I asked them to put it on my form: no killing... Draft gearing up

[Short]

Salon had an article about a new push to fill vacancies in the draft boards across the country.

from the article
Not since the early days of the Reagan administration in 1981 has the Defense Department made a push to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots. Recognizing that even the mention of a draft in the months before an election might be politically explosive, the Pentagon last week was adamant that the drive to staff up the draft boards is not a portent of things to come. There is "no contingency plan" to ask Congress to reinstate the draft, John Winkler, the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary for reserve affairs, told Salon last week.

Officially, people are saying it isn't in the cards. But, I think officially, the war was over some months ago. As a certified draft dodger (one of the few things Bush and I have in common), this has me a bit nervous.

I diagree with war and with the draft (though, notably, I refused to register back in 1997), and refuse to be part of it. I don't consider it to be an especially radical position to refuse to participate in a war with which you disagree. It is not, in my view, radical to say not register for the draft.

I would burn my draft card if I had one, but I don't since I never registered. I don't regret my decision to not register. It is not my intent to register now. However, I don't espcially want to go to jail for it. The latter, however, is by far more appealing than the former.

Maybe it is to politcally hot, especially for an election year. One can only hope.

[Short]

Oh dang nab it, there is another thread on this in GD.

Apologies to the mods and their minions, the hamsters.

[fushj00mang]

Short,

Um...you do know that the best way to avoid getting hijacked by the draft is to actually enlist and get a MOS or AFSC which will keep you out of combat, right?

BTW, why did you decide not to sign up for Selective Service, if you don't mind my asking?

[county]

Well, a government agency that is not facing cut backs and outsourcing; how quaint.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by fushj00mang
Um...you do know that the best way to avoid getting hijacked by the draft is to actually enlist and get a MOS or AFSC which will keep you out of combat, right?

Uh, not. According to a recent Stars and Stripes poll, 60% of servicemen currently stationed in Iraq are doing duties totally unrelated to their training. You get sent where they want you. There's no such thing in the military as a binding promise that would keep you out of combat.

[Saint Zero]

Remind me to hug my wife, two kids, and this horrific back problem I have. And when I turn 35 next year, I'll even hoist one for the draft board, whom I am well past by now, and wouldn't even make an effort to visit if called.

Now, if my kids think it's fine to go into the Armed Services that'll be fine. I don't believe in them, and I certanly don't take orders from anyone.

[whiterabbit]

Well, if you do like my brother is doing and go into something like computer programming in the Air Force your chances of being on the front lines are pretty damn slim.

I'll believe that the draft is reactivating when I see it. Unfortunately, I put almost nothing awful past this administration.

So does my brother, but I guess he's got it together enough to look at going into the service as serving the COUNTRY, not serving Bush and his buddies personally. I just hope he's not alone in that.

[KellyM]

The way the military fills workforce assignments is to first grab available people with the right MOS. If they can't find enough (because they're already assigned to something else and can't be pulled away), then they grab whoever is available.

If they have more people with your MOS/AFSC than they have billets for it, you go in the general labor pool, and could easily find yourself guarding a supply depot somewhere or whatever, especially if the other people with your MOS outrank you in grade or years of service (which, as a recent inductee, they will).

Don't rely on a specialized MOS/AFSC from keeping you out of combat; it won't. Computer programming is an especially bad one: there's a LOT of people in the military with that MOS now, probably more than there are billets.

[danceswithcats]

The position taken by the OP is beautiful. Essentially, he is saying that he enjoys the benefits and privileges of living in this Country, but when it comes to abiding by the laws thereof, he takes selective exemption, and if pressed, will flee. Now there is a shining example of personal fortitude-a man of inner strength, one whose principles are unwavering, a true paragon of virtue.

While I wasn't enamored with the conflict in Southeast Asia, I still registered for the draft when I turned 18 because it was the law. Had I been called, I'd have gone, because in my book of standards, you can't have it both ways.

Worry not, man of great integrity. Given that you have been flying under the radar since 1997, your 26th birthday is not long in coming, and you can then escape the onerous prospect of potentially serving the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, as have all the men and women interred at Arlington.

[kung fu lola]

danceswithcats, are you implying that Mennonites and other conscientious objectors are hypocrites for enjoying America's freedoms without entertaining the possibility of military service?

Or are you only talking about the OP specifically?

[Miller]

Originally posted by Saint Zero
Now, if my kids think it's fine to go into the Armed Services that'll be fine. I don't believe in them, and I certanly don't take orders from anyone.

This is exactly what's wrong with America: parents not believing in their children.

[Revtim]

Originally posted by danceswithcats
While I wasn't enamored with the conflict in Southeast Asia, I still registered for the draft when I turned 18 because it was the law. Had I been called, I'd have gone, because in my book of standards, you can't have it both ways.

Some people, like myself, feel that their moral objection to killing people who are not a threat to my country or people is more important than the law.

Do you draw the line somewhere? Or do you feel that because you live in the US you *must* do everything the gov't orders you to do, no matter how odius or against your personal beliefs it is?

[D_Odds]

Just a couple of nitpicks:

(1) Short, you cannot be a draft dodger if you were first required to register in 1997. If a draft is reinstated, then you can make that claim, but there hasn't been a draft for quite some time for you to dodge.

(2) President Bush played his cards to avoid active combat duty, and skipped out early on his service, but he didn't dodge the draft either. By signing up for the Texas Air National Guard, he couldn't be drafted.

I guess what you and President Bush have in common is that neither of you have dodged a draft. Former President Clinton, on the other hand, can proudly claim to have dodged a draft.

Sorry for letting facts get in the way of a rant.

[Tastes of Chocolate]

Originally posted by danceswithcats
The position taken by the OP is beautiful. Essentially, he is saying that he enjoys the benefits and privileges of living in this Country, but when it comes to abiding by the laws thereof, he takes selective exemption, and if pressed, will flee. Now there is a shining example of personal fortitude-a man of inner strength, one whose principles are unwavering, a true paragon of virtue.

danceswithcats
If the USA was really in danger, I would be more likely to agree with you. But in the case of a war started based on shaky, false or no evidence, for suspect reasons, I have to disagree.

If the draft is reinstated, it will be an involuntary call up to a voluntary (for the USA) war. The greatest asset of this country is the right of it's people to speak out, including against wrongs done by the government. A draft for our current military actions would be just such a wrong.

In addition, Short never said that he would flee instead of register. In fact, he states that going to jail is more appealing than being drafted. To me, it sounds like Short has made a choice, and will live with the results.

I have great respect for all of the women and men who are in the armed services now. But they are there of their own free will. I support them to the fullest, but I can't support the people and policies that sent them there.

[Matchka]

Emmerson: "What are you doing in there?"
Whitman: "What are YOU doing out there?"
Matchka: "Walt, you're a self-righteous dick, you deserve to be in the clink. But thanks for protesting."

One of the beautiful things about this country is that we are offered choices. Take the draft for instance. Short has exercised his 1st Ammendment right to speak out against it. Bravo--It seems crazy to put a rifle...and a bayonette...in the hands of a pacifist and force him to evicerate his own morality by taking another life. His choice (since we're talking about the hypothetical reinstatement of the draft) is to "go to war or go to jail." Now jail ain't a pretty place so I've been told, but at least he can opt to go there. Yep, same goes for the reasonably harmless & peace-loving Mennonites. NOBODY has to go to war in this country. So leave Short alone with his choice...but if I catch him sneaking accross a border when his number comes up, well, then I will use harsh language against him and revile his very essence for as long as I have consciousness.

The creation of this country would not have been possible without the blood sacrifice of the willing volunteer. Through such efforts, as well as the creation of non-bloody social structures and pressures, have we hacked a relatively safe and secure homeland out of the wilderness. Is it a damn good life we have? It must be because I don't see uneasy crowds of desperate people massing at the borders waiting for a chance to run away. Just the opposite--even though we currently *enjoy* our own style of fascist dictatorship.

