NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright. In the United States, there is yet more talk of an unlikely, but possible reinstatement of the draft. Hypothetically, if you were drafted what would you do? Would you go? Would you flee and merely dodge it?

I for one would go. I feel that because my Grandfather was drafted during Vietnam I'd be obliged to go. What about you all?

I don't know what kind of physical is required for being accepted, but if I made it past it, I'm sure I would have to do something weaselly.

I for one would go. I feel that because my Grandfather was drafted during Vietnam I'd be obliged to go. What about you all?

???

I could make suppositions here, but they would mainly be partisan and point scoring. Care to explain your reasoning for this a bit more?

If I were drafted first of all I'd be shocked. 32 year olds don't usually get drafted, do they? Then I'd go. My nation calls, I've got a responsibility to answer. Then I'd try to set a good example among the filthy foreign savages in Iraq or Afghanistan so that they get to see how a civilized person behaves himself.

First off, voting for a draft right now is political suicide. Drafting people to fight in an extremely unpopular war and possibly to invade another country and turn that into an unpopular war? Who the hell wants that?

Second off, I would liekly be 4-F'd. I am in good physical shape, sure, but I am 24 years old, overweight, and the clincher - my eyesight is terrible. Sitting a little over a foot from my computer screen, I can't even read the text that says "NATIONSTATES" at the top left hand corner of the screen unless i squint; I can barely tell that it might be text. And I can only read it for a split second, and it goes blurry again. The lenses on my glasses are so thick that, if my wife puts them on, they give her a headache (she wears glasses, but her eyes are in much better shape than mine.)

It depends on the war, but probably not. I'd go to Canada.

hmmmm im a 49 year old woman. if they drafted me id show right up and see what they wanted me for.

hmmmm im a 49 year old woman. if they drafted me id show right up and see what they wanted me for.

"Special Services"? :)

hmmmm im a 49 year old woman. if they drafted me id show right up and see what they wanted me for.

I'll go with you, Ash. I'm 55 and I'd be very interested in how my number came up. :D

I'll go with you, Ash. I'm 55 and I'd be very interested in how my number came up. :D

I'll show you around. I've been twice, and I won't mind going around again.

First off, voting for a draft right now is political suicide. Drafting people to fight in an extremely unpopular war and possibly to invade another country and turn that into an unpopular war? Who the hell wants that?

Second off, I would liekly be 4-F'd. I am in good physical shape, sure, but I am 24 years old, overweight, and the clincher - my eyesight is terrible. Sitting a little over a foot from my computer screen, I can't even read the text that says "NATIONSTATES" at the top left hand corner of the screen unless i squint; I can barely tell that it might be text. And I can only read it for a split second, and it goes blurry again. The lenses on my glasses are so thick that, if my wife puts them on, they give her a headache (she wears glasses, but her eyes are in much better shape than mine.)
Last I checked, bad eyesight is not a debilitating physical deformation. Nice try.

No draft for me, I'm a British cripple.

Last I checked, bad eyesight is not a debilitating physical deformation. Nice try.

Unless your eyesight makes you legally blind, and is not correctable.

"Special Services"? :)

"If we was men, we'd be talking about layin' down our lives for the country. As women, we can talk about laying down."
-- Nanny Ogg

hmmmm im a 49 year old woman. if they drafted me id show right up and see what they wanted me for.

Maybe someone told them how is your cooking.

As a dual UK/US citizen, it would be time to use my US passport as barbecue fuel.

As a dual UK/US citizen, it would be time to use my US passport as barbecue fuel.

Don't worry. We know who you are, and know where you live, and can have the passport reprinted in no time.

Unless your eyesight makes you legally blind, and is not correctable.

You might be surprised what gets people out of the military. My wife's father once tried to enlist, but due to deafness in one ear, they 4-F'd him, too.

In 'Nam, you could get a draft exemption for being too tall... I think I'd qualify:rolleyes:

You might be surprised what gets people out of the military. My wife's father once tried to enlist, but due to deafness in one ear, they 4-F'd him, too.

That's interesting. While in service, I went deaf in my right ear, and that never seemed to be a problem for them.

I guess once you're in, you're in.

You might be surprised what gets people out of the military. My wife's father once tried to enlist, but due to deafness in one ear, they 4-F'd him, too.

That is an entirely different problem than corrective lenses.

I could probably get off on medical though: bad back, bad feet, bad eye sight, hearing capability worse than that of people 8 years older than me.

As I am only the bright young(and hellish) age of 16, I'm not eligible for the draft yet. Although its fairly safe to say that the Iraq war is going to last another 2 years, I would heed the call up, but I would not be happy about it at all, and would try to get it abolished before my number came up.

Don't worry. We know who you are, and know where you live, and can have the passport reprinted in no time.

Not if the person renounces it.

