Good Idea/Bad Idea: Drafting Non-Citizens

Male U.S. permanent residents, ages 18-26, are required to register for Selective Service. Not registering can wreck their chances of ever attaining citizenship.

The thinking behind this policy is that the privilege of living in the United States comes with an obligation (for young men) to defend the country if the need arises. Residents with non-immigrant status, like those here on student visas, are exempted from the requirement.

Other exemptions do exist. Some countries have agreements or treaties with the United States relieving their citizens of military service obligations, but a resident requesting not to serve based on such a treaty "can never become a U.S. citizen, and may have trouble reentering the U.S. if he leaves." This seems a little harsh -- assuming the no-citizenship penalty isn't specified in the bilateral agreement -- and the Supreme Court has said as much.

Illegal immigrants are required to register for Selective Service as well, but you've got to figure that doesn't happen very often. Interestingly, only permanent residents and citizens can volunteer for military service.

The bottom line, though, is that men who are not U.S. citizens and have sworn no allegiance to the United States are eligiible to be drafted into our military, should the draft ever be reinstituted.

Does that seem reasonable to you? If there were a draft, could we really count on soldiers who are citizens of other countries and have not pledged their loyalty to the United States? Remember also that only citizens have the right to vote in federal elections. Is it fair to draft someone who does not have the full rights of citizenship?

By Emily Messner |  March 23, 2006; 10:50 AM ET  | Category:  National Politics
Previous: Tree Huggers, Tax Cheaters and Landmine Lovers | Next: What Mexico Would Do for Guest Workers

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Jeez Emily where do you come up with this stuff. Just because illegals by law are required to register for the selective service does not mean that if a draft were reinstated they would automatically be drafted. Being drafted is a process that includes checks for fitness, health and other factors. Do you really think checking for citizenship would be left off the list?

Lets assume an illegal registered (unlikely as you rightly point out) and they show up for processing and are found not to be a citizen. What do you think would happen next?

I'm heading over to RedAmerica to let off some steam...

Posted by: Sully | March 23, 2006 11:13 AM

Of course it's not reasonable. This is the kind of untenable situation you get when you decide to ignore your own laws.

For the hundredth time: *let's enforce our labor laws* that require employees to check the immigration status of applicants. Simply enforcing this law will solve our illegal immigration problem -- and along with it, end the kind of unfair, anarchic, Kafkaesque situation Emily describes in today's post.

Posted by: DC Dude | March 23, 2006 11:14 AM

As a combat veteran I have given a great deal of thought about the draft. My stance on this issue is that if we are TRULY a nation at war, then we certainly are not mobilized as one.

The overwhelming burden has been shouldered by those who have volunteered to serve and virtually by no one else. The argument made (and one of the few that gets my blood boiling) is that we all volunteered KNOWING what could be. Of course the simple answer to that is, yes, but we also did it trusting in the competence of our leadership to "employ your team in accordance with its capability" and to only put us in harms way for good reason. I think we have been failed on both accounts.

Now, a draft and higher taxes to actually pay for the war would signal a national mobilization to counter a true global threat. Of course, if you think BushCo numbers are low now, check them out after THAT announcement.

But, let's assume that we institute a draft, but only among foreign-borns; an American Foreign Legion. That would miss the point. Once again, we would be passing the burden on to others when we should ALL be feeling the pain. War should not only be hell for the few.

The concept of an American Foreign Legion is NOT a bad one. However, it would have to be volunteer and it would require a lengthy enlistment and some pretty good leadership (and I'm not sure there is enough to spare even now). However, like the French Foreign Legion, they could be given all of the crappy work like policing after invasion and could be trained to do as such.

In the end, the draft is a politically unworkable tool and simply passing it off to non-citizens misses the point. The draft, if done via Zip Code, could bring fresh thinking and leadership to the military and would spread the sacrifice to all. This alone would sober up a lot of people because I'm sure that when Biff Richboy gets his call-up notice, daddy will be calling his Senator.

When we stop looking to have others do our work for us, we will all be better off.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 23, 2006 11:16 AM

Interesting questions.

I can understand the permanent residents signing up for service (as some Iraq soldiers/Marines witht that status and died there were given citizenship after death). This isn't a foreign concept, as foreigners have found for us since the Revolution (the Hussians for example). And our citizens helped other nations in battle -- before we entered WWII Americans went to Britain as aviators on bombing runs, as well as in China with the famous "Flying Tigers". Since this has been going on for over 200 years, this really isn't an issue. In a fox hole, you know who your friends and enemies are.

That said, expanding enlistment to foreigners isn't a good thing, because loyality is questionable. I've said it before and I'll say it again: dual citizenship obligations should be illegal. During the Northern Ireland IRA/Sinn Fein wars during the 80's, it was no secret that US citizens of Irish descent were aiding those terrorists (sending money and bodies over there to help the "cause"). That's a prime example of dual loyalities, and the mess it can bring back home. This is also evident with US Jews who are obligated to serve in the Israeli military due to dual citizenship too. One can't be loyal to two "masters", and being a dual citizen tests the loyality of a person to EITHER country.

So, IMO, permanent residents can sign up for military service, but no one else but US citizens (exceptions are made, especially for special services, i.e., spying, special forces training (like SAS and the old Rhodesian bush fighters who may wish to join our military to be instructors) and biochemical warfare (like what occurred after WWII with that Japanese germ warfare unit). Those exceptions are rare, so not likely to be abused.