No uneasy crowds, that is, until the hypocrites who have enjoyed the safety within our borders are called to defend them, or worse--assist outsiders with a struggle against an oppression the like of which most US Citizens can barely comprehend. Does anyone know someone who fled Iraq to the US? They didn't just book the flight with their local travel agent, did they? And they didn't just move to the other side of the planet because they like Hostess Ding Dongs, did they? This place ROCKS and the whole workld knows it! It's not perfect, there is poverty & crime & bigotry & corruption to some degree at different levels of government, but that's the human condition--you'd get that at cave-man level.

I'm not so blind as to believe for one minute that we waged war on a 3rd world country (and will do so again just as soon as we re-establish it's military) because our sensibilities were offended by the treatment endured by the Iraqi people. But a result of that conflict was that the devil they knew is now gone. Are some of our folks being killed over there? Sure--and while it makes me sick to see my countrymen fall in combat, at least some spirit survives in Iraq, and that's good. If they manage to run us off, that's even BETTER. For us as well as for them. Even though I am offended by killing, I am even more so by the sight of a completely crushed people. At least THEY are willing to kill and die for something--unlike dodgers who sniff the roses of freedom all their lives while never cultivating anything themselves.

The draft is not reinstated yet. All the signs point toward reinstatement. Where is the organized cry against it? If there is a contingient in the USA that opposes the draft, let them speak NOW (to our leaders, dumbass, not to some stupid circle-jerk of a message board) or get ready to make a simple choice.

And one more thing, for those who join up as active duty or national guard in search of an MOS specifically to avoid combat: You are WORSE than dodgers, because you don't even have the balls to stand up for what you believe--go to war, or go to jail.

[Short]

BTW, why did you decide not to sign up for Selective Service, if you don't mind my asking?

I disagree with the Selective Service. I don't think it is within the scope of government to require me (or anyone else) to go to war. I believe I am personally responsible for my actions, and can not in good conscience agree to agree to fight** in a future war which I very likely will disagree with.

**Or be put into a lotto, in which my selection would require...

CO status is not assured, and I don't see it as wise to participate in a system wherein others judge the validity of my moral objections. I don't recognize the authority to make such a decision, so why participate? There are indeed plenty of ways to avoid military service. Even in the event of a draft, it is not clear how gays will be dealt with, and it seems likely that it will be an easy out for many people. On the other hand, doing such is hardly a principled position.

[KellyM]

My father "dodged the draft": he kept getting deferments on the grounds that he was a graduate student, or recently married, or with a new child. Not that he did anything special to get those deferments, he just happened to qualify for each one whenever he got called to report. I don't think he went out of his way to avoid service, but when given an opportunity to do so he elected not to serve.

I don't think this makes him a bad person. The law gave him the choice to request not to serve, he requested not to serve, and the request was honored. I would have done the same thing in his place.

I'm registered with Selective Service. I went in to do so shortly after my 18th birthday. In the event that the draft is reinstated and I'm called (pretty unlikely since I'm 34), I fully intend to request exemption from service. I don't feel that, by doing so, I dishonor myself or my country in any way. If you think that in doing so, I am being dishonorable, you can fuck yourself.

[bump]

There's nothing wrong with working within the system to avoid service or combat (various deferments, conscientious objector status, etc...)

There's also nothing wrong with joining a different branch of the service in order to not get drafted into the Army, a-la Bush.

What is contemptible is the unlawful and cowardly flight to Canada or other countries instead of facing the consequences of your decision not to be drafted. (i.e. jail) That's why people get so aggravated with draft dodgers, not because they don't want to fight.

[Matchka]

I've considered fucking myself, but speculate it to be a difficult proposition given my lack of required flexibility, required endowment and personal aversion to anal sex.

he just happened to qualify for each one whenever he got called to report.
There's a difference between dodging and exercising legal options. You needn't be defensive. I don't have a problem with wanting to avoid potential combat, it's not for everyone. I was harping about folks who for some reason would NOT have qualified for a legal exemption and yet chose not to take their lumps according to the laws under which they have chosen to live.

[Captain Carrot]

Just the opposite--even though we currently *enjoy* our own style of fascist dictatorship.

Interesting the way you define "mixed republic", which is the govenment in the United States of America. Now, who, exactly, is our fascist dictator? DON'T say Bush

If there is a contingent in the USA that opposes the draft, let them speak NOW (to our leaders, dumbass, not to some stupid circle-jerk of a message board) or get ready to make a simple choice.

"Some stupid circle-jerk of a message board"? Glad to know that you enjoy talking with intelligent people on the SDMB. Thanks for posting!

And one more thing, for those who join up as active duty or national guard in search of an MOS specifically to avoid combat: You are WORSE than dodgers, because you don't even have the balls to stand up for what you believe--go to war, or go to jail.

Yes, but if you join the army under any branch, you might fight anyway. The people who do this are facing the risk(s) of being called to fight and/or violating a personal belief in pacifism (or any religion that requires that believers kill absolutely nobody for any reason).

At least THEY are willing to kill and die for something--unlike dodgers who sniff the roses of freedom all their lives while never cultivating anything themselves.

So you're saying that the ONLY way to protect freedom is to fight in a war? Interesting . . .

[Jodi]

Civil disobedience is more than just deciding not to follow the laws that inconvenience you -- even if the inconvenience is having your ass shipped someplace where it's likely to be shot at. Civil disobedience requires a principled believe that the law in question is morally wrong and a willingness to accept the consequences of refusing to follow that law.

So the whole "I don't think it's within the scope of government to require me to go to war" attitude is IMO bogus. It is clearly within the scope of the government to do exactly that, just as it's within the scope of the government to require you to pay taxes regardless of whether or not you agree with the justice of a particular tax. So the legitimate position is not that government doesn't have the authority to draft -- it does -- but rather that your personal morality will not allow you to participate in a war you believe is unjust (or, if you're a true pacifist, in any war at all). Having reached that conclusion, you are IMO honor-bound to live with the consequences of that decision, to register with Selective Service, apply for CO status appropriately, and, if denied it, to go to jail. That is the way to say "I love my country and I will serve my country to the best of my ability, but this thing you ask, I cannot do."

I find it bitterly ironic that a person who lives everyday with the enormous privileges of being an American would claim not to recognize the authority of the government to do something the government clearly can lawfully do. I assume you're not living out in the woods with the radical libertarian freemen posse comitatus. I assume you recognize the authority of the government when it's to your advantage to do so, like when you need the assistance of public services or want to use public facilities.

So tell us that you think the law is wrong, sure; at least then your position sounds prinicipled. But to try to deny the government's authority to do this one thing, just because you don't happen to like it, makes you sound like someone happy to enjoy the privileges of being an American, but unwilling to bear the responsibility when asked.

[5 time champ]

Originally posted by D_Odds
Just a couple of nitpicks:


(2) President Bush played his cards to avoid active combat duty, and skipped out early on his service, but he didn't dodge the draft either. By signing up for the Texas Air National Guard, he couldn't be drafted.

bolding mine

You are correct D_Odds, specifically speaking Bush should be labeled as a deserter

There is "no contingency plan" to ask Congress to reinstate the draft, John Winkler, the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary for reserve affairs, told Salon last week.

No contingencies ?? Aren't we always told the Pentagon plans for everything. I always thought the Pentagon had contingency plans to invade Canada.

[Jodi]

And let me also say -- for like the 9000th time -- how surpassingly stupid I find it when individuals say "I don't recognize the authority of the government to do X." Well, guess what? YOU don't decide the authority of the government. If the elected representatives of this country collectively decide to give the authority to do a given thing to the government, and that delegation of authority is not unlawful, then, yes, the government DOES have that authority. For someone to stand there and shrill "They can't do that!" is idiotic because quite obviously, yes, they can.

