The Supreme Court is about to hear arguments on "whether the federal government may order law schools to give military recruiters the same access as other prospective employers. Currently, federal funds can be withdrawn from an entire university if one of its schools bans military recruiters."
Check it out here. Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I agree whole-heartedly with withholding the funding in this case.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can't imagine a good reason for a school to deny military recruiters access. Isn't it in their student's best interest to have as many choices to choose from as possible?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think the reasons the law schools are denying the military recruiters access is that the recruiters discriminate against homosexuals. That's the basis of the argument - I don't know where it follows from there, however.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The reason that law schools are limiting recruiter access, according the NPR this morning. The law schools have an agreement not to help any organization recruit that refuses to sign a promise not to discriminate based on race, religion, sex, or sexual preference.
The military discriminates based on sexual preference. (Don't ask don't tell)
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
The law schools' arguments are tenuous. They essentially argue that their free speech rights are being violated because the government is forcing them to accept military recruiters. By allowing such recruiters on campus, so the argument goes, the schools are implicitly approving of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which is in contradiction to these schools non-discrimination policies. These arguments, however, fail to hold much water because, at least at the law school I went to, the administration published a letter and email before the recruiters visited campus disavowing the military's policies and law professors/administrators are free to protest the military's presence any time they like, and often do. All schools are able to voice their oppostion to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and, given the liberal nature of most law schools, very few people will actually think they approve of the policy just because a recruiter is interviewing in the building (often in the basement, next to the boiler. Do buildings have boilers anymore?) The schools are not being compelled to adopt any speech but, rather, are subject to a condition on spending, which are generally valid as long as the condition bears a rational relation to a legitimate government interest. My guess: Supreme Court upholds the Solomon Amendment, the law requiring military access, as a rational condition.
Oh, and law schools aren't always interested in their students best interest, but are interested in pushing their own political and social agendas.
[ December 06, 2005, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Aerto ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope, mr_porteiro_head. If students couldn't have voted for/against the people who'd send them to war, they shouldn't be allowed to enlist; let alone have recruiters chasing after them
However, graduate schools such as for Law are primarily filled with folks over 22years old: ie nearly all of them could have voted in the last Presidential&Senatorial Elections. That being the case, there is no reason whatsoever for recruiters to be denied access to graduate students. Except the political bigotry of those who administer the graduate school; and bigotry ain't an acceptable excuse for nothin'.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Pending someone here giving me something new to think about, my instinctive reaction is to agree with the feds.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Nope, mr_porteiro_head. If students couldn't have voted for/against the people who'd send them to war, they shouldn't be allowed to enlist; let alone have recruiter chasing after them
Can you enlist when you're under 18?
(Or are you saying that if you weren't 18 in 2004 you should not be able to enlist?)
I don't agree. Enlisting is voluntary. I don't see the relevance of whether or not you were able to vote in the last election.
I would be more inclined to agree in the case of a draft, though.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree. How old you were last election has no bearing on whether a recruiter can talk to you or not.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:I can't imagine a good reason for a school to deny military recruiters access. Isn't it in their student's best interest to have as many choices to choose from as possible?
Sadly enough, the best interest of the students is not always the driving force behind law school policies.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
Except that the aren't really being "put in" anything. They are volunteering. If they don't approve of the military or the choices made by political leaders, they need not enlist. Enlisting in the military is a much stronger statement of support than is voting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: That being the case, there is no reason whatsoever for recruiters to be denied access to graduate students.
This is untrue. The military does not meet my college's criteria for on-campus job recruitment, for example. The only reason they're permitted to be an exception is that the federal funds we receive in order to make it possible for students without means to attend require that we make an exception for them. The government has poisoned that candy.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
No, a person who hasn't voted for his/her leadership is being put in a position of complying with laws that s/he had no voice in making. When complying with the Law is a matter of life of death, an act becomes voluntary only after one has had a say in the matter through voting.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I believe that it is ethically wrong for anyone to be put in a kill or be killed situation without having already had a say in the matter.
They do have a choice to not enlist and therefore never be in that situation at all.
quote:Since rights and obligations are granted across an age group -- eg driving at 16; drinking at 18; age discrimination at 40 -- an across-the-board voting age of 18 creates an ethical mandate that the enlistment age be 22years old.
No, that ethical mandate (if it exists at all) only means that the draft age must be 22 years old.
[ December 06, 2005, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: That being the case, there is no reason whatsoever for recruiters to be denied access to graduate students.
This is untrue. The military does not meet my college's criteria for on-campus job recruitment, for example. The only reason they're permitted to be an exception is that the federal funds we receive in order to make it possible for students without means to attend require that we make an exception for them. The government has poisoned that candy.
What criteria do they not meet? Is it that they are in violation of your school's non-discrimination policy or is there another regulation that the military has not satisfied?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The government has poisoned that candy.
In a general sense, I think this is one of the biggest abuses of government power.
The federal government taxes the citizens more than it needs to, and then "gives back" that money with strings attached in order to force compliance in things that the federal government should not be involved in at all.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: No, a person who hasn't voted for his/her leadership is being put in a position of complying with laws that s/he had no voice in making. When complying with the Law is a matter of life of death, an act becomes voluntary only after one has had a say in the matter through voting.
Does this mean that people under the age of 18 do no have to comply with laws prohibiting murder? Those are laws that are a matter of life and death, and minors have not had a say in them. What about traffic regulations? Safety regulations?
Further, enlisting in the military is not compelled by the law. It is a voluntary act. No one is currently forced to go into the military. Your "have to be a voter before I have to obey the law" is not applicable to the voluntary entrance into the military.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Actually, the schools case is not about free speech, but about free association. They have a list of moral criteria that organizations must meet to get thier help. The military has a different set of moral criteria, so does not meet that. The goverment wants to force these school to include the military into their association despite the fact that they believe that the military is short on this moral criteria.
In other words, this is the opposite but identical argument made by the doctors who refused to perform fertility treatments on a homosexual couple.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Actually, the schools case is not about free speech, but about free association. They have a list of moral criteria that organizations must meet to get thier help. The military has a different set of moral criteria, so does not meet that. The goverment wants to force these school to include the military into their association despite the fact that they believe that the military is short on this moral criteria.
In other words, this is the opposite but identical argument made by the doctors who refused to perform fertility treatments on a homosexual couple.
You may be right about FAIR's (the group actually named as respondent) argument, I have not seen their brief. The ACLU's Amicus brief, however, stresses the Free Speech, or right not to speak, argument.
The free association argument may be better than the free speech argument, but I still think it will probably fail simply because of Congress' incredibly broad powers under the spending clause of the Constitution (spending only has to be for the "general welfare")
EDIT: I just looked at FAIR's brief and they make both the free speech and free association arguments.
[ December 06, 2005, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Aerto ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I agree with Porter's posts.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:In other words, this is the opposite but identical argument made by the doctors who refused to perform fertility treatments on a homosexual couple.
Not quite. If the fertility treatment received government funds, then it would be opposite but identical.
It is precisely because of those government funds that the government is trying to force them to allow the miliatary.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
To clarify - the government isn't trying to force colleges to accept military recruiters because the colleges use government funds. That's merely the method the government is using in its attempt.
I'm fully sympathetic with the schools' position. They have every right to not support discriminatory organizations. I'm also somewhat sympathetic to the military's position. My solution would be to do away with 'Don't ask, don't tell' and its ilk, but that's not going to happen. I don't know.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The government has poisoned that candy.
In a general sense, I think this is one of the biggest abuses of government power.
The federal government taxes the citizens more than it needs to, and then "gives back" that money with strings attached in order to force compliance in things that the federal government should not be involved in at all.
That's a good point. I'll be chewing on that one for a while.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No one HAS to take the money from the Government, either. If they do then the Government gets at least SOME say in how it is used, IMO.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Frankly, I think universities are grossly overfunded as it is.
Posted by LisB1121 (Member # 1703) on :
Ok, I haven't posted here in forever, but I feel everyone should have a few more facts then what they are working with here. One of the lawyers that is representing FAIR came to speak at my law school, and so I got to hear about specific instances that almost certainly violate First Amendment rights. The only question in my mind is whether the Solomon Act is unconstitutional on its face, or just how the Department of Defense is currently interpreting it.
The DOD is not just asking for access to campuses in order to recruit students. It is asking for equal to or better treatment then any other employers that recruit on campuses. If Big Law Firm A gets a resume drop, a conference room, and some free coffee while conducting interviews, the law school better give military recruiters the same, or be threatened with loss of funding. The DOD has also sent threatening letters to schools that have allowed student protests of the Solomon while recruiters are on campus. The letters indicated that the DOD thought that allowing non-preferential treatment and allowing students protests "sends the message" that the school does not approve of the Amendment. Um, yes, it does that message. And the the school should be able to send that message. And student should *certainly* not be pressured into ceasing protests. That goes right to the heart of free speech on campuses. No school has lost such funding yet, but these are still pretty hefty threats.