And the draft won't come anytime soon. It's a political suicide move, since no one like the draft <-- especially the military as the quality of the service person is lowered (ask my brother about the court ordered recruits who were a discipline problem and too old to reform). With such expensive hardware, to just fill the ranks with bodies is going to cost the taxpayer too much money in lost/damage goods (which maybe the ultimate bottom line for polticos who want to be re-elected. Even papered patriots look at their wallet.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 23, 2006 11:21 AM

That was the situation in the 60s; all US permanent residents had to register for the draft. The difference being that back then there was an actual draft and as a result a great number of non-citizens were sent to Vietnam. A significant number of non-citizens were killed or injured in the Vietnam war.

Posted by: Juan Castro | March 23, 2006 11:24 AM

Oh yeah, the whole "enforce the laws" thing is a joke. Please tell me that if the industry leaders, who have their heads place firmly in the fourth points of contact of our leadership wanted these people gone that this wouldn't be happening.

The reason the President and industry doesn't want the laws enforced too well is because it is economically useful to have them around. Whether it's cleaning your house, raking your lawn, hauling construction supplies around the site, picking fruit, or any one of another low- skill job - they are cheap, do not require health care expenses and do not require tax payments.

What part of PROFIT IS MY GOD do you people not get? You are expecting the same administration that allows jobs to be shipped overseas where labor laws are almost nil for the gain of profit to actually go after the only source of cheap labor left in the US? Right, I have a bridge and some nice land to sell you.

When you all wake up and realize that you are all a commodity in the eyes of this administration, then perhaps you can see clearly on issues like this. Bush is a free trader and that is because the system that allows him and his supporters to profit the most is based on an openess that cares nothing about YOU.

Live it, know it, deal with it.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 23, 2006 11:24 AM

While I'm at it: women should also be required to do sign up for Selective Service -- and not as maids either. Every citizen has a duty to serve their country in some capacity. Be it with a rifle, or loading crates on a C-130.

Can't have double standards. If women want to be equal (or better) than men, they have to accept the ultimate responsibility, as well. Anything less than that, they're passing the buck (and men despise it).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 23, 2006 11:29 AM

I was one of those "permanent residents" who was drafted during the Vietnam war. I was assigned to Fort Bliss Texas for basic training. About half of my training company was composed of "green carders". Several did not even speak English. We used the buddy system to translate the Drill Instructor's orders.
As part of the enrollment process, we all swore alegiance to the US. Even though I was against the war, I chose to serve because I felt I owed this country for the great opportunity afforded my family.
"My Country Right or Wrong". I have never regreted serving.

Posted by: RdlS | March 23, 2006 11:32 AM

Interesting thought SandyK, too bad some conservatives seem to disagree.

Conservatives supporting the MALE troops:

O'Beirne: Fighting wars "a job for men, not women"

Summary: On American Family Radio's Today's Issues, National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne asserted that "fighting our wars, engaging the enemy in this uncivilized thing we call war is a job for men, not women," then suggested that having women serve in the military was the equivalent of "a man send[ing] his wife or daughter to check out" a noise that "sounds like a break-in."

During the March 15 broadcast of American Family Radio's Today's Issues, National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne asserted that "fighting our wars, engaging the enemy in this uncivilized thing we call war is a job for men, not women," then suggested that having women serve in the military was the equivalent of "a man send[ing] his wife or daughter to check out" a noise that "sounds like a break-in." She said that "internationally that's just what we're doing by sending our daughters and our sisters to fight America's enemies."

During an interview about her book Women Who Make the World Worse (Sentinel, December 2005), O'Beirne also maintained that "good men protect and defend women in the face of physical threat," and told host Jeff Chamblee, "I, for one, do not believe that America's defense rests on the shoulders of teenage women and single mothers."

From the March 15 broadcast of American Family Radio's Today's Issues:

O'BEIRNE: I, for one, do not believe that America's defense rests on the shoulders of teenage girls and young single mothers.

CHAMBLEE: Thank you.

O'BEIRNE: And yet, an awful lot of them have been deployed to Iraq. I have two fundamental problems. The most fundamental problem, to me, is my conviction that good men protect and defend women in the face of a physical threat. This in no way offends my sense of equality, because I think fighting our wars, engaging the enemy in this uncivilized thing we call war is a job for men, not women. Think of it on the domestic front. You know, if you hear a sound in the middle of the night coming from downstairs and it sounds like a break-in, what poor excuse for a man sends his wife or daughter downstairs to check out the noise?

CHAMBLEE: Yeah.

O'BEIRNE: And yet on a grand scale, internationally that's just what we're doing by sending our daughters and our sisters to fight America's enemies.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 23, 2006 11:33 AM

AfghanVet:
"The argument made (and one of the few that gets my blood boiling) is that we all volunteered KNOWING what could be."
". Once again, we would be passing the burden on to others when we should ALL be feeling the pain. War should not only be hell for the few."


First off, I respect your service and what you have done. And I agree that war should not only be hell for a few, but possibly for different reasons than yourself. That said, I take issue with some of your statements. The term 'volunteer' is misleading. Did you truly volunteer? Or is it more of an application to a job and an acceptance based on various aptitudes? It's like joining the police force. Sure, you might not see any action, but the possibility is there. You don't join the militrary unless you feel that your need for a job/desire to be part of the military is greater than the inherant risks.

