Who Should Be Eligible For Or Exempt From The Draft?

[Revoltingest]

And the irony is that surveys have shown that most people who consider themselves to be Republican favor pretty much all of the measures of the BBB proposal.

And most of the people who decry the draft will
still vote for parties, eg, Democrat, who keep it
in place, even if on hold for now.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I wonder....
Some military jobs are much better & safer than others.
I've known guys with these jobs...
- Chauffer
- Tennis pro <--- In Vietnam of all places!
- Soldier
- Special forces
Is it fair that some are assigned kill or be killed
jobs, while others have safe cushy jobs?

I was kind of playing devil's advocate. As a prior military member, a million years and a different attitude ago, I am now pretty much a pacifist.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was kind of playing devil's advocate. As a prior military member, a million years and a different attitude ago, I am now pretty much a pacifist.

Devil's advocate?
I've never tried that.
You've opened Revoltora's box.

 

[Kooky]

I think the military should be abolished, honestly.

Nothing good can come from an authoritarian organization of armed men.

 

[Kooky]

Because We The People (being the citizenry), in Congress Assembled (our duly elected representatives) have decided through the legislative process to include that as one of the required duties of citizenship.

Are you from the US? I'm rather positive that one can get US citizenship without ever having served in the US military, or indeed ever planning to do so.

This is also the standard throughout most of the Western world, or indeed most of the world in general.

 

[Shaul]

I think the military should be abolished, honestly.

Nothing good can come from an authoritarian organization of armed men.

You should move to Costa Rica. There is no army there.

 

[Kooky]

Should citizens of one country be drafted by governments of another country? Might Americans be drafted by Russia, or vice versa?

Why or why not?

I'm in favor of international solidarity among the working class, but also strongly against military service.
If push came to shove, I would argue for an international brigade of volunteers.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Are you from the US? I'm rather positive that one can get US citizenship without ever having served in the US military, or indeed ever planning to do so.

This is also the standard throughout most of the Western world, or indeed most of the world in general.

Yes, I'm from the US. Yes, one can get US citizenship without ever having to serve. But by becoming a US citizen you agree that military service in time of war at least warrants conscription (although at the current time, the US relies on a volunteer military) as that is the current law...something that many other countries also do, some even in peacetime. Now then, US citizens are also welcome to disagree with the policy and work to change the legislation and its implementation...but that is another discussion, I think...at least it had nothing to do with my post...

 

[Valjean]

I'm in favor of international solidarity among the working class, but also strongly against military service.
If push came to shove, I would argue for an international brigade of volunteers.

Who would this international corps fight for, the UN?

 

[Kooky]

Who would this international corps fight for, the UN?

The Socialist International, obviously.

 

[Kooky]

Yes, I'm from the US. Yes, one can get US citizenship without ever having to serve. But by becoming a US citizen you agree that military service in time of war at least warrants conscription (although at the current time, the US relies on a volunteer military) as that is the current law...something that many other countries also do, some even in peacetime. Now then, US citizens are also welcome to disagree with the policy and work to change the legislation and its implementation...but that is another discussion, I think...at least it had nothing to do with my post...

But if they cannot for whatever reason, their citizenship is not going to be revoked because of that. That's why I think it is wrong to claim that military service is a precondition or requirement to US citizenship. It is a duty that comes attached to it, arguably, but that's different.

I'm sorry if this comes of as pedantery - and perhaps it is - but I think it is still an important distiction to make in this context. "Service guarantees citizenship" is a line from Heinlein's Starship Troopers, not a policy adopted by any country in the real world as far as I can tell.

 

[Kooky]

You should move to Costa Rica. There is no army there.

I'd rather see my own country abolish its military first, thank you very much.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

But if they cannot for whatever reason, their citizenship is not going to be revoked because of that. That's why I think it is wrong to claim that military service is a precondition or requirement to US citizenship. It is a duty that comes attached to it, arguably, but that's different.

I'm sorry if this comes of as pedantery - and perhaps it is - but I think it is still an important distiction to make in this context. "Service guarantees citizenship" is a line from Heinlein's Starship Troopers, not a policy adopted by any country in the real world as far as I can tell.

Sorry, I didn't think I said that citizenship would be revoked, or that service was a requirement of citizenship. I apologize if what I said sounded like that. I thought I said that as US citizens, we are expected to obey the law, or to challenge it legally (in Congress or in the courts).