I think it's also significant that the DOD threatens the *entire* university, not just the law school, with loss of funding. Given how much funding universities get from the feds, it's obviously a coercive threat, and an effective one. Law school know that they can't jeopardize their parent institutions funding, so they don't. I know my law school hesitated putting their name down as supporting FAIR simply on these grounds.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Frankly, I think universities are grossly overfunded as it is.
I disagree with you, but this topic isn't really the place for that discussion. If you really feel this way, perhaps you should start a new topic for us all to discuss it.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
Lis:
I don't know if what the FAIR lawyer told you is true or not, but I will presume that it is, at least for the sake of argument. One of my former law professors was slightly involved in the drafting of the Law Professors and Law Students organization that filed an amicus in support of the government and his information indicated that the reports of DOD personnel wanting to stop protests is overblown. On my law school, military recruiters were heavily protested (usually by 10 to 20 times as many people as who actually interviewed) with no suggestion that they should stop. Of course, one instance does not mean it never happened.
Regardless, FAIR is attacking the Solomon Amendment on its face and this facial attack simply does not hold up. Law schools, administration, professors, and students have ample opportunity to protest/state their views in opposition to the military. It is virtual impossible to walk onto a law school campus and think that that school approves of the military. Solomon does not compel anybody to say anything, nor does it prevent anybody from saying anything. The free association argument fails under similar analysis. As free speech is not encumbered, this case should be analyzed under the spending clause and, if it is, Solomon will be easily upheld.
As to "threatening" the entire university, its the feds money and, provided they have a legitimate reason to condition their spending, they can set any condition they want to. In this instance, it is legitimate to "threaten" the entire university because, at most universities, the university-wide administration is more likely to be in favor of military recruiters than would the more liberal law school administration/faculty. By placing the funding for the entire university in jeopardy, the government is more likely to accomplish what he wants. (This is a legal argument, not a moral argument. Perhaps what the government is doing is wrong, but the legal issues are what I am addressing)
Finally, though it is only tangentially related to the FAIR case, I have personally seen instances where military recruiters are treated much more poorly than other recruiters by a law school. Given small, cramped interview rooms in buildings other than the law school and away from the other on-campus interviewers. I've also seen students who were interviewing with the military subjected to abuse and derision, which certainly seems a little "intolerant" to me. Of course, maybe the people giving the abuse would prefer that the students "Not Tell" of their support for the military.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I liked this comment by former Air Force Colonel and JAG attorney Raymond Swenson:
quote:Don't believe this controversy is really about "don't ask, don't tell." Instead, it's about a longstanding animosity. Since the Vietnam War, this animosity by professors toward the military has continued unabated. It killed ROTC programs on many campuses. It is felt by military officers, such as myself, who have applied to attend law school under military scholarships. And it can be seen in the response to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Even if the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy were ended, plaintiffs would claim other reasons for banning the JAG. This isn't a First Amendment case about reforming the military. It's an anti-First Amendment case based on hatred for the military. As such, it should fail.
This is also another interesting article from the front lines.
An excellent discussion about how the Supreme Court is likely to rule on Fair v. Rumsfeld.
Also, an interesting debate between law professors on both sides.
When I was choosing law schools, one of my primary criteria was how the school treated the military. I already spent several long undergraduate years in hostile territory, and I really wanted to concentrate on my studies rather than fighting haters. Fortunately, my law school is in Texas, and they treat us fairly. We experience no discrimination or derision. Our dean proudly brought up the fact that in our first year class there were representatives from every branch, and one of our professors specifically sought out veterans to comment on issues involving the military, such as the Feres Doctrine.
The people on the other side of the debate can frame it all they want that it is not about the individuals in the military, and rather about the government's policy regarding homosexual behavior in the military. Perhaps they really feel that way. But from our side of the battlefield, it bears all the hallmarks of a very personal animosity against the military.
Or, in other words, you may or may not be shooting at me with the noblest of intent, but from my side of the gun, the only thing that is important is that you are shooting at me.
To me, the discrimination against the military because of "Don't ask, don't tell" is counterproductive. If they really wanted to change it, they'd use different tactics other than discriminating in their noble, liberal, nondiscriminatory way against individual recruiters. They'd have the politicians, who are our masters, and who formed the doctrine, change it. They'd encourage leftist students to join the military, and work to change from within. Unfortunately for their cause, their chosen tactic of bigotry and hatred only breeds opposition from the military.
[ December 06, 2005, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: tern ]
Posted by LisB1121 (Member # 1703) on :
I'd assume there's some truth to reports of the DOD's threats, or FAIR wouldn't be able to refer to court records mentioning such threats. Well, we can go round and round about legal fact finding versus what actually happened. At this point, at least, was is in the court record is not what what is at issue here.
I'll confess that Constitutional Law is next semester, and so my knowledge of what constitutes compelled speech is extremely limited. FAIR talks about the government not being able to compel companies to put unwanted brochures in their mailings. Yet, the government can compel schools to put brochures out wherever the school puts employer brochures. Hmm.
However, just looking at the law cited, I found the section in FAIR's brief about the Supreme Court's reluctance to place conditions on education grants which have nothing to with what the grant will be used for, to be pretty convincing.
But maybe I am letting my moral views get in the way. I don't want the feds to be able to put this kind of pressure on private educational institutions, personally. I'll think about this some more.
Tern: I had the pleasure of having lunch with my dean and we talked about this case for a while. I don't believe that on her part, at least, there's personal hatred of the military. She said to me that she'd long encouraged students of color to join JAG, since they were more likely to quickly get the experience to develop their legal skills and get a good reputation in the field then they were in the private sector. She implied that equal recruitment has not meant equal opportunities on the job. Although, thankfully, that's changing.
My dad was a draftee and did his full tour, although he just missed actually going over to Vietnam by literally a few weeks. He's proud of his training, the education he got using his veteran benefits, and I'm proud of him for using everything the military gave him well. So, uh, not all of us liberal law students just hate the military on principle. Some of us are honestly concerned about the government elbowing its way into how the school conducts its business, when as far as I can see public policy supports non-discriminatory employment practices.
Edit: Some of us actually vote and write our Congressmen on occassion, too. Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
LisB, my point wasn't that liberals/law schools hate the military. An argument can be made for that, perhaps, and I've argued it, but that was immaterial. My point was that the military feels like the law schools/liberals hate them. That's why I suggested a different approach.
I'm looking forward to Con Law next semester, too. I understand that it completely turns the student's understanding of constitutional issues upside down. It's going to be cool.
While I have very strong views concerning homosexual behavior in the military, I think that it is immaterial to whether or not the military should be allowed to recruit. History shows, by the way, that the military was unwelcome on campuses long before homosexuality became a major issue.
I can't see how it's fair that schools can take the gubmint's money, and then tell recruiters for the gubmint to piss off. But one thing I found interesting is that civil rights legislation passed many years ago makes it so that the Solomon Act has to take money away from the whole university, they can't pretend that the law schools are separate.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
You sound sincere in your statement that you have positive feelings towards the military, and that's always good to hear. I don't know how you personally approach the issue of homosexual behavior in the military (aside from voting & writing Congresscreatures), but I thought that this post from Scott Johnson at Power Line had a pretty good argument on how to handle it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But from our side of the battlefield, it bears all the hallmarks of a very personal animosity against the military.
Or, in other words, you may or may not be shooting at me with the noblest of intent, but from my side of the gun, the only thing that is important is that you are shooting at me.
Perhaps your use of military metaphors here is an excellent example of why "animosity towards the military" is a decent thing for a society to have, tern. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That was pretty classless, Tom.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think it's the same attitude that leads to a desire to bar the military - their students are too good to be involved with it. Everyone wants to be defended, but they scorn that which defends.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Yes, isn't it somewhat of an interesting cycle? The people who are speaking against the military (free speech) are speaking against the very force that keeps this country free and keeps their "free speech" right in place. The military is actually defending our rights, (our constitution) and then being lambasted for it by the people they are serving.
In other countries, not only is free speech not allowed, but homosexuality and related free speech for open homosexuality would NOT be allowed.
Sometimes I think Americans forget how good they have it; and that turning in on ourselves (fighting amongst ourselves) is only going to make us weaker.
FG
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's attitudes like that, Tom, that make Jack Nicholson's rant in A Few Good Men so compelling-because in the rant is some truth.