I wonder how difficult it would be to convince people of conscientious objection to being drafted for an obviously offensive movement.

Not if the person renounces it.

You have to do that at the embassy.

For some reason I have the Bohemian Rhapsody stuck in my head. (Gotta leave you all behind to dodge the draft...)

I wonder how difficult it would be to convince people of conscientious objection to being drafted for an obviously offensive movement.

To get CO status, there has to be a previous pattern of belief (usually religious).

So, if you were born and raised Amish, it would be easy. For others, it's harder to prove.

And CO status doesn't get you out of service, or out of a combat area. It makes you an unarmed soldier in a combat zone.

You can still drive trucks, cook food, and work as a medic or construction person - they just won't let you touch a weapon, even if you're all being shot at.

Alright. In the United States, there is yet more talk of an unlikely, but possible reinstatement of the draft. Hypothetically, if you were drafted what would you do? Would you go? Would you flee and merely dodge it?

I for one would go. I feel that because my Grandfather was drafted during Vietnam I'd be obliged to go. What about you all?

If I were drafted, I would be so for my technical expertise. I was a Electronic Warfare Technician in the Navy and I would most likely be so again. So I would be stationed on a ship(probably an aircraft carrier) and my job would be preventing incoming missiles from hitting my ship. All in all, I can live with the knowledge that I'd be defending my shipmates and not necessarily killing the enemy. But I'm 34 now, so even that is becoming less and less likely. *nod*

To get CO status, there has to be a previous pattern of belief (usually religious).

So, if you were born and raised Amish, it would be easy. For others, it's harder to prove.

And CO status doesn't get you out of service, or out of a combat area. It makes you an unarmed soldier in a combat zone.

You can still drive trucks, cook food, and work as a medic or construction person - they just won't let you touch a weapon, even if you're all being shot at.

Fuck...

To get CO status, there has to be a previous pattern of belief (usually religious).

So, if you were born and raised Amish, it would be easy. For others, it's harder to prove.

And CO status doesn't get you out of service, or out of a combat area. It makes you an unarmed soldier in a combat zone.

You can still drive trucks, cook food, and work as a medic or construction person - they just won't let you touch a weapon, even if you're all being shot at.

That sucks.

If I were drafted, I would be so for my technical expertise. I was a Electronic Warfare Technician in the Navy and I would most likely be so again. So I would be stationed on a ship(probably an aircraft carrier) and my job would be preventing incoming missiles from hitting my ship. All in all, I can live with the knowledge that I'd be defending my shipmates and not necessarily killing the enemy. But I'm 34 now, so even that is becoming less and less likely. *nod*

Totally OT, what carrier where you on?

Fuck...

The "objection" in Conscientious Objector status is an objection to personal delivery of violence.

You can bet that they'll make very, very sure that you have absolutely no way to defend yourself if something bad is happening.

The "objection" in Conscientious Objector status is an objection to personal delivery of violence.

You can bet that they'll make very, very sure that you have absolutely no way to defend yourself if something bad is happening.

I have the opposite affliction. I object strongly to receiving violence.

For some reason I have the Bohemian Rhapsody stuck in my head. (Gotta leave you all behind to dodge the draft...)

I've got "The Call Up" stuck in mine.

"It's up to you not to heed the call up
You must not act the way you were brought up"

Totally OT, what carrier where you on?

USS George Washington.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/images/nimitz1.jpg

:)

I'll show you around. I've been twice, and I won't mind going around again.

That'd be fine. I think, though, if I really thought I was going to be drafted, I'd join the Navy, even at my age. If basic didn't kill me, I think I'd look damn good in a Navy uniform, and I could do something administrative, I suppose, while the younglings are off seeing the world and fighting the good fight. (Gad, I'm in a strange mood today.)

USS George Washington.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/images/nimitz1.jpg

:)

Pretty ... this (http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/turner/i/temeraire.jpg) is more like what my assignment would be ... :D

Pretty ... this (http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/turner/i/temeraire.jpg) is more like what my assignment would be ... :D

YAY! :D

...i think.

USS George Washington.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/images/nimitz1.jpg

:)

I'm sure we weren't to far away from eachother at times. I was on the Kitty Hawk in SD, '94-'98.

Fortunately I'm going into a strategic field, so it's doubtful that I'd be drafted, although if I were drafter, I'd certainly go, never mind my family history.

Fortunately, it won't happen, as it would be political suicide to reinstate the draft, so I don't feel I should worry about it all that much.

YAY! :D

...i think.

HMS Temeraire was a 98-gun second-rate ship of the line of the Royal Navy, launched in 1798 at Chatham, which fought at the Battle of Trafalgar. She was named after the French 74-gun ship taken at the Battle of Lagos (1759), following the British custom of naming new ships after old prizes.

