Reading the post about Jehovah’s Witnesses and military service made me wonder about the difference between conscientious objection and just refusing to serve (if drafted). Like, why didn’t Muhammed Ali go for CO rather than being jailed for refusing to be drafted? Do CO’ers still serve the war effort without fighting? Do activists feel CO is compromising anti-war ideals?
I don’t want to start a “War: What is it good for?” thread; I really want to know about conscientious objection.
During WWII a number of COs volunteered to participate in studies on the effects of starvation and how best to help people suffering same. (To help POWs on release, of course this was also useful to help the camp survivors)
Also, many battlefield medics were COs. All the danger, but no rifle.
I believe Ali was trying to win a political/ethical point: that all NOI are “ministers” and therefor none of them should have to fight. He wasn’t just trying to get out of having to go himself.
IIRC, Muhammed Ali went to jail for refusing to serve. I admire and respect a man who will stand up for what he believes in, even if there are consequences for doing so.
I included the following in a WW II roleplaying game supplement I made for my own use:
I don’t think you can be jailed for refusing to serve because you object to war anymore. I think you have to file your objector status with the selective service, however. IANAL: You might want to ask someone who knows the law better than I do before making a decision based on the above.
FWIW, I once read a book about an Amish man who left the community to get into a life of drugs, crime and gay orgies. Apparently he was still in the Amish community when the Vietnam war was going on, and as such wound up filing CO status. The book then goes on to say that he was required to work in a stateside hospital in some menial capacity; as an orderly or something.
So I guess what I’m saying is that, from this Amish guy’s standpoint at least, going CO may get you out of going to war, but The Man is going to make you do something for your country whether you like it or not. YMMV.
Dave Barry writes about getting CO status (his dad was a minister) in one of his books; he was required to sit before a board and explain why he deserved it, so it seems that getting CO status is largely a matter of convincing them in person that you’re entitled. IIRC, his case was pretty shaky, but he got away with it.
When I registered with the Selective Service (many years ago), I was told that CO status does not matter at that point. It is once you are drafted that you can claim CO status. IANALE.
I believe the difference between conscientious objection and refusing to serve is that a CO will serve, but not in a military capacity. My father was a CO during the Korean War, and he did alternative service in a hospital (which BTW, is what prompted him to become a doctor). Even though my father was Amish, he is not the person rastahomie is talking about.
There are two (basic) ways to object to your country’s participation in war.
The first is to state that you cannot participate, yourself, on moral principal. In the days of the draft, the government made provision for these persons to “opt out” of participation. However, the only thing they could actually avoid was their own personal participation. A person who would not shoot another, but would agree to provide alternative service to the country is covered by the government’s provision, Conscientious Objector status.
The second way to object, is to protest the actual actions of the government. The draft makes no provision for that objection. A very few people in WWII and a quite a few people during the Vietnam conflict pointed out that doing alternative service might keep them from getting shot, but it would still support the war effort by freeing another person to go become cannon fodder. In order to actually oppose war, they needed to refuse to participate in any government action or program. Since the war is an action of the country, opting out of that action is roughly the equivalent of personal secession. For that, the government makes no provision, except to punish the “secessionist.”
There can be many variations on each of these methods.
CO’s can become medics and get shot at, become auxiliary troops and avoid combat, or provide labor in alternative industries. (I had a classmate, just before Vietnam got hot, whose dad was a pharmacist. He used to insist that all the FDA inspectors were just guys avoiding the draft by taking alternative service in another government agency. The kid was a crank and I never bothered to find out if his statements had any truth to them (circa 1964)).)
War objectors may publicly accept incarceration to prove their point (Muhammad Ali), they may flee the country, or they may stage protests against the country while avoiding the draft through flight or deception. (The latter two methods draw the most contempt from the general populace, of course. Without giving blanket approval to those two actions, I will note that in different contexts, they are not seen as evil: a person who fled Nazi Germany to avoid conscription or who opposed Hitler within Germany while trying to avoid imprisonment are generally not condemned.)
I believe this is true, though IANAL either. I used to work with Mennonite folks and young men would come by to discuss how to go about filing as COs because they were coming up on 18 and didn’t want to register as available through the SS.
You don’t claim CO status until a draft is in effect. Basically, the Select Service doesn’t care about your claim to CO status; it’s the draft board that will deal with that. There is also informatiion on who qualifies as a CO here.
There are two types of COs: those who will service in the military, but not in a combat position; and those who are opposed to serving in the military in any position. These latter COs serve in alternative service positions. Although I didn’t see anything about those who refuse to serve at all, these people would be subject to criminal prosecution.
There are more than two types of Conscientious Objectors. I know for a fact, since I became one. I was already serving in the military, in a combat position when I did so. I applied to the Department of the Army for classification as a Conscientious Objector. My objection was not to combat, nor even to killing. My objection was specific to my unit’s mission. It was specific to my units existing orders.
Although the military did not find it easy to do so, it turns out that Army Regulations do have provisions for emerging ethics in its soldiers. I eventually received temporary status as a non-combatant conscientious objector, pending resolution of my specific refusal to obey specific orders in a review by the Department of Army. Since the position, and the orders, and even the exact unit were classified Secret, this process was not completed during the remainder of my enlistment. My pending case was left pending, and I was discharged without any notation of that status in my records. No doubt the file is in some locked drawer in the Pentagon to this very day, awaiting bureaucratic action.
To give you an example of how Byzantine this process became, I was required to write explanations of my grounds for refusing to obey certain orders. I was told in instructions to be specific, and complete. When I finished writing the report, it was classified Secret. Since part of the process to become a CO was suspension of my clearance, I was no longer allowed to see the report I had written!
However clumsy, and absurd, I must report that eventually the process worked. I have a spotless military record, and an Honorable Discharge. My ethical stand was given minimal respect pending its review. How it would have played out, if the process had been completed I will never know.