And incidentally, if the candy is poisonous, don't eat it. What this is really about, ultimately, has little to do with opposition to the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, because the school knows the government will not change that in any direction based on a negative outcome of this lawsuit.
This is about an institution which accepts federal money to operate wishing, at the same time, to express their disapproval of the federal government, and stop its students from making a choice. They don't want to just stop their students from wanting to join the military, they'd like to stop the choice ever being offered to them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Really, I'm just floored at the audacity of this lawsuit. The institution wants to keep receiving federal money, but it doesn't want to permit requests to join the group which defends that government-and itself, no less.
If they don't like the policy, don't take the money. It's rather like a child in college still living under their parent's roof, subsisting on the parent's money, demanding that they get line-item veto privileges over the parent's rules.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:The people who are speaking against the military (free speech) are speaking against the very force that keeps this country free and keeps their "free speech" right in place. The military is actually defending our rights, (our constitution) and then being lambasted for it by the people they are serving.
Um. Not to interrupt the self-righteousness, but, no. The protest is against endorsement of a proudly bigoted institution -- it really doesn't matter if that's the Navy or the KKK.
Also, declaring that "in other countries, not only is free speech not allowed, but homosexuality and related free speech for open homosexuality would NOT be allowed" is a rather flawed argument. You know, women in the Middle East aren't circumcised like many African women are. They must be forgetting how good they have it; by turning in on themselves (fighting among themselves), they'll only make themselves weaker.
Lastly, my brother was a Master-At-Arms for the Navy. Are you seriously going to accuse me of "speaking against the military"? Or did you seriously buy into the Republican talking points that liberals hate soldiers, and opposing the Iraq war was failing to "support the troops"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The people who are speaking against the military (free speech) are speaking against the very force that keeps this country free and keeps their "free speech" right in place. The military is actually defending our rights, (our constitution) and then being lambasted for it by the people they are serving.
I disagree quite strongly on this point. The military has certainly not defended my rights even once in my lifetime, nor have I ever voted to send them on any mission that would do so. Any "defense" they think they're doing is not only pointless from my perspective but specifically against my own desires. I don't want them to defend my rights on my behalf, and I don't believe they have ever done so.
In this matter, lawyers are far, far more useful than soldiers.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: The military has certainly not defended my rights even once in my lifetime.
This quite probably is false. If America had zero military strength after WWII, would it have stayed free? Would the USSR have let it be? Quite possibly not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm skeptical of this one. I was born in 1975, and am not entirely sure that the USSR would have been particularly interested in invading us by that point in their own evolution. *shrug* It's an interesting hypothetical, but I'll leave speculation on the effectiveness of that deterrent to people who liked "Red Dawn."
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Does the university allow fraternities or sororities on campus, or other gender-exclusionary groups? Do members of their administration belong to men-only or (heaven forbid) white- or black-only country clubs, churches, etc?
Any one of those would weaken their stand.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
"Wolverines!"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's not a slam dunk, but it's possible.
Also, I thought you were older than me. You are not.
And even if Red Dawn hadn't happened, there could have been far-reaching consequences of us not having any military strength.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Tom seems to be of the mindset that if didn't happen specifically to me in my lifetime then it cannot matter to me nor could it affect me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nope. I'm sure the military has been very useful. I believe it will be useful again.
But there's a huge gap between "the military has occasionally been useful" and "the military is with its every breath defending the life you hold dear." The latter is, in a nutshell, simply not true; soldiers defend my life, my freedom, and my lifestyle far less often and far less effectively than policemen, lawyers, firemen, doctors, etc. I We pay soldiers for their career choice, and pay them extra when they actually have to perform their designated duties; I don't see why additional awe is required.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Did anyone read Dahlia Lithwick's summary of arguments in Slate? I thought it was interesting. She takes a very pragmatic view that leads her, while personally sympathetic to the law schools, to conclude that "the law schools have no case." And she uses the same Jack Nicholson, A Few Good Men connection, which has been used here by others.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
We pay soldiers far, far less than we pay policemen, lawyers, firemen, doctors, etc. They extra pay you cite is $150 a month hazardous duty pay which seems to be a very minor amount when people are shooting at you. I would not expect you to see why additional awe, or any awe, is required since you see very little use for the military other than on certain specific occasions. To use your logic, I rarely see a doctor so I suppose that they are not very effective, nor are policemen or fireman. They do not interact with me on a daily basis defending my life so they too are simply not very needed and are obviously overpaid. They have not directly defended my life, my freedom, or my lifestyle. If anything, the police are out to curtail my freedom whenever they can.
Posted by LisB1121 (Member # 1703) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Does the university allow fraternities or sororities on campus, or other gender-exclusionary groups? Do members of their administration belong to men-only or (heaven forbid) white- or black-only country clubs, churches, etc?
Any one of those would weaken their stand.
Actually, the AALS which most laws schools are members of, have a *specific* regulation against assisting employers that that have discriminatory hiring practices. Members are obligated to investigate complaints of discriminatory practices.
Do you see the distinction?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: They do not interact with me on a daily basis defending my life so they too are simply not very needed and are obviously overpaid. They have not directly defended my life, my freedom, or my lifestyle. If anything, the police are out to curtail my freedom whenever they can.
That doesn't work in reverse, I'm afraid. I appreciate your effort to turn it around, but the numbers -- and the basic evidence -- are against you.
The military is an organization that is occasionally used to project deadly force. When it doesn't have to do this, its role could be played by any number of other organizations, and probably more effectively. Only rarely is this deadly force used on behalf of or in defense of American rights and freedoms.
I understand why it's necessary for servicemen and many Americans to cling to the illusion that service in the Armed Forces is noble, necessary work. But that's all it is.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The military is an organization that is occasionally used to project deadly force. When it doesn't have to do this, its role could be played by any number of other organizations, and probably more effectively. Only rarely is this deadly force used on behalf of or in defense of American rights and freedoms.
A big role of the military is to have the capacity of delivering deadly force, even if it doesn't. This is a role that cannot be assumed by anybody else. Just by being there the military has a big affect.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
LisaB1121, How long has it been since you've posted? Have you been lurking or did you just stop back in?
You don't have to answer, of course, I was just curious.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
It does completely work in the reverse, much better than it works in your example. I am showing you that police, lawyers and so on actively work against me in my lifestyle choices whereas the military does not. What basic evidence have you shown that contradicts that? It is your opinion that the military is only useful, and rarely at that, in projecting deadly force and serves no other purpose. You are stating something as a fact which is only your opinion. I don't think you quite know the extent of the military and all that it does. Unless you have data that proves your point somehow? Just like it is your opinion that that service in the Armed Forces being noble, necessary work, is merely misguided people clinging to an illusion. There is no job or calling in the world that I could not say the same thing about. I could argue that Life itself is merely an illusion that we cling to. You believe you understand things from your point of view, and I do the same thing from my point of view.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I am showing you that police, lawyers and so on actively work against me in my lifestyle choices whereas the military does not.
Ah. I never suggested that the military might not have defended YOU lately. As someone who benefits much more from the police than I have benefited from the military, though, I'm not susceptible to this reversal.
If you frequently find yourself being attacked by foreign nationals, or in a situation where foreign nationals are not attacking you only because they're afraid of being killed, I can understand why you'd feel grateful to our military. Frankly, that's not a major concern of mine.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
My school, UC davis just this week has a student senate vote on a resolution to discourage military recruiting.
The argument was of course against the military's policy against homosexuals, which is in clear conflict with the existing university policies regarding permits to recruit on campus. Since this is a state university, I am not really sure how the argument will be had, but I imagine that the state should fight in favor of its own university campuses.
Isn't the republican party pro-states rights? We are not attempting to change the government policy, we are simply asserting that it is in conflict with local policy, but I am in no way sure who has jurisdiction over such a conflict. Still, it seems once again that the two "great" political parties are only FOR something when they are for SOMETHING, and not all the time. We can never depend on any kind of stably defined precedent that tells us who makes the rules and who can break them and when!
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Lalo said:
quote:Lastly, my brother was a Master-At-Arms for the Navy. Are you seriously going to accuse me of "speaking against the military"? Or did you seriously buy into the Republican talking points that liberals hate soldiers, and opposing the Iraq war was failing to "support the troops"?
Well, what does this sound like?
quote:Um. Not to interrupt the self-righteousness, but, no. The protest is against endorsement of a proudly bigoted institution -- it really doesn't matter if that's the Navy or the KKK.
Thou hast said.
LisB said:
quote:Actually, the AALS which most laws schools are members of, have a *specific* regulation against assisting employers that that have discriminatory hiring practices. Members are obligated to investigate complaints of discriminatory practices.
