posted
Similar to the myths about income taxes, this is wishful thinking about how the constitution actually works.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The links don't seem to work for me, can you post a summary?
I wouldn't worry about the draft anyways. The top brass doesn't want it. Things would have to get desperate.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GinetteB: It sounded pretty reasonable to me, can you explain why it doesn't work Orincoro?
Fixed that for you.
It doesn't work because there are a large number of precedents, dating back to the 1910's, of cases in which draft laws have been upheld, and appeals under the 13th and 5th amendments and other rights have been rejected by the supreme court on several occasions. Were you to be arrested for failing to comply with a draft order, you would likely lose, and go to prison. You might not lose, and you might not end up going to prison, but the constitution and the law is not like magical fairies, where the right combination of words unlocks special secret powers. If the government wants something, and the courts see it as within their right, you have to fight it in court, and you can lose- and in this case, you probably would lose.
I understand that it sounds reasonable to you, however it is simply not the way this process works. You have a right, under the constitution, to "due process." This means that if you are charged with a violation of the law, you have a right to have your case heard in court. However, this particular article's interpretation of this right makes it appear as if you, as a citizen, have some *peremptory* right to demand that the government justify its requirements of you before you can be compelled to comply with them. This is far from the case. Were you drafted into service, against your will, you would find yourself under the uniform code of military justice. If you sued the government for violating your rights, you would have no guarantee of victory, and no guarantee that an appeals court would hear your case at all (the SCOTUS refuses the majority of appeals). And if there was a draft law in place, you would certainly lose your initial case, since the government's actions would be lawful. It would only be an appeals process that challenges *the law* and not the government's direct action, that would allow for your victory- and as I say, there is no guarantee, and a *very* high likelihood, that your case would simply never be heard on appeal. If you continued to refuse to serve, and you couldn't have your case heard, you could be tried under the uniform code, and spend the rest of your life in the stockade.
posted
Thanks very much Orincoro. That is very helpful.
I care, because I am interested in human rights. So I find the question whether or not a country can force a person against their will to serve in the military interesting. And I do not have such a sense of 'Europe is my world and the rest is of no interest'.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can always choose to go to prison. But I don't think draft evasion is a big problem. According to wiki no-one was persecuted since 1987 for that.
But I still think in most cases it's cowardice rather than freedom issue.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
About a dozen countries currently have mandatory military service. Israel is one of them, yes.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Israel has one of the most harsh military services. One of my friends from Israel told me they have obligatory 2-year service (or maybe more), including women. My parents, while on a trip to Jerusalem, said they saw teenage girls carrying automatic weapons.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there was a draft, nothing on that site would be useful for trying to get out of it. Same as how most "get out of paying the unconstitutional income tax!" websites are only good for making deluded people get themselves arrested and charged for tax evasion over the very much so constitutional income tax.
Also yeah mandatory service wouldn't fly here but plenty of countries have demonstrated that it can be an okay thing
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: I think Israel has one of the most harsh military services.
And you base that evaluation on what?
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: My parents, while on a trip to Jerusalem, said they saw teenage girls carrying automatic weapons.
In that 18 and 19 year olds are teenagers, that was almost certainly true. So what? Most countries' armed services, whether volunteer or drafted, include 18 and 19 year olds.
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: One of my friends from Israel told me they have obligatory 2-year service (or maybe more), including women.
3 years for men, and 2 for women. There are quite a few exceptions and exemptions, as well as an alternative called Sherut Leumi, National Service.
I have Israeli cousins (male and female) who have fulfilled their requirement through Sherut Leumi, some who have used the yeshiva exemption, and some who have served in a variety of combat and combat-support roles.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: I think Israel has one of the most harsh military services.
And you base that evaluation on what?
On the fact that I haven't heard of many other countries in which you had a three year training. That's what I mean by hearsh- having three years of your life (as a man) spent on military.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: My parents, while on a trip to Jerusalem, said they saw teenage girls carrying automatic weapons.
In that 18 and 19 year olds are teenagers, that was almost certainly true. So what? Most countries' armed services, whether volunteer or drafted, include 18 and 19 year olds.
Yeah, well, those are girls. It doesn't matter how old they are, just how young they look. That was their impression. Girls with guns.