I do agree that war should be felt by everyone. We currently aren't paying for Iraq and this is folly. As a people we have no sense of what the war is costing us, both in economic terms and in terms of lives lost. I support a full draft if only because it will make the entire country deal with the possibility of themselves or a loved one having to stop what they are doing and ship off and fight. Despite the media, we as a people are too removed from the concept.

On topic:
Should non-American residents be drafted as well? Personally I see nothing wrong with it, assuming adequate background checks are in place. If you are living here and reaping the benefits, you should have to deal with the possibility of having to defned your home. I've met plenty of residents (my parents and sisters included up until they were naturalized a few years ago) who love this country and would do what they could for it. I've met plenty of citizens that wouldn't. A draft will piss off both residents and citizens. I doubt you will find much more dissent and conflicts of interest drafting permanent residents than you would drafting citizens.

Posted by: Freedom | March 23, 2006 11:35 AM

SandyK,
I can understand your animosity towards dual citizenship, but I feel it is unfounded. There are plenty of single citizenship people that are more than willing to help out their countries of heritage, etc. Just as there will be dual citizens who help their native country, there will be single citizens that help their native country. eliminating dual citizenship will have little to no effect. Citizenship, in the terms you discuss it, is simply a piece of paper saying "You belong to ...." True citizenship is a feeling in the mind that no amount of "renouncing past citizenship and swearing loyalty to current country" will fix. Either they will be loyal based on how they feel about the country or they will not, regardless of how many citizenships they have and where.

Posted by: Freedom | March 23, 2006 11:41 AM

But the draft lowers the quality of troops. Today's military isn't just 8 weeks of boot and 6 months @ AIT. It's years of training in their MOS, which has gotten a lot more technical and strict, compared to the days from Vietnam. Few are "straight legs" (Infantry) now, most are in support or technical MOSes, which do help combat arms, yet the size of the combat arms branches is quite small today (thanks to Rumsfield -- a civilian without a clue).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 23, 2006 11:44 AM

My friends from my unit and I have a saying...the Army doesn't take resumes. Yeah, it takes a little effort to become an officer and you have to have a college degree, but that guarantees nothing. And, since the BULK of the work is done by Non-Coms and the enlisted, they are where the rubber meets road.

God bless anyone who makes the choice to serve, but don't mistake willingness to serve with aptitude. Indeed, I have served with some of the smartest people I've ever known, but they were the 20% part of the Paredo Rule.

There is a reason the US Military is ill-equipped to deal with low-intensity/counter insurgency warfare and that is because manuevering in such an environment requires more that rote application of process, which is how 80% of the military operates. Why do you think all manuals are written at the 8th grade level?

The processes and techniques for closing with and engaging the enemy are fairly straight forward, not so much with dealing with a population that has been subjugated but not passified. This requires the nuance of police work, which is hard enough in our own society. You cannot expect the high-speed, ranger trained, 82nd jumping junkie to be able to disengage all of his training to become a guy whose first instinct isn't to kick down the door and "clear" the room as he was taught.

And, since, I have served with many who's civilian jobs weren't exactly in keeping with their levels of responsibility in the military, I can tell you that even our officer corps leaves some things to be desired.

Many have mistaken accomplishment of the process for mission accomplishment. That is bad juju when green tips are flying around.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 23, 2006 11:44 AM

WWII was won by draftees.

If you want to buy our glorious leader's assertion that this is going to be a LONG WAR, then we will NOT be able to prosecute it with only volunteers.

Shenseki was right, Donald baby was WAY wrong.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 23, 2006 11:47 AM

Freedom,

Citizenship is more than a piece of paper. It comes at a price, and that's blood.

I wish that it's required that every citizen must vote. I wish that every citizen is required to serve in some capacity to aide this country -- be it in the military, or a civil service job (like pushing paper). Until folks serve they get complacent, and they take things for granted. Service teaches them that there is a higher calling than themselves, and that we're all in this boat together.

Dual citizenship is wrong. If a person holds loyalities to two different countries it'll be difficult to trust them (not impossible, but very difficult). It's also a perfect breeding ground for spies, and I feel spies should be drawn and quartered in the public square as an object lesson.

I'm very strict on Law and Order, and even more so with protecting this country. I swore to protect this country from enemies both foreign and domestic and that oath I take very seriously.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 23, 2006 11:53 AM

One of the best officers I ever knew was drafted by the French Army while at Officer's Basic Course.

Sandy, you are making assumptions about dual citizenship that have very little basis in fact. The BIGGEST spies in our history have been good ol' Americans. Ames walked out of the agency with trash bags (literally) full of documents.

I can assure you that a spy whose onion is so thin as to still contain dual citizenship probably won't get too far.

The French Foreign Legion is a fairly effective fighting force, perhaps more so than their regular forces. And, as has been stated by others here, many permanent residents EARN their citizenship via service.