At Trafalgar under the command of Eliab Harvey, she was next astern to Victory, Temeraire was badly damaged as she fought to relieve Nelson's flagship. During the battle, Temeraire helped force the surrender of the French ship Redoutable and captured the French ship Fougueux.

She became famous as the subject of two paintings by J. M. W. Turner, one showing her at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, the other showing her being towed to the breaker's yard in 1838.

Temeraire served as a prison ship from 1812–1815 and as a receiving ship until 1836 when she was briefly recommissioned. She was broken up in 1838.

Hmm, HMS Temeraire was rather younger than I am when she was broken up. Ah, well, she had a harder life.

"How free can a country be when you're required by law to defend it?"

"How free can a country be when you're required by law to defend it?"

My thoughts exactly.

I'm sure we weren't to far away from eachother at times. I was on the Kitty Hawk in SD, '94-'98.

I'm afraid we were. GW was east coast when I was aboard, '96-'01. Norfolk. *nod*

But I had a buddy from C School who went to Kitty Hawk in 96. *nod*

I'm afraid we were. GW was east coast when I was aboard, '96-'01. Norfolk. *nod*

But I had a buddy from C School who went to Kitty Hawk in 96. *nod*

See? Everyone's connected to everyone by six or fewer degrees of separation.

I would ignore anything Eve is saying about conscientious objector status as I feel he has very little of a clue what the fuck he is talking about.

Hmm, HMS Temeraire was rather younger than I am when she was broken up. Ah, well, she had a harder life.

http://h1.ripway.com/Dallas/-Dallas-/The_More_You_Know2.jpg

:)

See? Everyone's connected to everyone by six or fewer degrees of separation.

Or in the case of celebrities, Kevin Bacon. :)

I would ignore anything Eve is saying about conscientious objector status as I feel he has very little of a clue what the fuck he is talking about.

I'm pretty sure I know more about it than you do.

Interesting question.

If I am not mistaken, under current Selective Service law, the cut-off age for being drafted (if a draft should arise) is 26. Seeing as I turn 26 this month and the fact that raising the age would be VERY unpopular, I'm not very worried about it.

In the highly unlikely event that a draft would be instated and the upper age limit for the draft was raised, I'd most likely seek commissioned status and join voluntarily and serve in the Navy. The inflow of drafted recruits would most certainly need an expanded commissioned officer structure and I would most likely qualify.

For those that want to avoid serving after receiving a draft notice... your options will be slim.

I can recommend the following, but you'd pursue it at your own risk.

From what I understand, the military has ALWAYS been considered a "volunteer" organization... even during the draft. Since becoming a soldier involves waiving certain rights, and since people cannot be forced into involuntary service, part of the drafting process involves a symbolic act of "volunteering".

This takes place in a certain part of the process where you stand along a line with others that are being "drafted". The officer tells those joining the military to take a step forward. If you take a step forward - congratulations, you just volunteered to join the military. If you do not take a step forward, you have not volunteered... and they cannot FORCE you to serve anyway.

What they can (and assuredly WILL) do is "strongly and aggressively encourage" you to "volunteer"... and this can be quite nasty and unpleasant, to say the least. There are articles on the web you can find if you Google Search "avoiding the draft"... one article I have found is here:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=13407

There are others you can find as well.

I don't recommend or endorse this path. I would not do it myself. They will harass and beat you and most likely send you on your way... and send another draft notice shortly after. But it is important to understand the process and what is going on if you find yourself DETERMINED not to join... ultimately, neither the government nor the military has a right to take our free will from us.

What they can (and assuredly WILL) do is "strongly and aggressively encourage" you to "volunteer"... and this can be quite nasty and unpleasant, to say the least. There are articles on the web you can find if you Google Search "avoiding the draft"... one article I have found is here:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=13407

There are others you can find as well.

I don't recommend or endorse this path. I would not do it myself. They will harass and beat you and most likely send you on your way... and send another draft notice shortly after.

Bullshit. Have any links to current military practices in the US that "beat" people into joining?

Bullshit. Have any links to current military practices in the US that "beat" people into joining?

I don't believe I said it was current practice.

I believe I said that, during a draft, if someone was served a draft notice and refused to take the step forward to "volunteer", it would not be looked upon favorably and they most likely would be convinced "off the books".

I also believe I recommended AGAINST refusing to volunteer, but was simply pointing it out as an option.

There's no need for you to go about looking for a fight where there is none.

I don't believe I said it was current practice.

I believe I said that, during a draft, if someone was served a draft notice and refused to take the step forward to "volunteer", it would not be looked upon favorably and they most likely would be convinced "off the books".

More bullshit.

I also believe I recommended AGAINST refusing to volunteer, but was simply pointing it out as an option.

There's no need for you to go about looking for a fight where there is none.

There's no need for you to post colossal bullshit.