"The government can't make me get a license." "The government can't make me pay taxes." "The government can't enter my house without my permission, under any circumstances." "The government can't take my property without my permission, under any circumstances." "The government can't require me to register for the draft." In the happy land of your mind, where you are king, maybe; but here in the real world: Yes it can. The bald assertion that it can't makes you look as disconnected from reality as the many, many individuals (tax protestors, "freemen," petty criminals) who claim from their jail cells that the government doesn't have the authority to put them in jail.

[whiterabbit]

Originally posted by KellyM
The way the military fills workforce assignments is to first grab available people with the right MOS. If they can't find enough (because they're already assigned to something else and can't be pulled away), then they grab whoever is available.

If they have more people with your MOS/AFSC than they have billets for it, you go in the general labor pool, and could easily find yourself guarding a supply depot somewhere or whatever, especially if the other people with your MOS outrank you in grade or years of service (which, as a recent inductee, they will).

Don't rely on a specialized MOS/AFSC from keeping you out of combat; it won't. Computer programming is an especially bad one: there's a LOT of people in the military with that MOS now, probably more than there are billets.

Oh, I know there's always a chance. But I suspect the situation is worse in the Army than the Air Force as far as that goes, simply because the Army is less specialized as a whole.

He's not joining to avoid a theoretical draft, either, so anybody who gets the idea that he's doing this for that reason may kindly shut up.

[Matchka]

dwalin

he he he ... in the context of staving off the reinstatement of the draft, yes: the SDMSB is a circle jerk. Everey bit as effective at causing real change as all the discussions had by The People's Front of Judea in THE LIFE OF BRIAN. We can sit here ALL DAY LONG and badger each other about our own ideas...end end up getting drafted--even those of us who have already served if it suits the whim of our current despot. That's all I meant by the remark. you don't wanna get drafted? Tell someone who MATTERS with respect to that process.

if you join the army under any branch, you might fight anyway. The people who do this are facing the risk(s) of being called to fight and/or violating a personal belief in pacifism (or any religion that requires that believers kill absolutely nobody for any reason).

I think we're on the same page here. I recall with absolute disgust a scene that made the news when we were deploying to the first Gulf War. It was a guy who had been given orders to deploy and started bucking to get out--he actually had the gall to say he had only joined for the college money, and that he didn't want to go to a war. He was actually indignant that his desires weren't being respected by Uncle Sam.

And I'd like you to point out where I actually said, "that the ONLY way to protect freedom is to fight in a war" or even implied this was the case? If taken within the context of the post, you will understand that I was elevating anti-American combatants in Iraq above draft-dodging Americans based on their willingness to make sacrifices for their beliefs. Please don't misquote me. Of course, it was rather a poorly constructed paragraph. I was in a fit of passion at the time......

[neutron star]

Originally posted by Matchka
One of the beautiful things about this country is that we are offered choices.

<snip>

but if I catch him sneaking accross a border when his number comes up, well, then I will use harsh language against him and revile his very essence for as long as I have consciousness.

If being offered choices is a great thing, why is the choice of leaving so heinous? None of us asked to be born here. Patriotism is as much a divider as it is a uniter. Socrates was dead on when he said "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world."

Plenty of countries enjoy our freedoms. Some enjoy even more. In some regards, our country has been a trendsetter in the area of human rights. In others, not so. We were far from the first to abolish slavery.

Is it a damn good life we have? It must be because I don't see uneasy crowds of desperate people massing at the borders waiting for a chance to run away.

No, but I do see oppressed homosexuals and medical marijuana patients heading to Canada in search of a government that's more tolerant of their "crimes." The U.S. is great, but it's not a utopia. Victimless crimes crawl their way through the criminal court systems every moment of every day. Hardly sounds free to me.

No uneasy crowds, that is, until the hypocrites who have enjoyed the safety within our borders are called to defend them, or worse--assist outsiders with a struggle against an oppression the like of which most US Citizens can barely comprehend.

Defending our borders does not equate with running around the world fighting wars that are none of our business, then installing leaders who end up being just as bad as their predecessors. It also does not involve hailing some oppresive governments as our dear allies and others as sworn enemies.

Originally posted by bump
What is contemptible is the unlawful and cowardly flight to Canada or other countries instead of facing the consequences of your decision not to be drafted. (i.e. jail) That's why people get so aggravated with draft dodgers, not because they don't want to fight.

Ooh! Go to war and take the lives of foreigners with whom I have no beef personally, many of whom may have been drafted themselves and don't want to fight, and who aren't even threatening our borders OR go to jail and get raped. Wow! Talk about freedom! That makes me burst with so much pride that I almost feel like composing a patriotic country song!

I think I'd rather go to a Canada that has a longstanding history of welcoming draft dodgers with open arms. If I get hit by a car there while smoking a joint on the walk home from attending a gay wedding, at least I'll have free health care.

[KellyM]

9000th time? You only have 5176 posts, how many times per post do you say that?

:d&r:

[Matchka]

neutron star
"...and yet chose not to take their lumps according to the laws under which they have chosen to live."

C'mon Star, read the post! I acknowledge things ain't perfect here. But if you live in the US and have objections to the way thinks are done in the US, you have a choice: Go to war (in a metaphorical sense against what it is that bugs you) or go to jail (again, metaphorical meaning you can relenquish your citizenship and go elsewhere). If Canada suits you, go NOW and enjoy the freedoms you can get THERE and let us all know how happy you are having made the decision for youself--but I take exception to anyone sitting HERE and griping about how green the grass is over THERE when they don't attempt to improve things HERE.

As for something beyond our borders not being our business, that kind of attitude is like ignoring a tiger in the next room in your house because, hey, it's not in YOUR room.

[sailor]

Jodi, I cannot see it in such absolute terms. I think we all have duties towards groups we belong to (family, city, state, country, religion, etc) as well as to general principles of morality, ethics, etc. I do not have *any* sympathy for anyone who shirks his responsibilities out of selfishness but it is a fact that people find themselves in moral dilemmas where they have to make very difficult choices. Should you turn in your brother or your spouse who you know is breaking the law? It is not an easy choice to make.

Now, if someone has come to the conclusion that what his country is demanding is immoral, I do not see why he should go to jail for refusing to do it. I think it is perfectly legitimate morally and otherwise to say "I believe this is immoral and I shall not do it" and go to Canada where he is not required to do what he considers immoral. As long as his motivation is a sincere ethical objection and not selfishness, I have no problem. I do not see he is under any obligation to go to jail for following his beliefs. I think ethics, morality and humanity should come before your country or your family and you should not feel an obligation to go to jail for following them. I would not help my brother rape a woman or steal money. I would not help my country kill innocent people. Suppose a Chinese man requested asylum in the USA because he refused to execute political prisoners. Would you hold it against him? I wouldn't.

Moral conflicts are never easy. We have obligations towards country and towards morality but I say we should put *our* morality first. The country on the other hand *has* to put the law above everything and it is right in imposing jail sentences on those who break the law. If your religion prevents you from vaccinating your child then that is what you should do and if the paw mandates it then the government should enforce it. But there is nothing wrong with moving a a country better suited to your morality.

I recognise that moral choices are often *very* difficult. One does not give up family, friends and country easily. But I see no obligation to stay and go to jail. If one wants to do it as a way of witnessing then good for him, but I do not think anyone is under the obligation to do it.

[Lemur866]

The whole question is moot, because there is not and will not be a draft. The American people don't want a draft, Congress doesn't want a draft, the Pentagon doesn't want a draft, the Department of Defense doesn't want a draft, and the Bush Administration doesn't want a draft. Ergo, there will be no draft.

Please point out government officials who advocate a draft. OK, Charles Rangel. But he doesn't actually advocate a draft, he was simply doing a bit of political theater. Now name some more. Uh....

There isn't going to be a draft, so everyone posturing about how they will courageously resist the fascists by refusing to be drafted are simply playing make believe.

Did I mention that there isn't going to be a draft?

[danceswithcats]

Originally posted by kung fu lola
danceswithcats, are you implying that Mennonites and other conscientious objectors are hypocrites for enjoying America's freedoms without entertaining the possibility of military service?