Actually actually, the AALS has recommended to it's member lawschools not to sue against the Solomon Amendment. The link, and their brief, should be linked to in one of the links I posted above. If it isn't, you can find it on Power Line. Incidentally, the military has to discriminate in some ways (i.e., age, against obese people, etc) in order to fulfill it's mission.
quote:Perhaps your use of military metaphors here is an excellent example of why "animosity towards the military" is a decent thing for a society to have, tern
Er? Politics uses military metaphors, football uses military metaphors, police use military metaphors, but it's bad when the military uses military metaphors? Bad, bad us.
Tom, it's certainly true that the military isn't called upon every second to defend the country. But do you understand the need for the military to continually train for such an eventuality? And do you understand how we feel that training to protect the country is in effect, also protecting the country?
The military is grossly underpaid. I worked out my hourly wages back when I was a young enlisted, and I was making less that $3.33 an hour. It's not much better now, and "combat pay" is not much more.
The military isn't also about "killing foreign nationals", but it's also a diplomatic tool. Far more nations listen because we have a military which we are willing to use in certain extreme cases. One might argue that's a bad thing, but that's how it's done, and it isn't just America.
Of course, the Few Good Men thing - one thing we know in the Marines is that it's a senseless tragedy - Jack Nicholson's character is the hero. I'd serve under him any day.
By the way, thanks for the Slate link, I actually have much more respect for Justice Kennedy than I previously had. What a gorgeous article. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: Lalo said:
quote:Lastly, my brother was a Master-At-Arms for the Navy. Are you seriously going to accuse me of "speaking against the military"? Or did you seriously buy into the Republican talking points that liberals hate soldiers, and opposing the Iraq war was failing to "support the troops"?
Well, what does this sound like?
quote:Um. Not to interrupt the self-righteousness, but, no. The protest is against endorsement of a proudly bigoted institution -- it really doesn't matter if that's the Navy or the KKK.
Thou hast said.
...what?
Posted by LisB1121 (Member # 1703) on :
Well, I orignally posted here back in oh 1996-1998 under...I think just LisB. Then I posted for a while under during college, and I think my last posts would have been back in 2003. I've never been that prodigious a poster. Anways, I've lurked on and off for about 9 years now. Wow, that's a while.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Of course, the Few Good Men thing - one thing we know in the Marines is that it's a senseless tragedy - Jack Nicholson's character is the hero. I'd serve under him any day.
Like I said, tern, you're practically making my argument for me. That's a fundamentally flawed position, and reveals what I think is a horrible cancer at the heart of any military service.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Lalo, what I'm saying is that while you say that you are not speaking against the military, you describe it as a "proudly bigoted institution", comparable to the KKK. That would be speaking against the military.
quote:That's a fundamentally flawed position, and reveals what I think is a horrible cancer at the heart of any military service.
How exactly is it flawed? I'm not asking to be contentious, I'd like to know your thoughts.
My feeling about the military is that our purpose is limited. Specifically, it is to "break things and kill people". This is a necessary ability for a nation-state to have available in times of need, so long as it is used with wisdom.
I feel that anything that takes away from the basic mission of the military should be considered carefully. That's what I think Nicholson's character keeps in mind, the basic goals of the military. The military is not about equality. When it comes down to it, the military doesn't exist for social experimentation, to use as a testing ground for racial equality or gender equality or homosexual acceptance or whatever. If these things are real (such as racial equality) and they add to the military's ability to accomplish the mission, outstanding. However, implementation of these ideas should be carefully considered in terms of how they will affect the overall mission.
For the record, while I have feelings about these, I'm not being conclusory about their ability to affect the mission - I'm just saying that careful consideration and study is required, not squishy feelings of "equality".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This is a very difficult issue for me. My starting point (a very well-grounded one legally speaking) is the principle that denial of a government benefit based on the content of ones speech is a violation of the Equal Protection clause* (via the First Amendment) unless the denial is narrowly tailored to serve s compelling government interest.
It's hard to apply this principle here for several reasons. First, at least part of the reason for government funding of higher education is to make sure there are adequate numbers of educated people to serve as officers. This is especially important in the professions. Of course, there are other reasons for federal funding as well. But this is likely a compelling state interest.
The first cut analysis would say, "We give money to accomplish compelling interest X. If you take action Y to frustrate X, then it's a poor investment and we shouldn't make it."
it would almost certainly be constitutional to fund a military law program in private law schools and condition receipt of that money on recruiting access. In fact, it would probably be constitutional to demand greater access than that provided to other entities who wish to recruit. Why? Because the money is being spent to further a compelling interest, the recruiting access is being demanded to further the compelling interest, and both are narrowly tailored to that interest.
Is the Solomon amendment narrowly tailored? Probably not. Pulling all money (including non-DoD funds) from all entities within the University is not likely to be considered narrow. Further, since much, probably most, of the pulled funding does not have the objective of ensuring an adequate educated recruiting pool, it seems we have to look at the interest and means of the Solomon amendment itself, not the interest of the individual funding programs.
What is the purpose of the Solomon amendment? To force universities to express ideas they don't like, and prevent them from expressing at least a few ideas they wish to. It's purpose is to restrict speech from both directions.
From this line of analysis, I think it comes down against the Fed. A much narrower question would be stopping DoD funding only, or all funding but only to the law school. I can't guess how this would come down.
BUT, the Court may not reach this analysis. States have the right to control and regulate alcohol sales. It's in the Constitution. But the court has upheld conditioning federal highway funds on states upping the drinking age - a power expressly reserved for the states in the amendment that repealed prohibition. The power to tax and spend includes the power to set priorities for spending, and some justices may not get very far past this point.
There are several other intricacies that will matter. First, are the activities for recruiting expressive activity? They may be ministerial in nature. Just as the mailman isn't engaged in speech when he delivers the mail, the colleges aren't engaged in speech when they post informational notices about recruiting times. The potential for abuse in such a ruling is huge, but it's one possibility.
So I don't know how it would turn out, but it's definitely complicated.
*Minor legal point: the equal protection clause does not directly apply to the federal government, but has been incorporated through the fifth amendment due process clause in much the same way that most of the bill of rights has been incorporated into the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Tom, you don't see the peacekeeping activities in the Balkans or the reconstruction of Afghanistan as good deeds? The military does a lot more besides fight in Iraq.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom, you don't see the peacekeeping activities in the Balkans or the reconstruction of Afghanistan as good deeds?
Broadly, no. I'm actually inclined to use both of those as examples of how the modern military has been misused.
It's not that the INTENT is bad. I think our military is for the most part deployed by well-meaning politicians. And it's not that the military isn't superbly trained to do its primary job -- that of killing people and breaking things. Like tern, I think this borders on being a necessary function of a nation-state -- although, unlike tern, that does not mean that I think the military should be allowed to flaunt civilian law in pursuit of more efficient ways to kill and break.
What I regret is that we confuse killing people and breaking things with defending freedom, or rebuilding a country, or "peacekeeping." The military is singularly ill-suited to these tasks; they distract from its focus, and its focus impedes the execution of those goals.
We should send out our military only when people need killing and things need breaking. At any other time, there is almost certainly a more effective alternative.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:What I regret is that we confuse killing people and breaking things with defending freedom, or rebuilding a country, or "peacekeeping." The military is singularly ill-suited to these tasks; they distract from its focus, and its focus impedes the execution of those goals.
We should send out our military only when people need killing and things need breaking. At any other time, there is almost certainly a more effective alternative.
Well, I would argue that sometimes killing people and breaking things is necessary to defend freedom, but I agree with the rest. The military is not well equipped for rebuilding, or even "peacekeeping" (unless keeping the peace requires killing people). The rare exceptions to that would be the Army Corps of Engineers and the Seabees, but they are a very small subset of the military. Really, what I know about building a powerplant you could stick in your ear and have room for Texas...but I could blow it up quite easily.
One of the things (and we are so off topic) that I like is that the gubmint is primarily using contractors to rebuild Iraq. Yes, they can be corrupt, but they are still more effective than the military.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Incidentally, between the Feres Doctrine and the UCMJ, it's not that the military flaunts civilian law, as it that the military is not subject to civilian law for the most part.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I suppose the entire Coast Guard does nothing but kill people and break things as well? I suppose it's OK to completely generalize the military into a bunch of killers just to prove your point. Just like all police officers are racist, homophobic, brutal thugs who abuse everyone they come across.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I suppose the entire Coast Guard does nothing but kill people and break things as well?