And that there are guns everywhere.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Russia's draft is several thousand degrees worse than the one in Israel. It requires service, and by service it means doing anything the officers require, for little money, no respect, and few safety considerations. Several Generals were caught treating their draftees as slave labor for building new homes, businesses, etc.
Many people have their sons disappear after being drafted, only to be told they died in some accident.
When we adopted from Russia we were warned never to bring him back into Russia between the ages of 16 to 26 for fear that he will be kept and drafted. They do not give up citizenship claims.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Israel has a long term of service for two reasons: many soldiers get extensive training (I have three cousins (one's a girl) who can do amazing things in tiny planes); and need. Like "guns everywhere", it's a response to the national reality. It's not what anyone wants (see Golda Meir on forgiveness), but it is an unfortunate necessity.
And many of the skills picked up as part of military training translate to marketable skills in the job market.
As far as drafting women, those Israeli women who do not wish to serve in the military go the Sherut Leumi route. But if you are going to claim teenage boys are better draftees than teenage girls, I'll just roll my eyes at you.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Anyway isn't their a lot of strife over Torato Omanuto and all the ultraorthodox who essentially get off scot-free from the conscription requirement
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: You can always choose to go to prison. But I don't think draft evasion is a big problem. According to wiki no-one was persecuted since 1987 for that.
But I still think in most cases it's cowardice rather than freedom issue.
No has been prosecuted for failing to register for the selective service. Draft dodgers were pardoned by Carter- thus no prosecutions since 77.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
During the ten days I spent in Israel in 2005 I saw all of that. I also felt extremely safe wherever I went. My father-in-law freaked out because some bomb got thrown over the fence/wall not hurting anyone. I asked him how many deaths he saw that week in the United Staes on the news, he got the point. Israel actually has a much lower intentional death rate than we do.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My old roommate, who cannot return to Taiwan, unless he chooses to be immediately drafted, does have the option of being forced to work for a government company that is less military-like than the army for a year. I think he can be forgiven if he waits until he reaches an age that is considered "old" by the military (forgot what, sorry).
Even a year of doing work he isn't interested in is too much for him, despite some relatives and an ex-girlfriend who live there.
But if you want to avoid a draft, leave the country and don't come back. Works pretty nicely. Just pick somewhere you like and hope you don't miss your family.
I believe Germany has loosened its military requirement, but my friends are older than that. All I know about their military experience is it involved feeding flood relief people frighteningly gigantic amounts of rice.
For your guilty laugh of the day, said German friend deadpanned, "In Germany, we don't have holidays to honor our war veterans."
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: All I know about their military experience is it involved feeding flood relief people frighteningly gigantic amounts of rice.
I just get this terribly stereotypical image of angry germans holding flood victims at bayonet point, forcing bags of rice at them, and yelling essen den reis! ESSEN DEN REIS!Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there is a problem with mandatory service. I think having kids give service to their country is good. Of course that wouldn't go over here. Even if it weren't just military service, but a peace corps or WPA type. Three years is the typical first enlistment that the US military has. With that, you learn a skill, discipline, get VA loans for life, free room and board, decent enough pay, free medical, and GI Bill for school.
I joined the National Guard when I was 17. Spent 7 years in. I never had to go to war, I was in between Gulf conflicts. But I did have responsibility which, I feel, kept me out of trouble (I come from a big family of drug users/criminals). It taught me that I can accomplish anything with hard work. It gave me a purpose and I learned a poor white kid from Oklahoma could go to college even though I didn't play football.
Again, it would never happen here. God forbid we ask something of our citizens.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Again, it would never happen here. God forbid we ask something of our citizens.
We? It feels like you're a part of the system, you work for the government? Usually it's "the goverment asks" or something.
And - I agree. Governments now treat people like they are all children, and people like it. You could live your life doing nothing and do nothing in return for all the free stuff you get. Not that such life would be a good one.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Again, it would never happen here. God forbid we ask something of our citizens.
We? It feels like you're a part of the system, you work for the government? Usually it's "the goverment asks" or something.
And - I agree. Governments now treat people like they are all children, and people like it. You could live your life doing nothing and do nothing in return for all the free stuff you get. Not that such life would be a good one.