Or are you only talking about the OP specifically?

I spoke only to the OP. Persons with religious convictions do no harm. I take exception with those who will don a mantle of religiosity when it suits their cause du jour.

Revtim If everyone could take their personal exception to either (a) a standing military force and/or (b) timely supplements to a volunteer service as required, I must beg the question: what defense have we? Holiday cards saying Don't do that mailed to nations likely to cause conflict aren't going to be a strong deterrent.

Doebi You're correct. The OP stated that he would prefer jail to serving the Country that affords him his freedom. My bad. The military cannot be expected to function based upon situational ethics and optional participation. "OK-How many of you want to go on this mission?" "I'm sorry, Mr. President, the troops voted no." Perhaps I'm an old style thinker, in that if you choose to live here, adherence to the laws of the Nation are concurrent with said choice.

[Revtim]

Originally posted by danceswithcats
Revtim If everyone could take their personal exception to either (a) a standing military force and/or (b) timely supplements to a volunteer service as required, I must beg the question: what defense have we? Holiday cards saying Don't do that mailed to nations likely to cause conflict aren't going to be a strong deterrent.

Since very few people have a personal exception to either of these, and I never said I did, I'm not sure what they have to do with the discussion. Was that comment meant for someone else?

[neutron star]

Originally posted by Matchka
If Canada suits you, go NOW and enjoy the freedoms you can get THERE

I can't. I took the test online and I don't score enough points for them to want me. Even if I could, it costs money. Even if I had money, my wife wants to be near her family here. So I'm stuck. That's not to say that I don't love my country. They got most of it right. The land is beautiful and the variety of accents, cultures, and foods among the citizenry is wonderful. It's all these laws based on someone's idea of morality, rather than what actually causes tangible harm to other people, that bug the hell out of me.

Unfortunately, I'm no activist and I'm not very good at changing peoples' minds, so, aside from voting, I don't do much. As for the draft, well, it's in the damn Constitution (the remaining 99% of which is an excellent document). Unless my life is threatened (and not by being dropped into a warzone), I could not kill a person. I cannot imagine how a government that claims its citizens are free could force them, by law, to pick up a gun and actually kill a man.

I mean, they say the 13th Amendment doesn't apply to the draft, but I'd much rather be a slave for four years and get whipped every now and then, than be forced to brutally kill and risk being killed by strangers in another land.

I might support a draft in a case of dire emergency, such as a full scale invasion of the U.S. or a World War. But Vietnam? Iraq? Hell no.

As for something beyond our borders not being our business, that kind of attitude is like ignoring a tiger in the next room in your house because, hey, it's not in YOUR room.

There are a hell of a lot of tigers in the world. And Iraq and Vietnam aren't in the next room. Is it our responsibility to hunt them all? Should we draft the whole country and blast the entire Axis of Evil to smithereens? Should we blast them again when the new leaders revert to the old ways?

[Miller]

I'm a little confused by this concept that it's okay to break the law so long as you plan on going to jail. Does that just apply to draft dodgers? If I kill my neighbor, but turn my self in and plead guilty, does that make it okay that I killed him? Going to jail isn't an alternative to getting drafted, it's a punishment for refusing to get drafted. I don't see where breaking the law and running is any more immoral than breaking the law and getting caught.

Naw, if I'm ever drafted, I'm out of this nation. I like America, don't get me wrong, but ultimately, it's just the place where I keep all my stuff. I ain't dying for it. You can call me selfish. You can call me a coward. You can call me a traitor. So long as I'm alive to hear you say it, you can call me any damn thing you want.

[Bryan Ekers]

Draft, schmaft. The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. Your duty will be clear: To build and maintain those robots.

[Short]

Just to be clear, I do not see an obligation to go to jail because the law says so. There is a something strange about agreeing to go to jail when you don't think you've done anything wrong. In general, if a person commits civil disobedience, s/he might choose to go to jail to "outrage the conscience of the community" or to express a high respect for the process of the law, even if you disagree with a particular law. This is the position of Martin Luther King Jr..

Another reason to go to jail is to impose a high cost on enforcing the law, and thus force change.

But I agree with Howard Zinn, scholar of civil disobedience, that there is no requirement that a person follow the law and accept their punishment as just. Disagree with the law, disagree with the punishment. You are all sharp people, so I will leave it to your imagination to come up with an example of why uniform acceptance of punishment is absurd.

Just one proviso, however, I generally don't think it is a good idea to try to achieve your ends by deception, however. If your goal is civil disobedience, you are saying that a law is not just. You can't do this by lying and getting out on a loophole.

Jail or Canada do fulfill the requirements of civil disobedience, and I have respect for people who choose either. I think, however, that jail is more effective in achieving change in the law. Were the situation different, however, what is effective may be reversed.

Jodi wrote:
And let me also say -- for like the 9000th time -- how surpassingly stupid I find it when individuals say "I don't recognize the authority of the government to do X."

What do you propose we say? People have rights, and I happen to believe those rights are not granted by the government, but are an inalienable part of being human. A violation of those rights by the government is exactly what it means to surpass the authority of the government. There is a necessity, even in a democracy, to protect the rights of the individual.

Civil disobedience is one way in which those rights are asserted, particularly in a democracy. You are welcome to say I don't have the particular rights I have asserted I have. I disagree with the anti-tax nuts' assertion that a hypothetical absolute right to property somehow prohibits taxation. I simply don't think people have an absolute right to property. But if we have rights at all, surely a person has the right to not fight in a war against their will.

For someone to stand there and shrill "They can't do that!" is idiotic because quite obviously, yes, they can.

They may not do that. Better? How do you propose we express dissent from the policy of the government if we admit the government is justified in doing anything it is physically able to do? "They can't do that" is not an expression of what "they" are able to do, but clearly an expression of what the government should be able to do. Is this really confusing to you?

Lemur866 wrote:
Did I mention that there isn't going to be a draft?

Yes, let's hope you are correct. There are, however, obviously contingency plans (despite the assurance to the contrary), since the SSS still exists. If planners could come up with no circumstances under which a daft would be implemented, why would legislators keep it around? The push to fill vacancies in the draft boards indicate to me that planners are seeing those circumstances as more likely than they were.

[Jodi]

SAILOR --

Jodi, I cannot see it in such absolute terms. I think we all have duties towards groups we belong to (family, city, state, country, religion, etc) as well as to general principles of morality, ethics, etc. I do not have *any* sympathy for anyone who shirks his responsibilities out of selfishness but it is a fact that people find themselves in moral dilemmas where they have to make very difficult choices. Should you turn in your brother or your spouse who you know is breaking the law? It is not an easy choice to make.

I fail to see the moral dilemma here. SHORT was asked to register with Selective Service -- just like every other young man in America. That's all. He wasn't asked to do anything other than fill out a form. IMO, no moral dilemma exists until such time as he is drafted or in some imininent danger of being drafted, at which point the government has a procedure in place by which he can explain that for reasons of conscience, he cannot fight. IMO, the government asked you for a service -- demands it, actually, by law -- then you render that service to the extent that you can and at the point you no longer can, you explain why and take your lumps. IMO part of civil disobedience is standing up and saying "I am disobeying, and this is why." Flying under the radar and hoping you don't get caught isn't civil disobedience. It's rationalizing why you're not doing something you simply don't want to do. SHORT has a moral dilemma when he's asked to pick up a gun; he has no moral dilemma until then. Unless he's morally opposed to filling out forms.

MILLER --

I'm a little confused by this concept that it's okay to break the law so long as you plan on going to jail. Does that just apply to draft dodgers? If I kill my neighbor, but turn my self in and plead guilty, does that make it okay that I killed him? Going to jail isn't an alternative to getting drafted, it's a punishment for refusing to get drafted. I don't see where breaking the law and running is any more immoral than breaking the law and getting caught.