One can make the argument -- and I have, and I'll continue to do it -- that the Coast Guard is functionally a police force with boats. Ask the Marines or the Army about how "military" the Coast Guard is, some time. There's an exception to every generalization, of course; that's hardly disproof of the general accuracy of the generalization, however.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
tern,
quote:Of course, the Few Good Men thing - one thing we know in the Marines is that it's a senseless tragedy - Jack Nicholson's character is the hero. I'd serve under him any day.
You're wrong about that, tern. Col. Jessup in that movie lied under oath and hung two Marines out to dry to save his own skin for following his own orders. That is not heroic. There is also the fact that in following those orders, another Marine died.
quote:I disagree quite strongly on this point. The military has certainly not defended my rights even once in my lifetime, nor have I ever voted to send them on any mission that would do so. Any "defense" they think they're doing is not only pointless from my perspective but specifically against my own desires. I don't want them to defend my rights on my behalf, and I don't believe they have ever done so.
Read a history book, Tom. How long do nations without militaries last, exactly? So...what, you only respect and admire institutions that have done something for you lately? Or that might conceivably do something for you in the future? You directly, I mean. Pretty selfish for a compassionate liberal democrat, isn't it?
Not to mention stupid. Obviously with a drastically reduced military, our enemies wouldn't be swarming over our borders next week. These things take time. Hey! I know, let's use the obvious historical example that everyone knows, Britain and Germany. Germany had no military power to speak of after WWI, and Britain's was being downsized. Everyone was sure that war was over, that big fights like that wouldn't happen again.
Twenty years later, well, like I said, read a history book.
quote:I understand why it's necessary for servicemen and many Americans to cling to the illusion that service in the Armed Forces is noble, necessary work. But that's all it is.
You must like the military to believe that liberals are against it and despise it, to say something like this, Tom. That's the kind of sneering disdain that breeds Col. Jessups. But, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Not to mention stupid. Obviously with a drastically reduced military, our enemies wouldn't be swarming over our borders next week
You know, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Jeff. And I certainly understand the value you and many others perceive in playing it safe by keeping people trained to kill on the federal payroll, as much as I personally think it's a bad idea.
quote: You must like the military to believe that liberals are against it and despise it, to say something like this, Tom.
Where did I say anything about liberals despising the military? That I despise the military is not a statement which can be extrapolated universally, especially to a group of which I don't even consider myself a member. And heck, I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from the assertion that "serving in the military is neither noble nor necessary work" to "I despise the military" (unless you also think I have this bizarre dislike for fast food employees), but I'll let that one pass anyway.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you'd like to drop it, that's fine. But I'll just say that I cannot imagine why you think it's a bad idea to avoid having the people trained to kill being opposed to us, instead of having some of our own, too.
It's an even more obvious situation than the question of gun-control. People who want stricter gun-control can respond to the argument, "Then only criminals will be armed!" with, "We can take steps to mitigate that."
But with the question of military, we can't take steps to mitigate who else has a military. Whether or not we have people on the federal payroll trained to kill does have a bearing on what kinds of people other nations have on their payroll, though. The number would increase if our number decreased.
As for despising the military, I did not say you despised the military-even though I suspect you probably do, on moral principle-I said that you must like the military to think that liberals feel that way.
Because, you know, it kind of pisses people off when they hear things like, "This thing you're doing that you think is very important and sometimes noble, it's really a pile of horse puckey." And when they hear things like that, they think things like, "Golly, this person doesn't like me very much!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But I'll just say that I cannot imagine why you think it's a bad idea to avoid having the people trained to kill being opposed to us, instead of having some of our own, too.
Because I think it's better to die than to kill, nine times out of ten. But I also understand that it's better to kill than to let someone else die, also nine times out of ten, and appreciate that the military helps serve this purpose. But here's the problem: we already have the ability to destroy any country, anywhere in the world, that attacks us -- without sending a single soldier to do so. We can destroy them completely and totally, in a way that would make it impossible for them to ever rebuild.
Or we can just send over some guys and have them shoot some other guys and futz around for a bit, all the while hoping that they manage to kill enough of the other guys that they give up.
Sending in infantry, in other words, is the merciful option. It's what we do when we aren't really threatened, when our status as a nation or the safety of our people aren't really endangered. We talk about the importance of "holding ground" -- and, yeah, it's important to hold ground when it's your ground, but does anyone but the conspiracy theorists really believe that we intend to hang on to the Middle East forever, just because the dirt means that much to us? We just want the people there now to stop being on it.
To sum up, then, overseas ground war is what we do when we really don't need to do much. We send in the infantry to keep up appearances, to try to bridge the gap between "we'll let this one slide" and "okay, now you've actually ticked us off." It's one step above "we'll fly planes over you and drop the occasional bomb, just to remind you that we can." And yet we amp up the rhetoric to imply that we're saving the world, defending our people and our way of life, striking a proud blow to destroy the foes of freedom -- when really we're engaged in a slap-fest.
When we fight the first real war of this century -- which I still suspect will be with China -- we won't be landing troops to occupy Beijing.
If we honestly felt that Islamic fundamentalism was an immediate danger to the continued existence of America, do you believe for a minute that we'd be prosecuting the war in Iraq the way we are? We're pre-emptively futzing, but we're using internal propaganda to make it less obvious to the people we're sending over there to kill and die -- because no one sane wants to kill someone else as a bargaining tactic.
quote: I said that you must like the military to think that liberals feel that way.
Nah. Because a) I really hope no one on this site confuses me with a liberal; and b) I really hope no one on this site thinks that I speak for anyone other than myself.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:What I regret is that we confuse killing people and breaking things with defending freedom, or rebuilding a country, or "peacekeeping." The military is singularly ill-suited to these tasks; they distract from its focus, and its focus impedes the execution of those goals.
I'm not sure who you think would be better at the job of preventing heavily-armed people from fighting each other. But I think there've been a lot of lives saved in Kosovo and a lot of people liberated in Afghanistan. Whether Afghanistan actually turns out OK in the end is probably related to how much attention and money we give it, which doesn't bode well. But if we weren't wasting our time with Iraq, I would be optimistic about Afghanistan.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Because I think it's better to die than to kill, nine times out of ten. But I also understand that it's better to kill than to let someone else die, also nine times out of ten, and appreciate that the military helps serve this purpose.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here?
quote: We talk about the importance of "holding ground" -- and, yeah, it's important to hold ground when it's your ground, but does anyone but the conspiracy theorists really believe that we intend to hang on to the Middle East forever, just because the dirt means that much to us? We just want the people there now to stop being on it.
If I understand this correctly we just want to kill all the Iraqis so there is no one left in the country? Or maybe you mean we want to kill all the people who oppose the new Iraq government? or maybe you are just trying to sound clever?
quote: To sum up, then, overseas ground war is what we do when we really don't need to do much. We send in the infantry to keep up appearances, to try to bridge the gap between "we'll let this one slide" and "okay, now you've actually ticked us off." It's one step above "we'll fly planes over you and drop the occasional bomb, just to remind you that we can." And yet we amp up the rhetoric to imply that we're saving the world, defending our people and our way of life, striking a proud blow to destroy the foes of freedom -- when really we're engaged in a slap-fest.
So you think we should do or have done what? Nothing? Let nature take it's course? We should let any country do anything they want because it doesn't affect you on a personal level? That the only reason we are in Iraq is because we woke up one morning in a pissy mood and just offhandedly decided to invade another country?
quote: If we honestly felt that Islamic fundamentalism was an immediate danger to the continued existence of America, do you believe for a minute that we'd be prosecuting the war in Iraq the way we are?
But we don't feel that Islamic fundamentalism is an immediate danger to the continued existence of America. Nice to know that removing a brutal dictator and his perverted sons from power is just 'futzing'.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If I understand this correctly we just want to kill all the Iraqis so there is no one left in the country? Or maybe you mean we want to kill all the people who oppose the new Iraq government?
Neither. What we want, what our real goal here is, is for all the people who want to kill us to go away forever. But right now, we don't think they're enough of a threat to merit a truly aggressive response, so we fool around with governments and social experiments -- and, bafflingly, leave those social experiments to the military, arguably one of the worst-qualified organizations in the federal government (except possibly HUD) to be conducting social experiments.
quote: Nice to know that removing a brutal dictator and his perverted sons from power is just 'futzing'.
How else would you describe it? Please keep the situation in Sudan in mind when you reply.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: What we want, what our real goal here is, is for all the people who want to kill us to go away forever.
That could only be considered a goal, one of many, not the goal. Unless you have some special knowledge that the only goal we have to make anyone who wants to kill us go away forever?
quote: How else would you describe it? Please keep the situation in Sudan in mind when you reply.
