discipline, further education and a trade, etc. (basically, should there be profiling, based on class or intelligence, to decide who needs the military training to build their character up and who doesn't)?

2) If you have answered "no" to any of the above, what alternatives, if any, would you suggest for those who are not included in the draft?

3) Would you let people off the draft if they were:
a) Conscientious objectors to any war or military conflict (on religious or political grounds)?
b) Conscientious objectors to a particular war or military conflict (on religious or political, personal grounds - Muslims not being willing to kill other Muslims, for instance - or on the grounds, such as in Vietnam, of no direct threat to the freedom and security of the USA)?

4) Which of the following would be an acceptable punishment for draft-dodging (Heinlein is useful for this):
a) A prison term, equal to or greater than the period of compulsory military service (which)?
b) Refusal, throughout their lifetime or for a certain period (which), of certain citizenship rights, such as voting, gun-ownership, standing for political office, etc. (nominate particularly rights if you like)?
c) Restricted future employment options (in other words, legal, maybe even encouraged, discrimination against conchies in the work place; or active, federal regulations on who an employer can or cannot employ)?
d) Exile from the USA?

5) Would any of those punishments for draft-dodging be acceptable extended to those ruled-out by question 1?

6) Would it be justifiable to continue discrimination against volunteers for the military, on grounds of gender or sexuality (not allowing gays to serve, not allowing women to fight), if a country is simulatenously forcing certain people to join the military?

7) With regard to peace-time conscription, given the military objections to it - that a soldier who doesn't want to be there is a negative influence - is it justified to impose a social welfare role upon the military, and how do you think the military hierarchy might respond?

8) For those who think that members of street gangs, and young criminals in general, should have a couple of years at boot camp: Do you really think making criminals fitter, tougher, stronger, handier with weapons and more quick-witted is likely to improve things?

To those who oppose the draft, can I ask:

1) Just what the hell does America do if there aren't enough volunteers during war time?

2) Do you believe, despite objections based on military service being "involuntary servitude", that the military would (or could) be a positive influence on current generations of youngsters, especially (and mainly) those who have grown up in poverty or with broken homes?

3) To those who object but aren't ex-military, would you volunteer for service if you felt it was needed and just to do so, and how would you react if conscription were in effect and you were drafted?

[OWK]

Seems to me we have a duty to defend our country, [in declared wars] and have authorized congress to so conscript us as militia.

You beliveve that the founders constitutionally authorized conscription, but don't find it at all peculiar that conscription was NEVER used in this country until the 20th century?

Not even during the war of 1812 when Washington DC was burned to the ground, were soldiers conscripted.

History suggests that your interpretation of the intent of the founders, is quite wrong.

[tpaine]

Seems to me we have a duty to defend our country, [in declared wars] and have authorized congress to so conscript us as militia.

You beliveve that the founders constitutionally authorized conscription,

-- As quoted in #26, the rather ambiguous wording seems to indicate that, doesn't it?

but don't find it at all peculiar that conscription was NEVER used in this country until the 20th century?

-- Check out the civil war draft.

Not even during the war of 1812 when Washington DC was burned to the ground, were soldiers conscripted. History suggests that your interpretation of the intent of the founders, is quite wrong.

-- I wonder, was the militia called out in 1812? - Prudence suggests I check out the facts before I make a FINAL pronouncement.