There is a difference between affirmatively breaking a law and simply refusing to follow one, which takes no overt action on the part of the refuser. And there's a difference between taking a stand on principle that does no harm to any other individual, and breaking a law intended to protect the health and safety of other individual citizens. And there's a difference between standing up and saying "I won't do this" openly and honestly and "getting caught." If the government catches up to SHORT for failing to register with Selective Service -- highly unlikely -- he will have "gotten caught." At which point, you're right, he has no more of the moral high ground than any other person caught doing a crime, because any moral basis he will claim at that point (after being caught) will seem like any obvious after-the-fact rationalization.

SHORT --

Just one proviso, however, I generally don't think it is a good idea to try to achieve your ends by deception, however. If your goal is civil disobedience, you are saying that a law is not just. You can't do this by lying and getting out on a loophole.

How on earth do you square this with your position of quietly failing to register and then hoping the government doesn't catch up to you until it's too late? The government says, "Young men, stand up and be counted." You slip out the back door. You don't think that's, if not deceptive, at least not entirely honorable? You don't think playing the odds and praying the government doesn't find you isn't "getting out on a loophole"?

What do you propose we say? People have rights, and I happen to believe those rights are not granted by the government, but are an inalienable part of being human.

That is a lovely thought, and one I happen to ascribe to myself -- on a philosophical level. But the cold reality is that people have such rights as they collectively (through their governments) decide they have, and no others. A right that is not recognized by at least enough people to insist on having it, is only an idea. Which is why you can nobly reel off a laundry list of "inalienable rights" belonging to people in, say, Saudi Arabia, and it will have nothing whatsoever to do with the rights Saudis actually have. Especially Saudi women.

Besides which, and more to the point, you were not talking about rights, as philosophical ideas or as granted by societal consensus. You were talking about the authority of the government. You know: Authority; as in the power to do something, assigned by one (like the citizens) to another (like the government). Authority: as in the apparent ability, legal and factual, to do a given thing. It is inarguable that the government has the authority to institute registration for the draft. To attempt to argue that they do not -- and that based on a right you do not have in our society, and in fact have never had in our society -- is, not to mince words, stupid.

A violation of those rights by the government is exactly what it means to surpass the authority of the government. There is a necessity, even in a democracy, to protect the rights of the individual.

If had this argument before, with dozens of people ranging from some chick here on the boards who wanted to argue she has the "right" to drink liquor in a titty bar 24/7, to so-called "freemen" who wanted to argue that they had the right to do any darn thing they could think of, from carry a loaded gun into a federal court house to drive on the public roads without a license. You don't have the right you claim to have. Saying you have it doesn't make it so. Heck, if you're just making rights up, make up the right to a million bucks and a new car.

Civil disobedience is one way in which those rights are asserted, particularly in a democracy. You are welcome to say I don't have the particular rights I have asserted I have. I disagree with the anti-tax nuts' assertion that a hypothetical absolute right to property somehow prohibits taxation. I simply don't think people have an absolute right to property. But if we have rights at all, surely a person has the right to not fight in a war against their will.

A person has the right to refuse to fight in a war against their will -- once they are asked to do so. Not before, when slithering away just makes it less likely they'll be asked to do so, as every other person in their class may be asked. And IMO if a person refuses to do something they are lawfully asked to do, then they should take their lumps. I guess I have no quarrel with those who would rather move away; they are no longer reaping the benefits of living in the country they are refusing to assist in the manner asked. Though my reaction to them does remain, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. But then, I don't see you explaining the part about when you moved to Canada.

They may not do that. Better?

Well, not. Because they may do it as well. "Can" connotes ability. "May" connotes authority. The government has both.

How do you propose we express dissent from the policy of the government if we admit the government is justified in doing anything it is physically able to do?

Who said anything about admitting the government is justified in doing anything it can do? You express dissent by standing up and saying "this law is wrong, and I will not follow it, and these are the reasons." Do you think quietly evading the draft is "expressing dissent"? You're not expressing anything; you're just hoping you don't get caught.

[quote]"They can't do that" is not an expression of what "they" are able to do, but clearly an expression of what the government should be able to do. Is this really confusing to you?[/quoe]

I think I'm pretty clear on it, but then I'm not the one who thinks "they can't do that" and "they shouldn't be able to do that" are synonymous.

You do not have the right to choose to avoid or ignore laws you personnally disagree with. The is not the cafeterial plan of governance -- one from column A, one from column B, and a side of fried rice. The tacit contract that each of us makes as adults in a democratic society is that we will allow our representatives to make laws on our behalf, with our implied approval and our explicit authorization, and then we will obey those laws. If we disagree with the laws, we can work to change them, or we can refuse to obey them on principle and in a manner that makes that principle manifest, so that we don't look like we're just avoiding a law because we don't like it. Is this really confusing to you?

[Boo Boo Foo]

Originally posted by Matchka
This place (the USA) ROCKS and the whole workld knows it!

I would respectfully suggest that the only thing the whole world knows for sure is that people like you think that the whole world agrees with you, but I rather think that a sizeable percentage of the whole world would prefer to tell you you're dreaming. Given the opportunity, truckloads of emigrants choose countries other than the USA to move to. Most importantly, almost the entire Middle East on through to Pakistan has nothing but contempt for the USA at the moment.

And let's not overlook those 1.2 billion souls in China, shall we? I suspect they'd have opinions which might deflate your ego a tad as well. Same for India too.

Nowhere near the whole world after all that, is it? And those 650,000 souls who have lost their lives to handgun wounds in the USA since the death of John Lennon? That doesn't sell too well either I'm afraid. A shitload of people in the whole world talk about that though - as a reason why NOT to go the USA.

[Rysler]

Given the opportunity, truckloads of emigrants choose countries other than the USA to move to.

And where should they go? Australia? Because you guys are so friendly to immigrants. Your general point is valid, but try fixing the human rights abuses and racism in your own country before nailing ours. We're not the only regional superpower shirking responsibilities.

As for the draft, I had to register, as a female, because the government got my name and gender wrong. That doesn't give me much hope of a draft going smoothly.

[BF]

And those 650,000 souls who have lost their lives to handgun wounds in the USA since the death of John Lennon?

Of which 368, 000 were suicides? Compared to 713, 000 suicides in gun free Japan during the same time span?

[Short]

Jodi: You seem to be grasping at straws. You both suggest that I register, in essence saying I will comply with the draft, and that I not deceive the Selective Service for personal gain.

Let's be clear here. The fact of the matter is I am not under anyone's radar. The last letter (July 1998) I recieved from the Selective Service contained the following:

Refusal to register is a federal crime punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and up to 5 years imprisonment. If we do not hear from you within 10 days, we will have no choice but to send your name to the Department of Justice with a request that you be prosecuted for refusing to register.

Well, as is probably obvious, I did not regsiter and they did not prosecute. Not registering has disallowed, even absent a conviction, from recieving federal financial aid, employment with the federal government (irony, that), and a driver's license in some states (not Washington). Would you suggest I register in order to gain these benefits, only to tell them I disagree with the draft if it started up? Which option is "sneaking out the back door?"

Your post is rather contradictory. Here in "cold hard reality" you are reminicent of the White Queen, beliving six impossible things (before breakfast). You both do and don't think authority is confered by ability.

Jodi wrote (bolding mine):
Authority: as in the apparent ability, legal and factual, to do a given thing.

...

Jodi wrote:
Well, not. Because they may do it as well. "Can" connotes ability. "May" connotes authority. The government has both.

...

Jodi wrote:
...I'm not the one who thinks "they can't do that" and "they shouldn't be able to do that" are synonymous.

Once more from the top then?

Jodi wrote (bolding mine):
You do not have the right to choose to avoid or ignore laws you personnally disagree with. The is not the cafeterial plan of governance -- one from column A, one from column B, and a side of fried rice. The tacit contract that each of us makes as adults in a democratic society is that we will allow our representatives to make laws on our behalf, with our implied approval and our explicit authorization, and then we will obey those laws. If we disagree with the laws, we can work to change them, or we can refuse to obey them on principle and in a manner that makes that principle manifest, so that we don't look like we're just avoiding a law because we don't like it. Is this really confusing to you?