I would describe as the end result of more than a decade of broken UN resolutions, Broken surrender agreements, corruption, mass killings, torture, rape, child slave labor and so on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
DK, the problem as I see it is that you're essentially making my point for me. Do you understand why I feel that way? It would help me when replying to you if I knew that you understood my position, because I'm often baffled by your replies; it seems like you're frequently arguing on my behalf against someone imaginary.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I must be missing your point then. Trying to summarize, your point seems to be that we currently use our mindless, killing-machine military to destroy foreign governments and set up kinda crazy (and very stupid) social experiments in their place because we are simply in a pissy mood about some minor 'wrongs' they may or may not have committed at some point in the past, or more likely 'just because we can'. We do not use our military for noble things as they are killers and killers are not inherently noble, nor should they be considered anything but zombies who kill people and break things. What we should have done, had we been more clear minded and aggressive, is to bomb Iraq out of existence, possibly with nukes, thereby completely eliminating the problem of people who want to kill us in Iraq. Or perhaps sent some kind of Peace envoy or Happiness brigade to Iraq because they would be much more suited to making people not want to kill us anymore. Or a third option would have been to do nothing as they aren't really bothering us, meaning TD, anyway. Overall, unless TD is specifically threatened by a foreign goverment, things are pretty much hunkydory and we shouldn't take any action anywhere in the world.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. So you've completely -- and, as far as I can tell, deliberately -- misunderstood me, in order to score some cheap rhetorical points. Should I bother to try to break it down for you, or is it your intention to continue aggressively misinterpreting, distorting, and satirizing my positions?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Oh. Perhaps it is only amusing when you misinterpret, distort, and satirize the positions of others? Please break it down for me
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Perhaps it is only amusing when you misinterpret, distort, and satirize the positions of others?
You know what, DK? I don't think I do this at all, except inadvertently. And I don't particularly feel the need to engage in this conversation with someone who does. So drop me an email if you're sincerely interested, including within your reasons for feeling that I make a habit of the above; otherwise, I'm just going to assume that you're trying to have an argument with a straw man.
I'm not as energetic as I used to be, and far less inclined to play that particular game.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tom I don't think he's misunderstood deliberately. I think he's misunderstanding because he's never come across anyone from your paradigm before and therefore doesn't have an adquate reference frame to hang your ideas together, and is instead hanging them on the only frames he knows.
AJ
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
You could very well be correct, BannaOJ. I am composing an email to Tom at the moment to help clear things up, and to hopefully point out some things to him as well as gain a better understanding of his point. I do see a little of the generalities he is making, but they do not work for me. If work would stop interrupting me I might be able to finish it a lot sooner
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
quote:But here's the problem: we already have the ability to destroy any country, anywhere in the world, that attacks us -- without sending a single soldier to do so. We can destroy them completely and totally, in a way that would make it impossible for them to ever rebuild.
Quite a few of those nations have the ability to destroy us right back, but of those nations there are very few we would conceivably war with for quite a long time.
But your logic falls apart on other grounds as well. The nuclear option the equivalent in terms of a fist fight to pulling out a gun and shooting the other guy in the head. Before that, there's all sorts of other options. You can shove, you can taunt, you can punch, kick, or bite, or beat the guy over the head with something, or even stab him.
quote:Sending in infantry, in other words, is the merciful option. It's what we do when we aren't really threatened, when our status as a nation or the safety of our people aren't really endangered.
According to your reasoning, one should only respond with force if the force being threatened or used is incredible, overwhelming, utterly lethal. Settle for a broken leg, a sprained ankle, a scarred cheek, a pulled-out eye, because hey, you can get better from all of that.
quote:To sum up, then, overseas ground war is what we do when we really don't need to do much.
Even a cursory look at the history of the world for the past sixty years should demonstrate why this is absurd. Yours is a pacifist viewpoint, I understand that. Naturally you think that's the best option. But the problem is, yours is the view that's founded, not on experience with the problem, but avoidance of it. Pacifism works when the opposition is persuadable, and will respond with short-of-lethal force.
Because you know, when a nation is threatened but not lethally threatened, lives are still lost. People are still killed. Even if "the terrorists" obtained ten nuclear weapons, even if they obtained weaponized smallpox, America would still not be threatened with the kind of lethality it appears you're talking about.
But countless citizens would be, and it is the job of a government to protect the lives of its citizens, sometimes even if it means attacking the lives of those who threaten it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: According to your reasoning, one should only respond with force if the force being threatened or used is incredible, overwhelming, utterly lethal. Settle for a broken leg, a sprained ankle, a scarred cheek, a pulled-out eye, because hey, you can get better from all of that.
That is exactly my reasoning, yes. I don't accept the premise that it is a government's role to protect the lives of its civilians at any possible cost.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Woah woah woah, you guys are approaching this from the wrong angle. As a college student I can tell you this: I don't want military recruiters chasing me around on campus all the time. The decision to not allow military recruiters on a campus is often one made by the students, or at least agreed with by the majority of students, rather than the administration. Its like denying telemarketers access to student phone numbers, or travelling salesmen entrance to the dorms. The recruiters are often extremely obnoxious and annoying and students who are at college DON'T WANT TO ENLIST. They want to finish college. And if they do want to enlist it's a pretty safe assumption that they know how to find the recruiting and enlistment offices themselves.
So I totally agree with the colleges choice to deny recruiters access to campus. There's no good reason to FORCE recruiters to be allowed on college and university campuses to bug the hell out of students who a) know how to enlist if they wish to and b) are not likely to be convinced and c) really don't wanna be spammed by more propoganda and bullshit.
One of the things I most hated about high school was the ever precense of military recruiters. It was absurd and annoying, but in high school it made a little bit of sense. There were plenty of high school seniors who were highly likely to choose going to the military first as a way of raising money for college or just plain as a career.
Folk who are in Law School however, already have a way of paying for school, are already in the middle of said education and its not good to take a break from it for a 3 year long tour of duty. It makes no sense whatsoever to put recruiters on college and university campuses.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Folk who are in Law School however, already have a way of paying for school, are already in the middle of said education and its not good to take a break from it for a 3 year long tour of duty.
They're not being recruited to take a break from law school. They're being recruited to join up after law school.
In Law School, recruiting is a very formal activity. Each firm is given a day to come to campus. Students submit resumes to the school, which sends them on to the firms the students have selected. Firms use the colleges computer system to inform students that they have been granted an interview. The school schedules the time and provides changing rooms for students. Many schools force firms to interview a couple of students the firms didn't select. The interviews occur on campus, often in dedicated rooms.
In the top law schools, most students have a summer job by the end of the first semester of their second year. Most students get an offer of permanent employement from that firm. The military is not trying to set up tables near the cafeteria; it's desiring to join an existing, streamlined system for accepting requests for interviews and scheduling interviews with those selected.
Edit: The intent of the Solomon amendment is to allow military recruiters the same access as firms. The briefs allege the military is demanding more than that, but that's a different issue than whether the military should have the same access.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Woah woah woah, you guys are approaching this from the wrong angle. As a college student I can tell you this: I don't want military recruiters chasing me around on campus all the time. The decision to not allow military recruiters on a campus is often one made by the students, or at least agreed with by the majority of students, rather than the administration. Its like denying telemarketers access to student phone numbers, or travelling salesmen entrance to the dorms. The recruiters are often extremely obnoxious and annoying and students who are at college DON'T WANT TO ENLIST. They want to finish college. And if they do want to enlist it's a pretty safe assumption that they know how to find the recruiting and enlistment offices themselves.
Dude. At my undergrad school, the recruiters put a table out on the quad and stood at it all day. Hardly "chasing the students around". You also might be interested to know that military recruiters on college campuses aren't just looking for enlistees, they're looking for future officers.
quote:Folk who are in Law School however, already have a way of paying for school
Yeah. Student loans, lots and lots of them. And JAG officer pay comes in very handy to pay them off.
Tom, I agree completely about the Coasties. They do a hard job, but the only time I would consider them military is if the Navy were to exercise their option to pull them in during a real war. Infantry, by the way, provides a nice, flexible option between nuking them and letting them do whatever bad thing it is that you want them to stop doing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
quote:That is exactly my reasoning, yes. I don't accept the premise that it is a government's role to protect the lives of its civilians at any possible cost.
I don't either. To what are you responding? I never suggested that. I was merely contradicting your opinion that the government should only protect the lives of its civilians if all (or a massive majority) of its civilians are threatened with lethal force.
You live in a society which grants you the luxury of being able to settle for that sort of thing thanks to the sacrifices, current and past, of people whom you scorn, Tom. To bring up Nicholson again, you rise and sleep under the blanket of freedom provided, and then question the way in which it is provided.