I was trying to point out that the chain of authority for the draft, in theory at least, is that the citizenry of the US elects its government, which passes and implements laws/policies. It is US law and policy that all males age 18 to 34 (iirc) have to register for the draft, which has not been used since the mid-70s, and that this applies to native as well as newly naturalized citizens. If Congress were to declare war, it is likely that the draft would be activated as well, especially if the conflict appeared to be extended in extent or duration.

 

[Kooky]

Sorry, I didn't think I said that citizenship would be revoked, or that service was a requirement of citizenship. I apologize if what I said sounded like that. I thought I said that as US citizens, we are expected to obey the law, or to challenge it legally (in Congress or in the courts).

I was trying to point out that the chain of authority for the draft, in theory at least, is that the citizenry of the US elects its government, which passes and implements laws/policies. It is US law and policy that all males age 18 to 34 (iirc) have to register for the draft, which has not been used since the mid-70s, and that this applies to native as well as newly naturalized citizens. If Congress were to declare war, it is likely that the draft would be activated as well, especially if the conflict appeared to be extended in extent or duration.

My apologies for misreading your argument then.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Nothing good can come from an authoritarian organization of armed men.

They don't really matter anymore anyway. The existential acuity of a single individual leader, with whatever random characteristics compose his/her individuality, and with the destructive power of a god, is what matters. They have powers now that no king ever had

 

[Twilight Hue]

I was kind of playing devil's advocate. As a prior military member, a million years and a different attitude ago, I am now pretty much a pacifist.

I think its a nessessity since other countries can prove exceedingly dangerous to countries that have a 'lite' military.

However with advanced technology and ai power it might prove conscription to be something that could become optional depending on voluntary service.

That prospect can be both reassuring and terrifying at the same time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The draft is indeed an explicit violation of the 13th Amendment.

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.”

For people who've not been convicted of
any crime, to be drafted into military service...
- It's involuntary.
- It's servitude.

However, politicians & even the Supreme Court will at times
oppose the wording & intent of the Constitution if they feel the
need. All it takes is a lot of legal gymnastics, rationalization,
appeals to need, citing of tradition, & lengthy complex legalese
to make their case. Any highly legal scholar can prove 2 + 2 = 7.
Supreme Court rejects battle over male-only military draft registration
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...80c0b4-9d88-11eb-b7a8-014b14aeb9e4_story.html
Exceptions Clause | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Well, it is as always an interpretation.
There is this from the main Constitution, Section 8.
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

How you weigh that in regards to the 13th, is a matter of interpretation. And you can have yours and I will have mine.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, it is as always an interpretation.
There is this from the main Constitution, Section 8.
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

The Constitution does give the right to "support Armies".
But this & other authorities of government are not unlimited.
Even fans of the draft would agree that "support" cannot....
- Impose a religion upon soldiers.
- Enslave soldiers.
- Eliminate freedom of speech & assembly.
- Impose self incrimination.
Those limits are based upon original and subsequent
amendments to the Constitution.

Government still has the right to raise & support
armies by purchasing materiel & services from
those willing to provide them.

How you weigh that in regards to the 13th, is a matter of interpretation. And you can have yours and I will have mine.

Evolution is subject to various interpretations.
But some are cromulent, & others are specious.
It all depends upon premises & reasoning.
The law is slipperier than science, but cogent
reasoning should still apply.

The draft is involuntary.
It is servitude.
The 13th Amendment unequivocally prohibits this.
The singular exception is punishment for a crime.
By what reasoning could you argue otherwise?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The Constitution does give the right to "support Armies".
But this & other authorities of government are not unlimited.
Even fans of the draft would agree that "support" cannot....
- Impose a religion upon soldiers.
- Enslave soldiers.
- Eliminate freedom of speech & assembly.
- Impose self incrimination.
Those limits are based upon original and subsequent
amendments to the Constitution.

Government still has the right to raises & support
armies by purchasing materiel & services from
those willing to provide them.

Evolution is subject to various interpretations.
But some are cromulent, & others are specious.
It all depends upon premises & reasoning.
The law is slipperier than science, but cogent
reasoning should still apply.

The draft is involuntary.
It is servitude.
The 13th Amendment unequivocally prohibits this.
The singular exception is punishment for a crime.
By what reasoning could you argue otherwise?

I can't because I am cromulent, specious and can't do cogent reasoning.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't because I am cromulent, specious and can't do cogent reasoning.

That's why you're such a valued member of RF!