Rights mean nothing if they are granted and taken away by others. If people have inalienable rights, the government does not have the authority to take them away, even if it does take them away. If government, even democractic government, had this authority, the rights wouldn't be inalienable would they? You can not "socially contract" away your inalienable rights.

It strikes me that your argument isn't really clear in your head, only that you disagree with me.

[Duke]

Originally posted by Lemur866
The whole question is moot, because there is not and will not be a draft. The American people don't want a draft, Congress doesn't want a draft, the Pentagon doesn't want a draft, the Department of Defense doesn't want a draft, and the Bush Administration doesn't want a draft. Ergo, there will be no draft.

Too right. Even the most rabid hawks in the administration realize that a draft would be political suicide. And no congressman/woman would want to go back to their district after voting for one.

One thing I've got to wonder...I read several news websites and a couple papers every day, and I have not heard about "a potential draft" at all during the past few months. In fact, the only place I've read about it is right here on the SDMB. Where is everybody getting this idea that a draft is imminent?

[Ebola Gay]

Boo Boo Foo already said it, but it bears repeating.

Matchka, do you really think that the USA ROCKS and the whole world knows it?

Dude, you need to get out more often!

(Maybe you could channel surf over to BBC News once in a while, huh? You could do it while FOX News is at commercial break, for starters.)

[Jodi]

SHORT --

Jodi: You seem to be grasping at straws. You both suggest that I register, in essence saying I will comply with the draft, and that I not deceive the Selective Service for personal gain.

Registering with Selective Service is not "in essence saying [you] will comply with the draft." It is registering with Selective Service, period. It is a way of compiling a list of men eligible to serve, and that's all. At the time of registration, you may also apply for a deferment or exemption based on a myriad of reasons, including a claim of CO status. But you still have to register.

Let's be clear here. The fact of the matter is I am not under anyone's radar. . . .

Well, you certainly hope you are. You are playing the odds that the limited resources of the government will not include aggressivly prosecuting people such as yourself who choose to break the law by failing to register with Selective Service. That's a pretty safe bet, by the way, but it's a bet.

Not registering has disallowed, even absent a conviction, from recieving federal financial aid, employment with the federal government (irony, that), and a driver's license in some states (not Washington). Would you suggest I register in order to gain these benefits, only to tell them I disagree with the draft if it started up? Which option is "sneaking out the back door?"

That's exactly what I would suggest. Register. Tell them at the time you do so that you cannot and will not fight if asked, for reasons of personal conviction. That's how you stand up. The "sneaking out the back door" option would be simply failing to comply with the law and hoping you don't get caught. Which is what you're doing, unless I've missed something.

And if you're confused about the meaning of the word "authority," look it up. Quoting my posts, without any comment from your part, hardly makes your position any clearer.

Rights mean nothing if they are granted and taken away by others. If people have inalienable rights, the government does not have the authority to take them away, even if it does take them away. If government, even democractic government, had this authority, the rights wouldn't be inalienable would they? You can not "socially contract" away your inalienable rights.

First, if you think "inalienable" means "not capable of being taken away," you need to look up "inalienable" right after you look up "authority."

Second, in the realm of the real, as opposed to the philosophical, rights very obviously can be taken away in every practical, meaningful sense. You can insist until you're blue in the face that you have some right that is neither acknowledged nor protected by the government or society, and the fact will remain that your unacknoweldged, unprotected, purely theoretical "right" is nonexistent in any meaningful sense. Do people in China have an unfettered right to free speech? You, apparently, would say "yes." And as a philosophical matter, I would agree. But in reality, where it counts, do people in China have an unfettered right to free speech? They obviously do not.

Third, your assertion that government cannot take away inalienable rights is contradicted by the thousands of lawsuits filed every year asserting that the government did, is doing, or intends to do exactly that. Prayer in school? A removal of your inalienable right to separation of church and state. Gag rules? A removal of the inalienable right to a free press, and free speech. Inorder to assert that the government cannot (lacks the ability) limit or even infringe rights, you must keep the argue regarding the nature and origin of "rights" on the purely theoretical, philosophical leve.

Which is fine, except you are claiming some "right" as the basis for what you have done (or failed to do) in reality, and claiming some lack of governmental authority for what the government is doing in reality, not in theory. Under those circumstances, it is entirely appropriate -- even necessary -- to look at whether you actually have the right you claim to have, in any practical meaningful sense, or whether the government actually lacks the authority you claim they lack, in any practical meaningful sense. Which, to reiterate, you don't, and they do. You [i]don't[/]i have the right to refuse to register with selective service because you're concerned you might someday possibly be asked to fight in a war you're philosophically opposed to. The government does have the valid authority to require you to participate in registration for the draft. To argue otherwise on the basis of purely theoretical and unacknowledged "rights" or "limits on authority" is IMO an intellectually flawed argument. Deeply and obviously flawed, at that.

It strikes me that your argument isn't really clear in your head, only that you disagree with me.

I certainly do disagree with you, but I'm very clear as to why. Like I said, I've dealt with the arguments about what rights are possessed, and when, and according to whom, and at what point the concept of a "right" becomes meaningful as something other than a concept or an aspiration -- I've dealt with those arguments at some length professionally, and consequently I think it's safe to say I've given the matter a lot more thought than the average bear.

You chose not to register with Selective Service, and by doing so knowingly broke the law. You don't consider it radical; neither do I. But neither do I consider it particularly noble or conscientous. And I certainly see no "right" which would justify your failure to participate in registration -- which, again, is all that has been asked of you at this point -- nor do I see any argument that the government somehow lacks the "authority" to do what it obviously has the actual and apparent authority to do. So what I see is you rationalizing your decision, and my point is that I don't think your rationalization holds up when looked at with any degree of scrutiny.

I should also add that this isn't an issue I care particularly deeply about. I don't consider failure to register for the draft to be a particularly heinous crime. I think most people who are subject to registration show up and dutifully register, notifying the government at that time if they have problems with serving, and why. Certainly that's what IMO ought to be done. The fact that you didn't do it is hardly causing me to break a sweat, but neither am I able to accept your stated "I have this theoretical, unacknowledged right" argument as justification for breaking the law, because I've seen that argument dozens of times, and I think it's bogus.

[Short]

Jodi wrote:
Registering with Selective Service is not "in essence saying [you] will comply with the draft." It is registering with Selective Service, period.

Civil disobediance is not complying with unjust laws. I believe the selective service system to be unjust, ergo I do not comply with it. If it is unjust, I don't comply when it suits me, and not when it doesn't. I'm not sure how violating the law is sliding under the radar, while complying with a law I disagree with is principled. Registering would be easier, since it is more likely that I would be arrested for breaking the law than complying with it. It is not, however, indicitive of dissent to comply with the law.

I quoted your post without substantive comments since you plainly put your foot in your mouth. But if you insist on comments,

Here you say authority is derived from ability:

Authority: as in the apparent ability, legal and factual, to do a given thing.

Later you say these are seperate concepts:

Well, not. Because they may do it as well. "Can" connotes ability. "May" connotes authority. The government has both.

and finally in the same post, you say that I'm confusing them, not you.

...I'm not the one who thinks "they can't do that" and "they shouldn't be able to do that" are synonymous.

In other words, you were not consistant in your usage of the term "authority," while chiding me for using it "incorrectly." I take authority in this sense to be having moral justification to do something, and have done so consistantly.

Furthermore you are quite correct about the term inalienable. Here is what I said (italics, notably, were in the original):

Rights mean nothing if they are granted and taken away by others. If people have inalienable rights, the government does not have the authority to take them away, even if it does take them away. If government, even democractic government, had this authority, the rights wouldn't be inalienable would they? You can not "socially contract" away your inalienable rights.

Here is my dictionary's (Webster New World College Dict. 3rd ed.) defintition of inalienable:

That which may not be taken away or transfered.