No, enlisting illegals in the current system is not workable. But, forming a service that would allow foreigners to EARN their citizenship is an idea worthy of investigation.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 23, 2006 12:02 PM

AfghanVet,

Have you've been in the military when the draft was around? When courts ordered deliquents to the military? My brother was a tank commander (he missed fighting in Vietnam by months), and he saw and experienced first hand the quality of soldiers that came via that route. He had to take a switch and beat the crap out of some who fell asleep on their watch while they were patrolling the Czech border (during the days of those "unoffical" border wars there -- where Czech border guards would shoot our soldiers. Something only recently been declassified for the public to know about). By falling asleep they could've killed their whole crew. So in those do-or-die situations, dire measures were needed -- and he beat the crap out these draftee pieces of crap (he also didn't have a high opinion of the 4 year sign-up-for-college junkies). He was a model soldier, and a high flyer, but he got out when the Army wanted to use him as a recruitment ploy -- he wasn't going to lie to kids, and he (and other vets I know, got out/retired early due to the lower standards. One "lifer pig" vet got tired of the comic book instruction, then when Reagan called him [and half the block] to be instructors, he and them told them to goto hell).

Draft isn't a good thing for the military. Career types who had experience in it will attest, they're a discipline problem; poor students; can actually hate their job; and can jeopardize their objectives (and kill other service people in their disregard).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 23, 2006 12:06 PM

Afghanvet wrote:
===========================================
The French Foreign Legion is a fairly effective fighting force, perhaps more so than their regular forces. And, as has been stated by others here, many permanent residents EARN their citizenship via service.
===========================================

Used to be. Today it's a shell of it's former self.

BTW, my brother graduate top of his class in the French Commando School (he was a really gung-ho high flyer making E-6 in 5 years in a MOS closed MOS). ;) He originally wanted to join the Special Forces but couldn't stand to be a medic (they specialize in many areas), so he wanted to be the next Patton, instead (Calvary Scout/3rd ACR - with Sheridans). ;) My dad's military record is even more colorful, but I'll spare those details for now. ;)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 23, 2006 12:12 PM

I agree with:
"I wish that it's required that every citizen must vote. I wish that every citizen is required to serve in some capacity to aide this country -- be it in the military, or a civil service job (like pushing paper). Until folks serve they get complacent, and they take things for granted. Service teaches them that there is a higher calling than themselves, and that we're all in this boat together."

But I disagree that dual citizenship is the problem. The problem is people that take this country for granted and people that are more loyal to their previous country than to their current. Taking away dual citizenship will not help. It's in the mind. And while I think that you're wishes would help turn the mind to be more loyal to this country it won't turn them all. I don't take issue with the concept of divided loyalties so much as you centering on dual citizenship. While it can be indicative of the problem, it is not the whole problem, nor even a large part.

Posted by: Freedom | March 23, 2006 12:30 PM

This is just another wonderful idea! Don't you people read history. The last people to do this were the Roman's and those foreign troops turned on them and destroyed their empire. Given just how short sighted, stupid, self centered and greedy, and sometimes evil the people of this country are, maybe we deserve it.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | March 23, 2006 12:33 PM

Sandy, you're confusing the draft as it was implemented in the 60s and 70s with a general, no-deferment draft done by zip code. Let's remember all of the current Yellow Elephants who "defered" service. Let's remember that most conscripts came from the poor and not the well educated.

I envision a much different draft.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 23, 2006 12:39 PM

I too like the idea of non-citizens being allowed to volunteer and earn citizenship. As long as the organization is set up correctly and the units stated mission is accurate then it could work well as Afghanvet suggested.

I agree that many draftees were crap but not all. We could form draftees into units used for some of the more mundane tasks and leave the fighting and special ops to volunteers. This might work as long as the benefits from volunteering and combat duty were much greater than just showing up because you were told to.

Posted by: Howard83 | March 23, 2006 12:46 PM

The same argument is used for Reserves and National Guard, and it's a crock. By far the active combat arms are more effective becuase they train more, but there are plenty of good leaders and soldiers in both the Reserves and NG. Hell, instructors I know now say some Mech NG units are consistently outscoring the AD component.

In the end, it's the leadership and purpose for which a soldier is being employed that will decide effectiveness. Choose to conscript good people, regardless of economic status, provide the appropriate training and you will have a good result. However, if the REASON for fighting is suspect (at best), then the motivation to serve is going to be less than enthusiastic.

If Mexico was about to invade and looked like they could at least take back Texas, even College Republicans would enlist. Funny, I don't see them running to any recruiting centers these days. Why, because it's somebody else's problem.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 23, 2006 12:46 PM

To Sandy: First off I have to disagree with your views on dual citizenship. Most people maintain double-loyalties from the day that they are born: to their mother and father. This is doubly so (no pun intended) when the parents are divorced. It's trying for the child, but it can be done.

That being said, I do agree with your stance in regards to women in the military. In Israel, ALL citizens are required to partake in a short 1-2 year stint in the armed forces regardless of their gender. I think this can be very empowering for young women, and may give them the self-esteem that seems to be lacking amongst a great portion of our youth.

As for the drafting of foreigners: Emily makes the argument that because they weren't born here they won't be as loyal to this country. I think the comments left earlier by the "greencarder" Vietnam vet adequately address the misperceptions of this argument. One could also point to James Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban" to see that citizenship doesn't necessarily guarantee loyalty. And particularly with a draft, the army is going to get a large mix of individuals with radically differing loyalties and beliefs. If we took a good look at the Vietnam War, I would be willing to bet that there were a fair number of American-born "traitors". Of course, I think the best way to establish loyalty in immigrant populations, is to treat them with dignity and respect.