Not only is the blanket provided by those you scorn, the very right to question it is provided by them as well. I think it's remarkably short-sighted and incredibly naive to think that because they aren't protecting you now from a direct and obvious threat, they aren't really protecting you. By that absurd logic, one should do away with police in the safest community in the nation.
Because, after all, right now no one is threatening the upstanding citizens of such a community, so the cops aren't really protecting them.
Alcon,
quote:So I totally agree with the colleges choice to deny recruiters access to campus. There's no good reason to FORCE recruiters to be allowed on college and university campuses to bug the hell out of students who a) know how to enlist if they wish to and b) are not likely to be convinced and c) really don't wanna be spammed by more propoganda and bullshit.
The colleges such students go to-at least, the ones we're talking about in this thread-are taking money from the federal government. Thus the students are also benefiting from that money as well.
In other words, a college could very simply get rid of recruiters without the slightest of legal problems-just like an individual can do with telemarketers. "We will no longer accept federal money due to the strings attached / take me off your call-list and never call this number again."
I have little sympathy for an individual who complains of telemarketing if they do not do that, just as I have little sympathy for your point of view, Alcon. You don't want recruiters? Don't take the freaking money. It's pretty simple. So simple a college student should be able to understand, your propaganda and BS aside.
Incidentally, just how many times have you personally been "chased around" by recruiters? And if you have at all, just how forceful was your rejection of past recruitment efforts? I'm curious as to the answers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I was merely contradicting your opinion that the government should only protect the lives of its civilians if all (or a massive majority) of its civilians are threatened with lethal force.
Explain to me again how our invasions of foreign countries over the course of my lifetime have, even once, defended the lives of American citizens -- much less provided a "blanket of freedom" under which we ungrateful mensch get to sleep.
quote: Not only is the blanket provided by those you scorn, the very right to question it is provided by them as well.
I don't buy that in the slightest, Jeff. In fact, it's that attitude -- prevalent among "them," and "their" supporters -- which is a far greater threat to that right than any Iraqi terrorist. The American military is not the wellspring of American democracy.
-------
quote: You don't want recruiters? Don't take the freaking money.
It's worth noting that the federal government did not add these requirements until after colleges had rejiggered their finances on the assumption of federal funds. I know you're aware how incredibly difficult it would be for a college to come off that teat nowadays, especially in the current climate.
Let's say I'm driving down the highway. It's well below zero out, and snow is blowing, and I pass a hitchhiker who's stuck by the side of the road because her car broke down. I pull over, invite her in, and start driving to the next town. About a minute later, I tell her that she needs to sleep with me before I'll take her anywhere.
Sure, she could say "no," and demand that I return her to the barren wasteland outside. But surely I'm also at fault for taking advantage of her desperation, especially after the fact...?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:
quote: You don't want recruiters? Don't take the freaking money.
It's worth noting that the federal government did not add these requirements until after colleges had rejiggered their finances on the assumption of federal funds. I know you're aware how incredibly difficult it would be for a college to come off that teat nowadays, especially in the current climate.
There's also no opt-out clause in the tax system. I can reject a service, say, libraries, offered by the federal government, but I can't simply choose to stop paying the portion of taxes that go towards funding libraries. If the library doesn't agree to my wish of removing Huck Finn from its collection (due to use of the N-word in the book, which I believe is poisoning my community), can I stop supporting the library through my taxes? No.
Why should the federal government have the power to stop funding things it feels are against its interests, when individuals don't?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Explain to me again how our invasions of foreign countries over the course of my lifetime have, even once, defended the lives of American citizens -- much less provided a "blanket of freedom" under which we ungrateful mensch get to sleep.
Well, I'm not sure exactly how old you are, but I'll assume you're talking Vietnam, Korea, Gulf War (first and second), Nicaragua, Haiti, Bosnia, Afghanistan, etc, even though I know some are in fact beyond your lifetime.
If you're talking in the incredidbly short-term, direct threat to your personal freedom, then none, of course. I have to wonder what else you manage in your life on that sort of time scale.
Do you wait to apply for loans the day before you expect to start college, or build a house? If you get a ticket, do you pay it the day your license would be suspended for failure to pay? Do you avoid vaccinations for your daughter, because she's not sick now? Do you start a thesis the weekend before it's due? Before you get married, do you carefully evaluate yourself and your fiance?
You have to think beyond the end of your nose, Tom. You've very good at that in other areas, but obviously I think you let your prejudices get in the way in this one.
Such wars protect your freedom in the long term because they demonstrate to our enemies that we are unwilling to permit ourselves or our friends to be threatened, killed, or intimidated.
Sure, ultimately the Soviet Union could never really have threatened the lower forty-eight. We had nukes, and soon they had nukes, too. But what about our allies? What about Americans abroad? What about our allies abroad? What about constant jockeying for first-strike capability, between us and them?
You cheapen quality of life for human beings because you are unwilling to support lethal force or its threat in response to anything except the exact same. If someone threatened your wife and daughter with, say, blinding, you apparently would respond with fisticuffs. At least by your logic, you would.
But see, I know you wouldn't, really. You'd kill the sonnofabitch. I remember a story you told about a time you were at a party. I forget the specifics, but for some reason there was a couple there, a BDS&M couple. The man had the woman on a leash, and was publicly humiliating her, making her crawl and whatnot, and you could tell she didn't like it. You punched him in the mouth, furious at the degradation.
At least, that's what I remember. I don't remember specifics, so it's possible it's something I'm completely wrong about. In any case, I don't think you'd respond with just fisticuffs in the face of a short-than-lethal threat to your wife and child.
Yet you're insisting that the nation-state should respond, not the way you would respond, but differently. Do as you say, not as you do.
Anyway, my point is that threats to freedom-overt and otherwise-do not happen overnight. Obviously we're not going to wake up like that movie where the Soviets have invaded the USA mainland, or anyone else. We're not going to wake up in 1984 one morning. It happens over a period of time. Just as the ACLU protects rights you yourself would never use-rights, for instance, to belong to NAMBLA-so too does the USA military protect you from threats to rights that are not in your face.
quote:I don't buy that in the slightest, Jeff. In fact, it's that attitude -- prevalent among "them," and "their" supporters -- which is a far greater threat to that right than any Iraqi terrorist. The American military is not the wellspring of American democracy.
Alright, you've got me there. Let me say that the quilt of freedom, of which many squares are provided by the military, then. I'm not one of those who thinks that the lawyer does nothing to protect American freedom while the soldier does everything. Obviously it takes more than a soldier, because a soldier's ability to make change in the world relies upon violence and the threat of violence. Other tools are necessary. A carpenter needs more than a hammer and saw, after all.
But there are degrees of force, just as there are types of hammers and saws. There's a mighty two-handed maul like in a movie, or there's a little sculptor's hammer. There's a DOOM-style bloody chainsaw, and there's a saw for ice sculpture. There's nuclear war, and there's boots on the ground, and there's the "training exercise" outside a belligerent nation's borders.
-------
quote:It's worth noting that the federal government did not add these requirements until after colleges had rejiggered their finances on the assumption of federal funds. I know you're aware how incredibly difficult it would be for a college to come off that teat nowadays, especially in the current climate.
Difficult does not mean impossible, and while it would be seriously difficult, it could still be done. Instead of trying to have the cake and eat it, too.
As for your hitchhiker situation, I daresay I'd wonder what the girl was doing out there hitchhiking (although personally I would of course give her a lift without the expectation of sex-in fact, I've done this before, minus the snow and cold).
And then I'd return her to the barren wasteland outside. Sure, I'd be a serious jerk who needed a good thrashing. But that's business.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
Just wanted to point out that a number of colleges, generally smaller private colleges as opposed to large public universitys, have stopped receiving federal funds in order to get out from federal conditions. (See Hillsdale College, Grove City College). This isn't too imply that it would be easy for state universitys to reject federal funds, it certainly would not be, but just to show that it is possible, not just in theory but in fact.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Why should the federal government have the power to stop funding things it feels are against its interests, when individuals don't?
Because it represents more than just the individual, just as a library serves more than just an individual.
Organize, vote the guys out. Sure, it's hard. Damn near impossible, in fact. But it can be done.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why should the federal government have the power to stop funding things it feels are against its interests, when individuals don't?
For one thing, the federal government should only fund things that are in its interests.
Also because individuals have no say in their total tax burden, except insofar as they modify their earning and spending habits to affect the tax due. Whereas the federal government does have a say in who receives funding and on what conditions. The federal government could repeal all collegiate funding tomorrow, and when the already-appropriated money ran out, they'd all get nothing.
That's why the federal government has the power to stop funding things against its interests.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: That's why the federal government has the power to stop funding things against its interests.