This is your que to explain how I misused this term to your obvious confusion.

And I certainly see no "right" which would justify your failure to participate in registration -- which, again, is all that has been asked of you at this point...

In the words of Ronald Regan, "There you go again." I don't have a right to refuse to register, only not to fight? Then perhaps I should wait until I'm posted to the front lines and ordered to shoot, then refuse. After all, I don't have a right to refuse training or a plane ride, do I? My decision was to express my objection to the Selective Service at the earliest time possible, that is when they asked me to register.

...nor do I see any argument that the government somehow lacks the "authority" to do what it obviously has the actual and apparent authority to do

...but neither am I able to accept your stated "I have this theoretical, unacknowledged right" argument as justification for breaking the law, because I've seen that argument dozens of times, and I think it's bogus.

Just to be clear, I have argued my case, and you disagree. I am, however, not clear on your objections. Moreover, I don't think you're clear on your objections since they seem to change. When your arguement is refuted, such as your claim the government has the authority to do whatever the public wants, you switch to some vague claim about agreeing "in theory" but dealing with "reality." The, a few posts later, you come back with the same refuted arguement.

To be clear:
1) The government does not have the authority* to do something which violates a person's inalienable rights.
2) Participation in the selective service is a violation of my inalienable rights.
3) Whence, the government does not have the authority to require my registration with the selective service.

*Note the use of "authority" to indicate what is morally justified, not merely whatever elected officials choose to do.

Your argument against 1 appears to be that "authority" is (or isn't) a descriptive term. That is, you have said "authority" denotes what the democratic government is phyically capable of doing (and made the opposite claim as well). Even if you were consistant in you own usage, this is hardly a subtantive complaint from a moral or ethical standpoint. No one is saying that a government is not phyically able to do things which are in fact unjustified. The concern is with the justification.

Your argument against 2 appears to be that I have a right to avoid combat, not to refuse to register. The absurdity of this is more than obvious (and I address it again in this post).

I should also add that this isn't an issue I care particularly deeply about. I don't consider failure to register for the draft to be a particularly heinous crime.

Don't care? Don't post. If you do attack me, however, I will hold you to what you say. As a "professional" (paralegal was it?, if memory serves...), you may want to give your argument some more thought (speaking as a pretty avarage bear).

[Boo Boo Foo]

Originally posted by Rysler
And where should they go? Australia?

Sometimes I swear the general lack of knowledge held by some Americans of events outside of the USA is simply bewildering. Europe per annum takes far more immigrants than the USA - right now - as we speak. And Canada takes huge numbers too. Sometimes I swear that a certain few Americans believe that their country is the only country on earth who has ever accepted an immigrant - such are the statements which are made on occasion.

Originally posted by Rysler
Because you guys are so friendly to immigrants. Your general point is valid, but try fixing the human rights abuses and racism in your own country before nailing ours.

Ahhh... the old reverse insult trick... well look, in the interests of fairness I have to concede that Australia has handled certain issues regarding people smuggling very poorly - but this is the reality on the matter... Australia still takes in, per annum, 120,000 legal immigrants a year. Unfortunately, the archipelago of Indonesia lends itself to dreadful people smuggling issues - people who effectively are queue jumpers. It's the queue jumpers who we Australians are working against. The USA, due to it's lack of a close archipelago like Indonesia doesn't have the same Boat People issues Australia has - accordingly Australia is in a no-win situation on that one. A knowledge of the facts never hurts.

As for your assertion that I was attempting to "nail the USA?" - oh what bunkum. I've lived in the USA in the past and anyone on this board who knows me also knows how much I love the country and her wonderful people. However, if and when I see a blatant display of rah-rah-rah misguided patriotic conceit (by anyone from any country) then all bets are off at that point. My comments were addressed to the poster, not to the sovereign nation of the United States as a whole.

The issue here is perception. In many respects, due to island hopping and poor border control, Australia is actually an easier country to illegally enter than the USA. Most importantly, whether you like this reality or not, these days huge numbers of the world's population would prefer to move to countries other than the USA as their primary "new home" of choice. The reasons are wide and varied, but I'm safe in saying that the USA is perceived in a negative light by a lot of people around the world. It didn't used to be, but it is nowadays.

Drug problems, gang problems, city violence, a feeling of not being welcome, a sense that the USA is no longer what she was - all of it adds up to a perception by many potential immigrants that other countries are better bets - and the figures back this up. That's why Europe in particular has the immigration it has these days.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Originally posted by Rysler
And where should they go? Australia?

Sometimes I swear the general lack of knowledge held by some Americans of events outside of the USA is simply bewildering. Europe per annum takes far more immigrants than the USA - right now - as we speak. And Canada takes huge numbers too. Sometimes I swear that a certain few Americans believe that their country is the only country on earth who has ever accepted an immigrant - such are the statements which are made on occasion.

Originally posted by Rysler
Because you guys are so friendly to immigrants. Your general point is valid, but try fixing the human rights abuses and racism in your own country before nailing ours.

Ahhh... the old reverse insult trick... well look, in the interests of fairness I have to concede that Australia has handled certain issues regarding people smuggling very poorly - but this is the reality on the matter... Australia still takes in, per annum, 120,000 legal immigrants a year. Unfortunately, the archipelago of Indonesia lends itself to dreadful people smuggling issues - people who effectively are queue jumpers. It's the queue jumpers who we Australians are working against. The USA, due to it's lack of a close archipelago like Indonesia doesn't have the same Boat People issues Australia has - accordingly Australia is in a no-win situation on that one. A knowledge of the facts never hurts.

As for your assertion that I was attempting to "nail the USA?" - oh what bunkum. I've lived in the USA in the past and anyone on this board who knows me also knows how much I love the country and her wonderful people. However, if and when I see a blatant display of rah-rah-rah misguided patriotic conceit (by anyone from any country) then all bets are off at that point. My comments were addressed to the poster, not to the sovereign nation of the United States as a whole.

The issue here is perception. In many respects, due to island hopping and poor border control, Australia is actually an easier country to illegally enter than the USA. Most importantly, whether you like this reality or not, these days huge numbers of the world's population would prefer to move to countries other than the USA as their primary "new home" of choice. The reasons are wide and varied, but I'm safe in saying that the USA is perceived in a negative light by a lot of people around the world. It didn't used to be, but it is nowadays.

Drug problems, gang problems, city violence, a feeling of not being welcome, a sense that the USA is no longer what she was - all of it adds up to a perception by many potential immigrants that other countries are better bets - and the figures back this up. That's why Europe in particular has the immigration it has these days.

[Scruloose]

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
The USA, due to it's lack of a close archipelago like Indonesia doesn't have the same Boat People issues Australia has - accordingly Australia is in a no-win situation on that one. A knowledge of the facts never hurts.

[hj]
Perhaps I misunderstand you on this. (Boat People issues) We have quite the steady flow of folks arriving illegally by boat in the US. Haitians, Dominicans, Cubans, Chinese all arrive here by boat rather frequently. Thousands and thousands of them. Plus smaller numbers of just about every other nationality you can think of.
[/hj]

[Boo Boo Foo]

Indeed you are correct sir. I'm not quite so sure that the same endemic "people smuggling" aspects are at play however - at least in the context of Boat People. Certainly, I'm very much aware that it happens via the Mexican border, (that is, where illegal immigrants actually pay a courier to smuggle them in) but I suspect the people smuggling aspects through Indonesia is a far greater problem.

[Jodi]

SHORT --

Civil disobediance is not complying with unjust laws. I believe the selective service system to be unjust, ergo I do not comply with it.

That's a mighty convenient definition of civil disobedience you've got there. To most, civil disobedience is not only not complying with the law, but doing so openly so that one's actions serve to put the system -- and others -- on notice of one's belief that the law is unjust, and further indicate a willingness to work within the system so long as what is asked of one is not unjust. IMO, civil disobedience in this instance would be showing up, saying I'm registering because I'm required by law to register, but I'm telling you right now that I won't serve if called. Tell it to the registrant. Write it on the form. And, hopefully, have conducted your life in such a way that if your convictions are later investigated they don't appear to be only a pretext.