Posted by: LB | March 23, 2006 12:47 PM

Oh, and Sandy, I suggest you check into the newly LOWERED requirements for enlistment before you refer to "court ordered" delinquents being a problem.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 23, 2006 12:51 PM

As a Democrat I have to say that I swing right on the concept of immigration. I'm from Texas and it makes me sad when I go home and see floods of immigrants, who mostly might be there illegally and who can't speak a lick of english. Here is my stance on the issue:

I think that the immigration bill is a must. I don't believe in the, "you are all immigrants" aspect of undocumented and illegal workers in the US defense of their actions. Yes, except the Native Americans, we are all immigrants. However, there is no parallel between my ancestors immigration in to this country and your illegal leap over or under the border. The immigrants of the industrial revolution and earlier came to this country on massive boats that took port in New York and so forth. These immigrants had to wait in holding blocks (kind of gymnasium tornado shelters) until they could be processed into this country legally. Granted they come in droves and droves and flooded the streets of the nearest city or town they could find, but the fact of the matter is is that they did it legally.
I'm sick and tired of hearing the we're all immigrants chant. Well, yes we all are, but some are here or came here legally and some did not. If you came here illegally you are establishing a pattern of violating the law and that you might continue to do that because you are not "an American" or chose not to respect the country you wish to enter by following its laws. How should America treat those who do not respect it? There should be curbs in place to prevent law breaking immigrants from entering this country or allowed to stay here. If you want to legally enter the country, fine, bienvenidos. But don't come in and accuse Americans as calling immigrants criminals when a) not all are and b) you are one if you are here illegally.
I think that hispanic or immigrant sensitive Congress members, both state and federal, should set up special departments in their offices to help any legal immigrant or American immigrant to get a family member into this country legally. I think that these Congressmembers should promote this program in their office to their constituents and help bring people here legally.

Posted by: BigB | March 23, 2006 12:53 PM

I'm suprised to see everyone here discussing the draft almost strictly from a military perspective. How about the moral perspective? I didn't want Bush, I didn't want a Republican congress, and I didn't want the Iraq war. Why on earth should I be required to fight and possibly die in a war that I voted against every chance I had? I can't really think of a single war that the US has engaged in since WWII that was actually worth the life of a single 18 or 19 year old American boy. Korea? no, Vietnam? Definitely not, all our operations in South America to get rid of socialist leaders and support US friendly dictators? Afganistan is a tough call, but considering the history of our actions in the Middle East (We armed Iran in the Iran contra scandal, and not we're struggling against it, We armed Sadam in the Iran-Iraq war, and now we're at war in Iraq, we armed Afganistan in the Afgan-Russian conflict, and then went to war there too), I really don't see how invadin Afganistan helped us at all. Military isn't the solution to any of our problems, it's the cause of all our problems. I have sympathy for the men who were drafted to fight in Vietnam and Korea. And I have sympathy for the young guys who've been indoctrinated to believe in Bush and foolishly signed up, but it's the same sympathy I feel for young Arab boys who've been indoctrinated to believe that blowing themselves up in cars is a good idea.

Posted by: Jeff | March 23, 2006 01:18 PM

Jeff,

I think you're missing my point. My point would be that instituting a draft would instantly bring realization of our policies to those who refuse to see the forest for the trees.

And, I volunteered to defend this country and the Constitution, not Bush. Unfortunately, as with any warrior, we are obligated to serve at the behest of the leaders. The draft would expose ALL to the incompetence of our leadership and then I think things would be different.

Now, as long as their stocks are jugging and they have a big screen TV and someone else's kid is doing the dying...it's all ok. NOTHING matters until the pain hits the suburbs, just ask Ohio.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 23, 2006 01:23 PM

I don't see a problem. Illegal immigrants would gladly serve in the Armed Forces if, at the end of their tour of duty, they have a hope of being rewarded with a path toward citizenship (rather than being promptly deported, as some would have it). There will be always be some "bad apples" in any constituency but, as a class, these people are hardworking, they are grateful to the country, and ready to defend the it and sign a pledge of allegiance...they only ask to be welcomed, made part of the team, and treated like everyone else.

Posted by: Born in the US | March 23, 2006 01:28 PM

BigB,

Why don't you think the Conservatives who control virtually ALL of the government cannot get this done? Because it's not profitable to do so AND in order to manage it and enforce it, it would violate their solemn oath to the almighty dollar - it would require even bigger government - and they can't pay for it now.

Don't you get it? There is as near a unanimous feeling about this issue as can be had in this country and the reason it's not getting done is because the BS that was sold to the public to get the chimp elected is suddenly being exposed for what it is, simplistic law making to maximize corporate profits and the profits of "pioneers".

Bush is taking a calculated risk, bad calculation at that, that he can placate the Repub donors AND the nationalistic frightwing long enough to get through the next election cycle. If Bush et al was concerned about solving this problem, it would be solved.

Forget it, we are just beginning to experience the pain of our collective follies of the last 6 years. It's going to get worse, count on it.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 23, 2006 01:31 PM

Emily, it's a waste of time to even discuss it. There will never be a draft, but not because the people don't want it (some do, some don't -- those who do generally favor the draft because they want to weaken the military and, particularly, weaken the political will to use it whenever a Republican is in the White House -- kind of like Afghan Vet -- btw, thanks for your service, AV). It won't happen because military leaders are overwhelmingly (even unanimously?) against it -- unmotivated draftees would significantly drag down the quality of the military, perhaps endangering the volunteers they have to serve with. What do you think, AV? How would you like to depend on a guy who got pulled away from his family by the threat of jail time? Maybe you'd rather count on someone like yourself -- a volunteer, even one who doesn't agree with the mission. We don't agree on the issues, but I wouldn't wish draftees on you. The draft would be a bad idea and everyone who's paying attention knows it.