I think it's the assumption that the funding of higher education is only in the federal interest if it assists in the recruitment of new soldiers that many people find baffling.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It is possible to have more than one interest in one particular institution at one time. No one is making the assumption you're claiming.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think it's the assumption that the funding of higher education is only in the federal interest if it assists in the recruitment of new soldiers that many people find baffling.
Sure. I agree with you. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making. For one, the federal government doesn't have to fund everything in its interest. So there's no evidence that anyone assumes "funding of higher education is only in the federal interest if it assists in the recruitment of new soldiers that many people find baffling" and it's not really accurate to assign that assumption to anyone.
Further, it's clear the federal government has the power to stop funding all schools whenever it likes. It's clear it has the power to fund only some schools in certain situations. This case is about whether denial of access for military recruiters is one of those situations. There are many situations in which withdrawal of federal funds unrelated to a violation of a regulation is used to penalize institutions.
This case was never about whether the government has the power to stop funding the schools. Only about whether it has the power to stop funding the schools for this reason.
Frankly, this case is an excellent reason why we should severely reduce federal funding to universities. Financial aid should be seen as going to the students, with students having wide (not unlimited discretion) to select the schools they wish to attend. Other than that, federal university funding should be rare.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
You've told me why the government acts as it does - legal reaons - but I'm asking for the moral justifacation that gives the government the right to do so. The government does have some moral right to act on the behalf of the majority of people, but not at the expense of a minority. And that's assuming that the majority of the people support what the government is doing here, which has yet to be proven or even suggested.
---
quote:It is possible to have more than one interest in one particular institution at one time. No one is making the assumption you're claiming.
But do you think the federal interest in getting new recruits for its JAG program from a certain law school overrides the federal interest to fund an entire institute of higher education? What the government is threatening to do (quit funding an entire institution because it can't have miliatry recruiters at the law school) places the first interest above the second.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And that's assuming that the majority of the people support what the government is doing here, which has yet to be proven or even suggested.
I'll certainly suggest it. Given the nation's stance on homosexual marriage-even though I disagree with it-I think it's pretty reasonable to suggest that it would also support the government's stance on this.
There are other issues beyond this one school, Jhai. Also, we're not exactly facing a recruitment problem for lawyers in the USA-which is not true for the military.
I don't necessarily think the one interest is more important than the second. I just think that the school and the government have a deal, and the school wants line-item veto privileges over that deal, and the government refuses to give them. The government gives money to lots of things, and to permit one school the right to such a thing has wide-ranging repurcussions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You've told me why the government acts as it does - legal reaons - but I'm asking for the moral justifacation that gives the government the right to do so. The government does have some moral right to act on the behalf of the majority of people, but not at the expense of a minority. And that's assuming that the majority of the people support what the government is doing here, which has yet to be proven or even suggested.
You asked why the government has the right to refuse to fund something contrary to its interests when individual taxpayers don't, and the answer is because they're the ones with the money.
You as an individual have the right to fund schools with your own money based on whatever criteria you decide. Once you pay taxes, that money is the government's, and it has the right to allocate money, in general, as it sees fit. Now, we restrict the government's rights to spend its money in ways we don't restrict the individual's right. This case will decide if the government's right will be further restricted. But this is based on an entirely different set of moral and legal principles than the ones which prohibit you as a taxpayer from refusing to fund something you don't want to.
quote:But do you think the federal interest in getting new recruits for its JAG program from a certain law school overrides the federal interest to fund an entire institute of higher education? What the government is threatening to do (quit funding an entire institution because it can't have miliatry recruiters at the law school) places the first interest above the second.
I don't. I've not spoken up in support for this law once.
However, I think we elect people to decide how our tax dollars are spent. We elect people to decide which interests get placed above other interests.
From a powers perspective, ignoring rights, the federal government has the power to make this decision. They are the ones specifically elected to make those decisions. That's basically unquestionable.
What is contestable is whether they violate institutions' first amendment rights by this particular exercise of power. If they do, they should be stopped. But because of a particular infringement on a particular identifiable right, not because they have misprioritized the interests involved.
The solution to misprioritization is the electoral process, not the courts.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You asked why the government has the right to refuse to fund something contrary to its interests when individual taxpayers don't, and the answer is because they're the ones with the money.
You as an individual have the right to fund schools with your own money based on whatever criteria you decide. Once you pay taxes, that money is the government's, and it has the right to allocate money, in general, as it sees fit. Now, we restrict the government's rights to spend its money in ways we don't restrict the individual's right. This case will decide if the government's right will be further restricted. But this is based on an entirely different set of moral and legal principles than the ones which prohibit you as a taxpayer from refusing to fund something you don't want to.
But this doesn't answer my question. Simply because some one or thing has money doesn't give them the moral right to spend it however they would like. To take an extreme example, suppose the government decided to spend taxpayer's dollars to fund a program that enslaved a minority within the country. And the majority of the country agrees with this allocation of funds. Does that give the government the moral right to spend this money in this way? And not funding something works along the same basic principles.
quote: However, I think we elect people to decide how our tax dollars are spent. We elect people to decide which interests get placed above other interests.
From a powers perspective, ignoring rights, the federal government has the power to make this decision. They are the ones specifically elected to make those decisions. That's basically unquestionable.
What is contestable is whether they violate institutions' first amendment rights by this particular exercise of power. If they do, they should be stopped. But because of a particular infringement on a particular identifiable right, not because they have misprioritized the interests involved.
The solution to misprioritization is the electoral process, not the courts. [/QB]
I think we're pretty much agreeing here, but we're coming at it from different angles. I'm coming off an all-nighter, so I may not be all that coherent in my replies. Sorry. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Such wars protect your freedom in the long term because they demonstrate to our enemies that we are unwilling to permit ourselves or our friends to be threatened, killed, or intimidated.
To be fair, that's not exactly a fact, just an opinion. You could also argue that we would have far less enemies if our foreign policy was a little different.
I would agree that such wars may protect certain interests, or prevent future threats to our interests, but there's a big gap between "using a show of force to make the bad guys afraid of us" and "defending our freedoms." And really, what freedoms are we talking about here? Certainly not territorial freedom, the days of warring over land and territory (at least for the US) have long since past. Certainly not freedom in the sense of having basic rights, that's determined right here on US soil.
So really, what you're talking about is preventing future threats to our country from enemies that may or may not yet exist. In my mind, that is quite different than defending our freedoms.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
camus,
Of course it's an opinion.
I have never disputed that, for instance, the Iraq war currently being waged is directly protecting the freedoms of American citizens living in America today. Some make that argument, but not myself. Some also make the argument that the war is being waged directly for oil.
People who speak in immediates when discussing threats to the freedoms and safety (and I'm talking safety in terms of survival) of powerful modern nations are fools. That's not how a powerful nation is brought down, ever, really, but in the modern day as well.
Rome didn't fall when their enemies sacked it. Imperial China didn't fall in the middle of the 20th century. The Soviet Union didn't fall in the early 90s. Civil rights for minorities were not won in the 60s. Women's suffrage was not won the first day a woman entered the voting booth. Freedom for slaves was not won in 1865.
Well, really, all of these things are untrue, but I think you see the point I'm trying to make. Yes, slavery ended in the USA (at least legal slavery) in 1865. But the fight to end it did not begin there, it began when the first human being came to America in chains. Truthfully it began even earlier, in England. Civil rights were officially recognized for minorities the day the high and mighty put ink to paper and made it law, but the fight started long before. The Soviet Union was rotting from within for decades, losing its battle with the USA for just as long, before finally the frame collapsed.
That's what happens when you become extremely powerful. Things become gray. Exercising or refraining from exercising that power, in and of itself, changes things. So yes, the threat is not a knife at the throat of Uncle Sam, so to speak. A lethal threat is no less lethal for being imminent and not actually made manifest.
Tom prefers we wait until the knife is at our throat-he has said as much, we should not exercise our military save when our safety as an entire nation is threatened. Some prefer to act whenever they see someone with a knife looking at us funny. I prefer a middle road.
But of course part of the trouble with being a powerful nation is that none dare to threaten openly, therefore the threats-to us in the public, that is-will almost always be future threats that may or may not exist.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
SCOTUS upheld the Solomon Amendment unanimously (8-0, Alito did not participate).
1.) The government could require colleges to provide access to military recruiters whether it was funding them or not. If Congress can require something, it can make funding condition on that something instead.
2.) Providing access to recruiters is not speech, so compelling such access is not compelled speech. The Court said that the schools are free to protest and speak against the military policy as long as they don't interfere with recruiter's access.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My point was that the military feels like the law schools/liberals hate them. That's why I suggested a different approach.