If it is unjust, I don't comply when it suits me, and not when it doesn't.

This sentence doesn't make any sense.

I'm not sure how violating the law is sliding under the radar, while complying with a law I disagree with is principled. Registering would be easier, since it is more likely that I would be arrested for breaking the law than complying with it. It is not, however, indicitive of dissent to comply with the law.

Registering would be easier? What crap. You haven't done a thing about this, as far as you've explained. How is showing up easier than not showing up. Your choices are not limited to obeying the law, or quietly breaking the law. Your third choice is true civil disobedience -- obeying the law to the extent you believe you morally can and, once you no longer can, being open, honest, and public about your refusal to do what is asked of you and the reasons why you simply cannot do it. Not incidentally, this puts you in a position of demonstrating your willingness to serve your country to the very best of your ability, and to the limits of your moral ability, and underscores that your violation of the law is not motivated by less noble (and more obvious) reasons, like laziness or cowardice.

[quote]Here you say authority is derived from ability:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority: as in the apparent ability, legal and factual, to do a given thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Later you say these are seperate concepts:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, not. Because they may do it as well. "Can" connotes ability. "May" connotes authority. The government has both.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you're parsing things too finely. Authority by necessity includes ability, as should be obvious; how can you have the authority to do something you don't have the ability to do? To say that some one may (has permission) do something they can't do (lacks ability) is meaningless. Factually, I cannot authorize you to fly, because you can't fly. Legally, I can't authorize you to steal my car, because if I authorize it, you can't steal it. This is entirely tangential, of course; if you're confused about my definition of "authority," consult a dictionary. I'm happy to employ any reasonable definition you might like. That won't include "the government doesn't have the authority to do something if I, King Short, say it doesn't."

In other words, you were not consistant in your usage of the term "authority," while chiding me for using it "incorrectly." I take authority in this sense to be having moral justification to do something, and have done so consistantly.

There is no definition by which the term "authority" will be defined as "having moral justification." "Authority" means a delegate of power to do a given thing.

Furthermore you are quite correct about the term inalienable.

Yes, I know

I don't have a right to refuse to register, only not to fight? Then perhaps I should wait until I'm posted to the front lines and ordered to shoot, then refuse. After all, I don't have a right to refuse training or a plane ride, do I? My decision was to express my objection to the Selective Service at the earliest time possible, that is when they asked me to register.

Except you didn't express your objection, so far as I can tell. You don't refer to yourself as a conscientious objecter, but a "'draft dodger." Which is exactly what you appear to be, since who am I to not take you at your word? Though as to that IMO you certainly should wait until you are actually asked or are imminently going to be asked, to do the thing you object to (fight) before objecting. Unless you object to filling out forms.

Just to be clear, I have argued my case, and you disagree. I am, however, not clear on your objections. Moreover, I don't think you're clear on your objections since they seem to change. When your arguement is refuted, such as your claim the government has the authority to do whatever the public wants, you switch to some vague claim about agreeing "in theory" but dealing with "reality." The, a few posts later, you come back with the same refuted arguement.

My argument has been and is consistent. You wish to talk about rights in their theoretical form -- "inalienable" rights that you assert to possess, and which you further assert the govenrment lacks the "authority" to take away -- but then, inexplicably, you want to attempt to apply those purely theoretical rights to a reality in which they do not exist in any meaningful way. To which I reply: The right you are claiming (the right not to fight if you don't feel like it) does not exist in the reality in which you are attempting to employ it. The authority you claim the government does not have, it quite obviously in reality does have. This is not that complicated.

1) The government does not have the authority* to do something which violates a person's inalienable rights.

First, regarding your asterisk: That's not what "authority" means. Your morality differs from mine, obviously. Neither your opinion nor my opinion of what is morally justifiable under these circumstances has diddly-squat to do with the government's authority. I'm not going to join you in defining a word to mean something it very clearly doesn't mean.

Second, you may argue on a theoretical or philosophical level about what the government is "permitted" to do, and on that level you can certainly argue that the government cannot "take away" your rights. Meanwhile, back down here on Planet Earth, it obviously can, and frequently is accused of doing just that. As I've already explained, but you appear to have ignored that part.

2) Participation in the selective service is a violation of my inalienable rights.

Which one? This is just some right you made up, isn't it? You have no right to refrain from filling out a form. As I've already said, if you're just going to assign yourself rights, make up ones with a more tangible payoff.

3) Whence, the government does not have the authority to require my registration with the selective service.

Since (1) is incorrect and (2) is incorrect, it follows that (3) is incorrect as well. And you're still misusing "authority."

Your argument against 1 appears to be that "authority" is (or isn't) a descriptive term. That is, you have said "authority" denotes what the democratic government is phyically capable of doing (and made the opposite claim as well).

No, wrong again. "Authority" doesn't just mean "you can do whatever you have the physical power to do." Under that rationale, a large man would have the authority to beat up a small man. Certainly I never said this. In fact, I already defined the term: "Authority" means the power to do something, assigned by one (like the citizens) to another (like the government). Note that this also implicates the ability to do the thing in question, since authority without present or future ability is meaninless. But "authority" is not just ability, and you can certainly leave that concept out if it's confusing.

Even if you were consistant in you own usage, this is hardly a subtantive complaint from a moral or ethical standpoint. No one is saying that a government is not phyically able to do things which are in fact unjustified. The concern is with the justification.

The government doesn't have to justify anything, until such time as it is alleged to violating a person's constitutional right through a given enactment. Not just some vague "inalienable" right; a recognized constitutional right that is acknowledged to exist in our society and therefore has a meaning in reality, and an existence beyond a theoretical construct. Though as to that, the general catch-all "justification" for myriad government actions is the promotion or protections of the public health, safety, and/or welfare. Selective Service certainly falls within that rubric.

Your argument against 2 appears to be that I have a right to avoid combat, not to refuse to register. The absurdity of this is more than obvious (and I address it again in this post).

Ah, yes, it's so absurdly obvious that you don't really address it. You say (paraphrasing): "Perhaps I should have to wait until I'm in actual danger of being shot at?" To which I reply, Yes. You should. I wouldn't go so far as to have you up there on the line, but somewhere a little closer than filling out a form in a time when there isn't even an active draft would be IMO more appropriate.

Don't care? Don't post. If you do attack me, however, I will hold you to what you say. As a "professional" (paralegal was it?, if memory serves...), you may want to give your argument some more thought (speaking as a pretty avarage bear).

I said I didn't care deeply about, not that I didn't care at all. Obviously I care marginally, because I think your position is flawed. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a rationalization, since how would I know?, but it's flawed because you're attempting to use a right that doesn't exist in reality, and to deny authority that does exist in reality, in order to justify your actions. And it doesn't work that way. As much as you may be morally opposed to driving less that 80 miles per hour, you do not have a "right" to speed. And the government has the authority to prevent you from doing so. To claim that, yes, you do, when very obviously no, you don't, is delusional. I mean, who do you think decides what rights you have? You? Franklin Roosevelt declared that every person in the world has the right to be free from fear. In a post 9/11 world, how's that working out? And no, I'm not a paralegal, so memory doesn't serve, though why should it, there's no reason for you to know any more about me than I know about you. But I've read my posts in this thread and I think my arguments arepretty clear, so I guess I'll just stick by them, thanks.

Lastly, I'm not "attacking" you. I don't care enough about the issue to attack you. But I'm not going to act like I think your reasoning is solid when IMO it isn't, and I'm certainly not going to act like I respect your actions when as should be obvious, I don't. I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for you if you had engaged in civil disobedience by going in and saying "this is wrong, and I'm not going to participate and I'm here to tell you so, and tel you why, in writing and in person." Which, I don't know, maybe you did, but if you did, you've left that part out.