Posted by: FormerDem | March 23, 2006 01:43 PM

AfganVet wrote:
"The draft would expose ALL to the incompetence of our leadership and then I think things would be different."

It didn't during Vietnam. I know there were defermets, but even those people, like Cheney, had the attention of the conflict. Riots began in them mid 60s yet the war lasted to 1974. Many people, people with kids in the conflict, were for Nixon, for the war, believed in the domino effect, etc... The draft did not have much effect then except to cause kids on campus, looking at the draft after graduation, to riot.

But what happened then that is not happening now is tax increases and the inflation caused by the war. That's all being kept low by heavy borrowing so, though we may know someone in Iraq and be paying attention, the war still seems far away and not touching the majority of Americans. If this war was allowed to drag down the economy as it would be doing if not for the heavy foreign borrowing and everyone actually felt the wars economic affects, you'd be hearing a lot more dissent.

Posted by: Sully | March 23, 2006 01:45 PM

I have still not received a satisfactory explanation as to why men are required to register for the draft and women are not. And as for that O'Brien woman's anti-man and anti-woman piece I would say that she is just the type of woman that I have absolutely no interest in defending.

Posted by: Mark | March 23, 2006 01:47 PM

A few relevant quotes, slightly off topic:

Alberto Gonzales, Feb. 6, 2006 hearing on NSA: "But we are a nation governed by written laws, not the unwritten intentions of individuals. What matters is the plain meaning of the statute passed by Congress and signed by the president. And in this case those plain words could not be clearer."

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

Principle of statutory construction: where specific exemptions are included in a statute, all possible exemptions not included are by implication explicitly excluded. (Because criminal punishment is included in the Thirteenth Amendment it means that the draft is excluded as an exemption).

Supreme Court's complete analysis of a Thireenth Amendment challenge to the draft (Selective Draft Law Cases: 245 U.S. 366 (1918)):

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."

I think there is probably a place for a Draft in our society, but its unconstitutionality appears beyond refute. Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment is in order. The Supreme Court case upholding the draft is probably one of the greatest acts of judicial activism -- with a desired result outflanking a clear reading of the Amendment -- still on the books. Maybe Bush's new "strict constructionist" justices will straighten this mess out. It would certainly be interesting to see them squirm if a case could ever make it to the Court for review.

Did the Court really think that the poor chaps during World War I who appealled their case all the way to the Supreme Court secretly wanted to go off to Germany to die in a mud pit, based upon some supreme duty that the Court just pulled out of their magic hat? They basically said that even if the defendants don't want to go, they have to go, so they don't actually have a choice, so shipping them off can't be involuntary. Yikes.

Posted by: DD | March 23, 2006 02:06 PM

IIRC, we drafted Filipinos to fight in WWII, and they becaue citizens afterwards. I have no objection if someone wants to fight in our military to becoming a citizen. Of course that's what destroyed Rome, their citizens paid mercenaries in exchange for citizenship. It's the way of all big states.

Posted by: Turnabout | March 23, 2006 02:06 PM

I wish that it's required that every citizen must vote. I wish that every citizen is required to serve in some capacity to aide this country -- be it in the military, or a civil service job (like pushing paper). Until folks serve they get complacent, and they take things for granted. Service teaches them that there is a higher calling than themselves, and that we're all in this boat together.

Posted by: SandyK | Mar 23, 2006 11:53:11 AM | Permalink


Well now Ms Know-It-All,

Your family came from Sweden you said? Not Prussia?

This is the United States of America you happy fascist. Not Europe, not Germany, not even Sweden, where the people must do this and the people must do that.

The people are 'not' required to do anything except for the power granted by THEM through the constitution to the US goverment to carry out the various functions of the state.

As a second generation American, you still have a lot to learn about what it means to be an American or what America is all about.


Here it is all spelled out in their glory:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others RETAINED by the PEOPLE.

Amendment X

The powers not DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the PEOPLE.

Posted by: Borg | March 23, 2006 02:09 PM

I have to tell you that I have served with some soldiers Active, Reserve & NG that couldn't be any worse than someone randomly taken off the street. Seriously. MAJORS who were stocking shelves at Walgreens three weeks before they go orders.

So, IF we agree that a draft will never happen, and I know that it won't, where does that leave us? Well, it puts us under a resource constraint that eventually will limit our ability to prosecute war. No matter how good our soldiers may be and no matter whether they volunteered, a person and a family can only handle so many 12-18 month timeframes with a 6-9 month deployment.

Oh, and there is the whole thing about paying for it. Not just now, but WELL into the future as we will be obligated to care for veterans with their wounds both physical and mental.

We are mortgaging our future in more ways than just monetarily.

The ONLY way one can run an equation that says that Iraq is worth it is to keep the number of years of expected benefit very short. In the long run, we are going to pay for our incompetence and hubris. All of us. Red State, Blue State, Democrat or Republican.

Bet on it.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 23, 2006 02:10 PM

Mark,

You are right on about women registering for the draft. I believe there is not one rational argument for excluding someone based on their sex from the obligation of registering with the selective service. Women serve now and with distinction. A woman could be drafted and still not have to serve in combat.