To correct Reolumina's idiotic view of what's supposed to happen during a draft...

If you get called up, you may or may not get to volunteer for your choice of service - perhaps even the MOS within a service - depending on your ASVAB scores and the needs of the service.

Note that "volunteering" in this sense is a misnomer - since they already have you. Even if you don't volunteer for the Marines, or to be a radar technician, or some shorthanded specialty, you're in the military regardless.

Volunteering BEFORE you're even drafted - before a draft notice comes down - is something you do on your own. No one is going to come to your house and beat you and force you to "volunteer".

If you do volunteer without ever being drafted, you get more of a choice of your assignment and branch - but that's it.

To correct Reolumina's idiotic view of what's supposed to happen during a draft...

If you get called up, you may or may not get to volunteer for your choice of service - perhaps even the MOS within a service - depending on your ASVAB scores and the needs of the service.

Note that "volunteering" in this sense is a misnomer - since they already have you. Even if you don't volunteer for the Marines, or to be a radar technician, or some shorthanded specialty, you're in the military regardless.

Volunteering BEFORE you're even drafted - before a draft notice comes down - is something you do on your own. No one is going to come to your house and beat you and force you to "volunteer".

If you do volunteer without ever being drafted, you get more of a choice of your assignment and branch - but that's it.I suppose we'll all have to hope that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is still in effect.

To correct Reolumina's idiotic view of what's supposed to happen during a draft...

If you get called up, you may or may not get to volunteer for your choice of service - perhaps even the MOS within a service - depending on your ASVAB scores and the needs of the service.

Note that "volunteering" in this sense is a misnomer - since they already have you. Even if you don't volunteer for the Marines, or to be a radar technician, or some shorthanded specialty, you're in the military regardless.

Volunteering BEFORE you're even drafted - before a draft notice comes down - is something you do on your own. No one is going to come to your house and beat you and force you to "volunteer".

If you do volunteer without ever being drafted, you get more of a choice of your assignment and branch - but that's it.
Instead of starting a fight about it, or insulting me outright, you could have just mentioned this and I would have discussed it in a civilized manner with you.

I lost my cool when I wrote my last message and I apologize. I said rather inappropriate things.

I was not talking about volunteering BEFORE being drafted. No one will ever beat someone into volunteering, and if that is your perception of what I wrote, you misunderstood me.

I was simply stating that, from what I understand, when you receive the draft notice and report, they do NOT "have you" - there is a symbolic act of "volunteering" in the process. It is mentioned in the link I posted.

Here is an excerpt from a book which was mentioned at that link:
The Army induction officer instructed the draftees to "take one step forward" as their names were called, and said that step would signify their induction into the Army. When reluctant Willie's name was called, he answered present, but did not step forward. After the ceremony, he went home instead of to camp. When the MP's came for him, he went to court for a writ of habeas corpus to retain his freedom. "The officer himself," Willie argued, "said the step forward is what would make me a soldier. As I didn't take the step, I'm still a civilian and the Army has no claim on me."

Counsel for the Army replied, "The Army isn't being run by childish games. Willie and a hundred others appeared to be inducted, and he was
inducted before the whole group as any fool there could plainly see." Willie retained his civilian status. The court ruled that the draft law required some definite ceremony to transform a civilian into a soldier. As the Army decided to have one step forward constitute the ceremony, and Willie didn't take the step, he wasn't a soldier. U.S. Court of Appeals, 1954
Thus, the US Court of Appeals takes the "idiotic" position I have mentioned.

There must be a definite ceremony to transform a civilian into a soldier, even when that civilian is "drafted". Refuse to take that step, and you're not a "soldier" - the Constitution prohibits forcing people into involuntary servitude.

Thus, the US Court of Appeals takes the "idiotic" position I have mentioned.

There must be a definite ceremony to transform a civilian into a soldier, even when that civilian is "drafted". Refuse to take that step, and you're not a "soldier" - the Constitution prohibits forcing people into involuntary servitude.

1954. It's no longer done that way.

You would like to think it is, because of your horror of the military.

1954. It's no longer done that way.

You would like to think it is, because of your horror of the military.

If I remember correctly, in my original post I said I would most likely elect to join before I would ever be drafted and serve as a commissioned officer.

I will soon have a BA Degree and am considering seeking a commission even WITHOUT a draft.

I certainly do not have a "horror" of the military.

As for it no longer being done that way - there is no "draft" anymore, so of course it is not done that way. But can you give me a citation of the bill that has changed the requirement of a symbolic act of volunteering should a draft be reinstated?

The US Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude, even in the service of the government. The requirement of an act to transform a person from "civilian status" to "soldier status" is derived from the US Constitution itself.

Last time I checked, the US Constitution has not been repealed. Thus, one would imagine that it would STILL be done that way.