No, I don't work for the government. Never have unless you count 7 years National Guard and 10 years as a contractor for NASA. I meant "we" as in US citizens. The collective group of people who make up this country. :-)
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: But if you are going to claim teenage boys are better draftees than teenage girls, I'll just roll my eyes at you.
Don't roll them at me, please.
Don't make dumb sexist claims, and I won't roll them at you.
Rebecca... What's sexist about noticing groups of 19-year-old girls walking the streets with m16s (or whatever they're called). Not a common view in Europe. And probably in the US, too.
From another topic:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Having people inform me what what I think, what I feel, and why doesn't really do much to brighten my day.
We agree on one the latter, you know.
edited, 'cause I pasted the quote on my part Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
And I only said something about rolling my eyes regarding claims that "teenage boys are better draftees than teenage girls". If that's not what you are claiming, then you are at no risk of eye rolling.
I have no idea why you think I am telling you what you think or feel.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'll sort of clarify my earlier standpoint: mandatory service programs can actually be very awesome but i don't trust the american political system with it soooooo
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's sexist about noticing groups of 19-year-old girls walking the streets with m16s
Nothing. Re-read rivka's original statement that you first responded to:
quote:if you are going to claim teenage boys are better draftees than teenage girls, I'll just roll my eyes at you.
Not a word about noticing people with guns.
That aside, it does seem to me that grunt infantry still needs a lot of upper-body strength. Lugging forty kilos of equipment all the live-long day is not a trivial feat.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It seemed like you were saying the weird thing was seeing teenage girls with guns. Not just teenagers in general.
Actually, I have no problem with that. If you are used to one and not the other, then seeing that which you are unused to will be weird.
It was the implication that there's something wrong with drafting female teenagers, but not with drafting male teenagers, that I take exception to.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's sexist about noticing groups of 19-year-old girls walking the streets with m16s
Nothing. Re-read rivka's original statement that you first responded to:
quote:if you are going to claim teenage boys are better draftees than teenage girls, I'll just roll my eyes at you.
Not a word about noticing people with guns.
I don't get what your point is.
She said, that if I claimed that boys are better draftees, she would roll her eyes at me. I said, don't, because I didn't want to claim that. Then she said that as long as I don't make sexist claims, she won't. Then I started defending myself, but now I'm confused what was this sexist thing in the first place.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
If you're just not used to it, it's not specifically sexist to find it odd. I find it more odd when I see a topless woman on the street than a topless man, simply because it's less common and so more notable.
It's only if you take it a step further, and say that women shouldn't be soldiers, that it's truly sexist.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That aside, it does seem to me that grunt infantry still needs a lot of upper-body strength. Lugging forty kilos of equipment all the live-long day is not a trivial feat.
This is one of those things that seems silly to me. Of course that's true.
But, first of all, not all military positions are grunt infantry. So, it still doesn't preclude egalitarian military systems.
Second of all, not all men have more upper body strength than all women. They're generalized trends, with hundreds of thousands of exceptions. So if you have any sort of aptitude test, and then it turns out that after aptitude tests 70% of the soldiers placed as grunts are men and 30% are women or whatever, that's not sexist.
Saying that the generalized trend means we shouldn't have women be infantry grunts is still sexist, though.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Lugging forty kilos of equipment all the live-long day is not a trivial feat.
True. I was very impressed the time I saw my cousin -- about to go back after being home for a couple days on leave -- all ready to go.
She had been in about a year at that point, so it wasn't a big deal to her anymore.
My two male fighter pilot cousins are slender and weedy. Probably part of why they went for the fighter pilot gig, and not infantry.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have a big family, rivka! And many of them had somthing to do with military, too.
Except for my grandfather, no-one I know had anything to do with the army. But Polish army has like 100 000 soldiers only, so I guess this could be the reason.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I just get this terribly stereotypical image of angry germans holding flood victims at bayonet point, forcing bags of rice at them, and yelling essen den reis! ESSEN DEN REIS!
This is just wrong. In German the formal imperative is Essen Sie den Reis! The informal plural imperative is Esst den Reis! And if there's just one flood victim and it's someone you're close to, you could use the informal singular and say Iss den Reis!Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