I think Jeff's comment that young guys are indoctrinated to believe in Bush and signing up is completely wrong. That may be the case sometimes but the men and women I serve with today joined for all kinds of reasons. I did not sign up with the idea that I was here to protect anyone. I wanted a certain lifestyle and an opportunity to get reinvent myself. Along the way I found out that I enjoyed enough of what I was doing to stay for a while longer. I will retire in a year or two and have no regrets. While I love this country it was not the primary reason I have served for over twenty years now.

Posted by: Howard83 | March 23, 2006 02:13 PM

The reason there's no draft is that America has given up on this war, the politicians know it from the polls, but they can't come out and say it (who wants to be called un-patriotic). They're waiting for Bush's term to expire and an excuse will be found to bring the troops home (Mission Accomplished).

Posted by: Turnabout | March 23, 2006 02:19 PM

To Howard83: One argument with women registering with selective service is that a draftix could get pregnant and want an abortion so she can serve. What would Dubya do?

Posted by: Turnabout | March 23, 2006 02:24 PM

I understan the issue regarding the motives behind the Bush immigration policy. Bring them in let them work to pay into the system, but they can't take the money out. It gives him more in the chest to rob.

However, the problem is out of control and I'm sick of it being stalled. I don't mind immigrants who are here legally. No problem at all. The problem is the illegals who come here and think they can run things when in fact they are criminals under our laws. People in Congress whether repub or dem must show an understanding of immigrants and help them get here legally. If immigration is going to be an issue then remedies must come from where the problem resides. I think most Americns don't mind immigrants, so long as they are here legally.

Posted by: AV | March 23, 2006 02:32 PM

Sorry AV I accidently put your name on the post above

Posted by: BigB | March 23, 2006 02:34 PM

A volunteer army is far more superior to a conscript one. For one thing, they've joined willingly and have been trained to be an effective combat unit with specialized combat skills. Its their job, in effect. A consript army, on the other hand, contains men who may or may not want to be there, are trained and churned out on the battlefield within two months, and are better suited to mass combat operations like we saw in WWII or Korea, but not in specialized operations like are taking place in Afganistan and Iraq.

Posted by: D. | March 23, 2006 02:34 PM

Turnabout,

They are doing that now.

About six months ago I had a female take leave to get an abortion so that she would not be transfered off the ship. I have since transferred myself but she is still there and on the surface quite happy with the situation. Not sure if that answers your question but it points to the fact that abortion is not something that the President or even the Chain of Command can do anything about.

Posted by: Howard83 | March 23, 2006 02:38 PM

Howard83 - Except for federal funding for abortions for military personnel, correct? Isn't that something reagan put a halt to?

Posted by: D. | March 23, 2006 02:45 PM

BigB,

I understand, but my point is the political reality of the situation. It is, in fact, a glaring example of the complete BS that is the platform of this administration. They CLAIM to be conservatives, but that's because it gets them elected.

I think what frustrates me more than anything are the wingnuts who are consistently shown this reality of BushCo et al and still think he is the best thing since sliced bread. It's clear that the fear-mongering and security assurances to placate the created fear only apply to Middle Eastern brown people, not the Central and South American type.

Bush and his cronies are PURE political animals and they are NOT interested in solving problems, or even correctly identifying and defining problems, but are interested in being elected to obtain power to do what they wish to do. I can assure you that what THEY want is NOT what is good for the whole of this country. This is just a shining example of that.

See, Rove convinced all of these knuckleheads that they were part of the club when he knew they weren't EVEN going to get past the front gate. It's like Caddy Shack when the Judge invites the Caddy to come to his yacht party only to tell him he wants him to cut the grass. And, like the Caddy, these people suck up to him because of a promise of a college scholarship if he displays the appropriate loyalty.

Wow, I dare a professor to make THAT connection in a political science class.

See, Bush has been so successful at using our 9 Trillion dollar credit card to prop up our country that all of these 50k a year millionaires think that everything is just fine. Suckers.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 23, 2006 02:47 PM

AfghanVet,

I rather agree with your perspective and assessments. In particular, what our military is designed and trained to do well, and what it is not. Occupation and counter insurgency is not something it does well. That is fine with me because I don't see it as an "American" duty or mission to reform the world, to impose "Democracy" in every corner of it in the name of National Security. Sheer hubris, sheer nonsense.

As to draft registration of non-citizen permanent residents. I have no problem with it. Implicit within that is a potential requirement to serve. The harder question is when actually called upon to serve, should we compel such service? One might argue that the non-citizen then has two options, leaving the country, or serving. Or you might argue they made that choice when they registered. In either case, it is acceptable to me that a condition of permanent residency be acceptance of the same duty to serve as is required of citizens. Whether the penalty for failing to serve should be the same depends upon when that was made clear to the non-citizen permanent resident.

As to draft registration of illegal immigrants. What a stupid silly idea. Only the government could come up with something so mindless.

If there be a draft, its application should be uniform across geography, gender, and society. That provides the selection pool. The military services should then select from the pool those that fit their needs at the time. Emily could be ghost writing PR stories for the army and bribing the local press in Baghdad to run them :o)

Posted by: Cayambe | March 23, 2006 03:14 PM

The draft is unconstitutional? On what planet? The Constitution (article 1 section 8) specifically states that Congress has the power to provide for the common defense, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a Navy, and to make any laws needed to carry out their powers.