If it has been changed, please cite the bill and/or Constitutional Amendment that changed it.

Instead of starting a fight about it, or insulting me outright, you could have just mentioned this and I would have discussed it in a civilized manner with you.

I lost my cool when I wrote my last message and I apologize. I said rather inappropriate things.

I was not talking about volunteering BEFORE being drafted. No one will ever beat someone into volunteering, and if that is your perception of what I wrote, you misunderstood me.

I was simply stating that, from what I understand, when you receive the draft notice and report, they do NOT "have you" - there is a symbolic act of "volunteering" in the process. It is mentioned in the link I posted.

Here is an excerpt from a book which was mentioned at that link:

Thus, the US Court of Appeals takes the "idiotic" position I have mentioned.

There must be a definite ceremony to transform a civilian into a soldier, even when that civilian is "drafted". Refuse to take that step, and you're not a "soldier" - the Constitution prohibits forcing people into involuntary servitude.



I'm unable to find a court case relating to the alledged book. There's quite a bit of other innacurate information on that site. Do you have any other references to it?

Eve Online -

If you don't believe me, read Section one of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

A bill cannot repeal that. I do not recall there being an amendment that strikes this out of the Constitution either.

Therefore there MUST be an act of "volunteering" of some sort... which is the step forward I had mentioned earlier.

It would be the same if there was a draft as it was back in 1954.

So, if you want to call my position idiotic, you are stating that the U.S. Constitution is an idiotic document - in which case, I would have to ask: Why do you hate the highest Law of our country?

The US Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude, even in the service of the government. The requirement of an act to transform a person from "civilian status" to "soldier status" is derived from the US Constitution itself.

It's not considered involuntary servitude.

BTW, according to US Federal Code, every male between the ages of 18 and 45 is already part of the military, in the form of the unorganized Federal militia.

As such members, they are subject to immediate call up on demand.

I think that's where your idea falls apart.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

The draft is merely sending orders to members of the unorganized militia to show up.

The militia is also enshrined in our Constitution.

Sorry, no way out for you.

It's not considered involuntary servitude.

BTW, according to US Federal Code, every male between the ages of 18 and 45 is already part of the military, in the form of the unorganized Federal militia.

As such members, they are subject to immediate call up on demand.

I think that's where your idea falls apart.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

The draft is merely sending orders to members of the unorganized militia to show up.

The militia is also enshrined in our Constitution.

Sorry, no way out for you.
A decent line of reasoning, in my opinion - much better than simply dismissing what I had to say as "bullshit", as though it was not perhaps an opinion I held in simple error. You'll win a lot more debates through a reasonable and affable approach than through outright dismissal.

With that said, while I agree that able-bodied individuals are a part of the "unorganized militia", I'm not quite as certain that I agree with your statement that being a member of the militia makes one a member of the military as well. The Military is a professional fighting force committed to direct service to the government, while an unorganized militia force is very much "civilian" in nature - I'm not sure I agree that a member of a militia is a "soldier" in the proper sense of the word.

I am looking for a better refrence to the US Court of Appeals - it takes a little time to look these things up. The fact remains, however, that in becoming a soldier a civilian most certainly gives up some rights that are otherwise protected by law... if your argument holds true, then those rights are never truly possessed in the first place if the government can just "call up the militia" at will.

Do you have any citations that show members of the unorganized militia are "members of the military" in the proper sense? That would help me in seeing your point.

Alrighty. Sticking my nose in.

Last time I checked, if the Draft did start, I think they said they set the lottery age at like 20 and would move up, if I recall the article that came out on CNN.

So yeah 32-45 you guys have probably nothing really to worry about.

Second, if you are CO, If you're put as a cook or what not, you will be still trained as a soldier, and able to use firearms to defend yourself. The only support classes that are not armed and can never be armed are Chaplains, and maybe medics, though I have heard of Medics carrying arms.

And if I was drafted, I would either go Army, or Navy (Most likely Navy) and I would be a Chaplain. And no, I do not care if I do not get a gun to defend myself, even if I am in the action. That's all.

I am looking for a better refrence to the US Court of Appeals - it takes a little time to look these things up. The fact remains, however, that in becoming a soldier a civilian most certainly gives up some rights that are otherwise protected by law... if your argument holds true, then those rights are never truly possessed in the first place if the government can just "call up the militia" at will.



Every case I've found has upheld the draft laws w/ the exception of "religious only" CO.

United States v. O'Brien
Wayte v. United States
Clark v. Gabriel
Gillette v. United States

Actually if you claim conscientious objection you don't necessarily have to take a non-combat position in the military. For example you might object on the grounds that you are only freeing up someone else for combat or the fact that you are as much a part of the fighting (by providing the necessary support) as those doing the actual killing.

In this case you would probably do some sort of non-military service. For example see CPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Public_Service).

Every case I've found has upheld the draft laws w/ the exception of "religious only" CO.

United States v. O'Brien
Wayte v. United States
Clark v. Gabriel
Gillette v. United States

No, I'm not arguing against the draft laws themselves. Arguments against their legality are questionable at best, and if someone received a draft card, the government should be able to expect them to show up.

The argument I am making is that the government cannot FORCE someone into military involuntarily under the XIIIth Amendment.

Showing up to meet the draft board is not an induction. The induction is when a civilian takes a step forward when told that all joining the military should do so. The reason why the draft itself is legal is precisely because this constitutes a voluntary induction...no one is FORCED into involuntary service. In that manner, the draft laws as they are do NOT violate the XIIIth Amendment.

It is on those grounds that I am arguing a person can refuse to take the step forward... although the military will prosecute and the person doing so better have a good lawyer. From what I understand, the person refusing to be inducted should have at least SOME ground to stand on, although they must be very careful with the arguments they use.

I would either flee the country or just refuse to serve, and take whatever consequences would ensue.

I suppose we'll all have to hope that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is still in effect.

And that would make it easy.

No, I'm not arguing against the draft laws themselves. Arguments against their legality are questionable at best, and if someone received a draft card, the government should be able to expect them to show up.

The argument I am making is that the government cannot FORCE someone into military involuntarily under the XIIIth Amendment.

Showing up to meet the draft board is not an induction. The induction is when a civilian takes a step forward when told that all joining the military should do so. The reason why the draft itself is legal is precisely because this constitutes a voluntary induction...no one is FORCED into involuntary service. In that manner, the draft laws as they are do NOT violate the XIIIth Amendment.

It is on those grounds that I am arguing a person can refuse to take the step forward... although the military will prosecute and the person doing so better have a good lawyer. From what I understand, the person refusing to be inducted should have at least SOME ground to stand on, although they must be very careful with the arguments they use.



I understand that. What I'm asking for is confirmation that the "step forward" is what's required. A cutnpaste quote (found verbatim on other sites) from an unsourced book on a suspect site isn't very good evidence. If it were that easy, there wouldn't have been so many people needing to run in the 60's/70's especially looking at the results of the numerous other judgements on conscription.

I understand that. What I'm asking for is confirmation that the "step forward" is what's required. A cutnpaste quote (found verbatim on other sites) from an unsourced book on a suspect site isn't very good evidence. If it were that easy, there wouldn't have been so many people needing to run in the 60's/70's especially looking at the results of the numerous other judgements on conscription.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure you're asking for the right thing. I am looking for a reference for that, and I agree it is not good evidence.

Even if by chance it is true, I'm not certain it is an "easy" means of avoiding the draft.

But don't worry, I'm certainly looking to find the citation - I am a firm believer in those when necessary. :)

As it stands, the quote seems spurious, and on the grounds that I cannot find a reference to it, I withdraw it as support for my position.

I'm not one to defend that which I cannot defend, and I'm certainly willing to admit when I am wrong, which I was regarding that case.

For the time being I still stand by other assertions that I've made, although I am willing to consider evidence that I am wrong. As I stated before, I've always considered the Draft to be legal and NOT in contradiction with the XIIIth Amendment on the grounds that it IS implicitly voluntary by virtue of the notion that inductment in a voluntary act, even if the actual "voluntary" aspect of it is minimal and not outright stated.

If there is no voluntary action involved in induction, and no connection is shown to exist between a civilian member of the unorganized militia and a soldier in the organized armed forces (and if such a connection DOES exist, it renders the concept of a "civilian" and the rights connected thereto somewhat meaningless - opening a different can of worms), then I am not certain as to the legality of the draft in itself.

I'd leave the country as soon as it instituted a draught without waiting to see if I got called.

As it stands, the quote seems spurious, and on the grounds that I cannot find a reference to it, I withdraw it as support for my position.

I'm not one to defend that which I cannot defend, and I'm certainly willing to admit when I am wrong, which I was regarding that case.

For the time being I still stand by other assertions that I've made, although I am willing to consider evidence that I am wrong. As I stated before, I've always considered the Draft to be legal and NOT in contradiction with the XIIIth Amendment on the grounds that it IS implicitly voluntary by virtue of the notion that inductment in a voluntary act, even if the actual "voluntary" aspect of it is minimal and not outright stated.

If there is no voluntary action involved in induction, and no connection is shown to exist between a civilian member of the unorganized militia and a soldier in the organized armed forces (and if such a connection DOES exist, it renders the concept of a "civilian" and the rights connected thereto somewhat meaningless - opening a different can of worms), then I am not certain as to the legality of the draft in itself.



Fair enough.

If you go on another train of logic, it is stated in the constitution that Congress can raise armies and this has been supported through numerous SCOTUS decision that that includes the draft/conscription. By becoming a citizen of the US, you are making yourself available for military service w/ some limited exceptions. This was upheld several times when the US refused citizenship to applicants who refused military service (non-CO's) during draft times. Read through some of the cases I listed. They're most interesting.

Depends on the circumstances. If I was being drafted to be sent off to something idiotic like Iraq or Vietnam, nope. If it was for something like national defense from an invasion or, I don't know, to protect NATO allies from a Soviet invasion, that sort of thing, I probably would.

"How free can a country be when you're required by law to defend it?"

QFT.

I'm unlikely to be drafted, seeing as I'm 15(tomorrow) and female.

The draft won't be reinstated this year, nor next year. It's a highly unpopular war that would probably end promptly in 2009 under a most-likely Democrat president. If women get drafted I'll be 18 after the need for a draft is gone.

Fair enough.

If you go on another train of logic, it is stated in the constitution that Congress can raise armies and this has been supported through numerous SCOTUS decision that that includes the draft/conscription. By becoming a citizen of the US, you are making yourself available for military service w/ some limited exceptions. This was upheld several times when the US refused citizenship to applicants who refused military service (non-CO's) during draft times. Read through some of the cases I listed. They're most interesting.
Hmm... upon reflection of the cases you have cited, and what I have read in Selective Draft Law, particularly relating to Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution, it would appear that the government does in fact lawfully have it within its power to compel military service, and thus a "voluntary act" on behalf of the person being drafted would not be necessary.

Thus it seems to me that you and Eve Online were quite right, and I was quite wrong on the matter. As I said, I am always willing to admit when I am wrong when I have been shown to be. :)

It's all moot, anyway. I will be past the cut-off age for the draft under current laws by the end of the month (26, unless I'm mistaken about THAT too). Regardless, if a draft was necessary, I would probably end up seeking a commission regardless of whether I'd have to serve otherwise.

Thank you for an interesting debate. :)

"How free can a country be when you're required by law to defend it?"
This is what the US Supreme Court decided on that particular question:

"The grant to Congress of power to raise and support armies, considered in conjunction with the grants of the powers to declare war, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, and to make laws necessary and proper for executing granted powers (Constitution, Art. I, § 8), includes the power to compel military service, exercised by the Selective Draft Law of May 18, 1917, c. 15, 40 Stat. 76. This conclusion, obvious upon the face of the Constitution, is confirmed by an historical examination of the subject.

The army power, combining the powers vested in the Congress and the States under the Confederation, embraces the complete military power of government, as is manifested not only by the grant made, but by the express limitation of Art. I, § 10, prohibiting the States, without the consent of Congress, from keeping troops in time of peace or engaging in war.

The militia power reserved to the States by the militia clause (Art. I, § 8), while separate and distinct in its field, and while serving to diminish occasion for exercising the army power, is subject to be restricted in, or even deprived of, its area of operation through the army power, according to the extent to which Congress, in its discretion, finds necessity for calling the latter into play.

The service which may be exacted of the citizen under the army power is not limited to the specific purposes for which Congress is [p367] expressly authorized, by the militia clause, to call the militia; the presence in the Constitution of such express regulations affords no basis for an inference that the army power, when exerted, is not complete and dominant to the extent of its exertion.

Compelled military service is neither repugnant to a free government nor in conflict with the constitutional guaranties of individual liberty. Indeed, it may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the duty of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right of the government to compel it.

The power of Congress to compel military service as in the Selective Draft Law, clearly sustained by the original Constitution, is even more manifest under the Fourteenth Amendment, which, as frequently has been pointed out, broadened the national scope of the government by causing citizenship of the United States to be paramount and dominant, instead of being subordinate and derivative, thus operating generally upon the powers conferred by the Constitution.

The constitutionality of the Selective Draft Law also is upheld against the following objections: (1) That, by some of its administrative features, it delegates federal power to state officials; (2) that it vests both legislative and judicial power in administrative officers; (3) that, by exempting ministers of religion and theological students under certain conditions and by relieving from strictly military service members of certain religious sects whose tenets deny the moral right to engage in war, it is repugnant to the First Amendment, as establishing or interfering with religion, and (4) that it creates involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.

The cases are stated in the opinion."

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0245_0366_ZO.html

Agree or disagree as you like. :)

I would like to congratulate the lovely little exchange that has been going on, quite refreshing.

I personally have a well documented claim to general opposition to war. It is kind of in my family ethos.
For anyone worried about the draft, who says that they would definetly run, all you need to do is document reasons why you oppose war in general. There are several webpages with how to's: http://www.peaceabbey.org/confcenter/coregistry.htm isnt bad, but really i would just suggest going to the wiki and reading up a bit and then surveying the links down at the bottom.
I believe that there are various levels of CO status, you can either be of the level where you do not carry firearms (this includes medics who I believe can carry firearms if they so wish as well as deskjobs) and simply not assisting the war effort in any way. I think that the more people who stay in the country and fight a draft, the better. In either case, I dont think Bush would try to implement a draft at this point, and I dont see anybody else as willing to plow into public opposition they way he is. Honestly, lowest approval ratings since Nixon? image what would happen if he attempted a draft?
I dont see it happening, but reccomend preparing oneself if you do not wish to fight.

Hmm... upon reflection of the cases you have cited, and what I have read in Selective Draft Law, particularly relating to Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution, it would appear that the government does in fact lawfully have it within its power to compel military service, and thus a "voluntary act" on behalf of the person being drafted would not be necessary.

Thus it seems to me that you and Eve Online were quite right, and I was quite wrong on the matter. As I said, I am always willing to admit when I am wrong when I have been shown to be. :)

It's all moot, anyway. I will be past the cut-off age for the draft under current laws by the end of the month (26, unless I'm mistaken about THAT too). Regardless, if a draft was necessary, I would probably end up seeking a commission regardless of whether I'd have to serve otherwise.

Thank you for an interesting debate. :)



The pleasures mine. I would actually like to see someone trying to leave a draft office by claiming "I didn't step forward. Nyah, Nyah, you can't catch me." right before they laugh at him and throw his ass in jail. :)

I wouldn't worry about a draft. The military doesn't want it, the people don't want it, and most politicians don't want it. The only ones who keep bringing it up are two nitwit politicians trying to keep their names in the papers.

"If we was men, we'd be talking about layin' down our lives for the country. As women, we can talk about laying down."
-- Nanny Ogg

Operation: Take one for the country.


Or whatever it's name was. It was some hoax.

Last I checked, bad eyesight is not a debilitating physical deformation. Nice try.

I know for a fact if you're blind or legally blind in one eye they don't want you.

Alright. In the United States, there is yet more talk of an unlikely, but possible reinstatement of the draft. Hypothetically, if you were drafted what would you do? Would you go? Would you flee and merely dodge it?

I for one would go. I feel that because my Grandfather was drafted during Vietnam I'd be obliged to go. What about you all?

If they did it would lead to all the new recruits doing a coup.

The 13th amendment does not cover military service – this position has been stated by the SCotUS. It applies only to things like States requiring residents to do manual labor like repairing roads or such instead of just a pure monetary collection.

Selective service is completely 100% legal without any of this codswallop about having to take a step forward or whatever.

The US, and probably any first-world nation, would not institute a draft. Not only would it be politically infeasible, the military (at least in the US) would staunchly object. The quality of recruit you get from a draft is horrendous. Even with the need for soldiers at the moment, the US armed services still turn many people away for unsuitability.

An all volunteer military (and no, that is not a euphemism – nobody has a gun to their head) provides quality candidates who are motivated and mentally suitable. When my life depends on the guys next to me, I want them to be highly capable and motivated soldiers, not some stoner with an attitude problem who is thinking about shooting himself in the foot.

The exception to this would be the countries that require service of every able-bodied person after secondary school because they are not just front-line troops but take care of a lot of other tasks than guarding the border.

Personally, I like the idea of having everyone do two years of government service – though it could be in active military or civil service. You could test for any position from working with the Coast Guard, the Army Corp of Engineers, the Navy, whoever. The only exceptions would be for severe disability, undue hardship (sole supporter of a family or something), or being occupied in some other civil service (such as joining the police or fire services).

The government can have my service after I'm a stone-cold corpse. Until then, Gov. Co. can put their rifles where the sun don't shine. I'm not gonna serve in some old man's war and I'm not gonna die for a bunch of useless politicians. The draft is morally repugnant, and while I might serve willingly, if I felt the need was great enough, I would never serve in a coerced situation.

I'd probably hold some riots until they drafted me and then pull some shit at the draft board before they threw me in jail.

Alternatively, I could just sing this:

http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/ochs-phil/draft-dodger-rag-11443.html

First, the very idea of a reinstated draft in the US is highly unlikely and some would say, downright laughable. Second, I would never heed the call to war from a criminal leader. Third, I would only fight if my country were being directly threatened by the enemy via invasion, direct missle strike, etc. This was and has never been the case in Iraq. I will never fight to secure the interests of corporations, which is the case in Iraq (Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, etc.)

Blind faith and unquestioning obedience have never been my strong suits. I would however, raise arms against my own government if it reached a point of oppression and blatent violation of civil rights.

Alright. In the United States, there is yet more talk of an unlikely, but possible reinstatement of the draft. Hypothetically, if you were drafted what would you do? Would you go? Would you flee and merely dodge it?

I for one would go. I feel that because my Grandfather was drafted during Vietnam I'd be obliged to go. What about you all?

I would go.