The amendments quoted about generalized rights and unmentioned powers do not overrule specific rights and powers in the Constitution. I gotta wonder if Borg ever read the Constitution.

Posted by: Constitutional | March 23, 2006 03:18 PM

Afghan Vet, no need to adjust fire, go ahead and fire for effect! I have held the same position regarding the draft and the country "supposedly" being at war. All this is showing is that the volunteer military is being misused from its original purpose; providing a professional cadre of officers and men in the active and reserve forces who can be supplemented in a sustained war with draftees and volunteers. Right now, and I am preaching to the choir, that cadre is running on empty.

American has become used to others doing the heavy lifting and it is time for it to change. Yes, we all volunteered, but we also believed that in time of a national emergency the selective service would be used to give us support. As such, Little Johnny and Jane can sit at home safe and warm waiving their flag knowing that some "sucker" is pulling their weight.

Posted by: IraqVet | March 23, 2006 03:33 PM

>

SandyK, that is the party line. And guess what? It is no longer valid because the Army has dropped its standards and also now has a 15-month enlistment term. Besides, do you honestly think those who are going into the Army are doing so until they get accepted to Harvard?

Bottom line is that those who have money for college are going. Those who can get a decent paying job are not going to join the military. You obviously have no idea what extended tours are doing to the force that was not designed for this purpose.

Posted by: IraqVet | March 23, 2006 03:38 PM

Ummm, if they can't be trusted to serve, how can they be trusted to live here?

The contortions pro-illegal immigration "liberals" go through are ridiculous.

YES to in-state tuition for illegals, but NO, the poor dears shouldn't have to serve!

Posted by: Phil Bazhal | March 23, 2006 03:44 PM

Even in wars where there was no draft, the people at home almost always had to make some kind of sacrifice for the war effort. In today's conflicts, the only people whose lives are really affected by the war is those serving in the military and their loved ones. The general public has no personal connection to war, hence little gut reason to have a strong opinion about the declaration or continuation of it.

Someone's comments earlier reminded me of Heinlein's world in Starship Troopers (book, not the movie at all) in which only those who volunteered to serve could become citizens, and only citizens could vote. I wouldn't mind seeing a mandatory service as long as Americorps or Teach for America were allowed as alternatives for objectors.

On topic: I'm not sure why they bother with the Selective Service at all anymore. The scale and mission of the current military wouldn't support a real draft, and I can't imagine what would be worth calling it up (political suicide for everyone involved). Women should be included. Permanent residents are kind of a gray area. What oaths or promises are they required to make to attain a green card? I think that would be relevant to whether they should have to register - not knowing, my opinion is that they should be allowed and welcomed as volunteers, but not required to register. As some have said, many of them have obligations to their home countries, and for whatever reason they are resident in the U.S., they are not citizens (At least not yet) and should not be compelled to register with the draft.

Posted by: SP | March 23, 2006 03:54 PM

SandyK,
I have had dual citizenship since the day I was born almost 50 years ago. The only people who have ever had any problem with it are those like yourself who have a very narrow viewpoint on the world and wish to once again hide behind the oceans that once seperated the Americas from the rest of the world.
Your snide comments about some Americans with Irish backgrounds supporting the IRA and your remarks about American Jews serving in the Israeli military lead one to believe your usual form of dress consists of a white sheet.
Oh, and by the way, the Hessians fought AGAINST the colonies during the War for Independence not for them.

Posted by: Wilhelm | March 23, 2006 04:11 PM

Howard83:

Let me clarify what I said. I realive that a blind faith isn't the only reason people join the military. Money for college, job skills, discipline, or a need to reinvent themselves. But you don't need to join the military to accomplish any of these. I feel sympathy for the blind faithers, because they don't know any better. Any intelligent, clear minded individual who voluntarily signs up to be a tool of the military industrial complex doesn't deserve sympathy, maybe a bit of contempt, but that's about it.

AfghanVet:
I totally agree that should a draft be reinstated (God forbid, God forbid, God forbid) everyone should be effected. I think it's safe to assume that America has moved on from the days when you could lay down 300 bucks and get out of the draft. And why not non-citizen residents? I bet there's thousands of immigrants, legal and non-legal, who would make better draftees than myself. But don't you think there's a better way to mobilize opposition to the current battles without forcing thousands of innocent young men to kill and be killed? Is the American populace really sleeping so soundly that the only way to wake them up is to send their sons off to war?

Posted by: Jeff | March 23, 2006 04:29 PM

doesn't mean that you give up on the truth if your country is selling something that the people haven't signed off on.


let's just say for a minute that the truth is the truth:

1. there was no attack on Americans by Iraq.

2. there were no WMD, and that information was known beforehand...in fact a Brit died trying to make that public.


1. then there is no war, there should be no war powers, our Constitution shouldn't be treated like toilet paper, nor the Bill of Rights preempted by the ?patriot act?

2. if the conflict was entered into as a way of maintaining economic stability, WOULDN'T it be a _little_ smarter to actually move away from oil dependency as a nation....isn't that a matter of National Security?

3. IF the president and company, including CIA, NSA, and olde cabinet people and the Vice President as well as members of congress knowingly scammed the people of the United States to create this military action as a way of taking care of their freinds and familiy....then laws have been broken.

4. How do you maintain credibility with the country that you're trying to win over, when they know the truth, but you're trying to hide the truth from the soldiers, families of the soldiers, and the American people?

5. Why is it alright that the president is a liar? Why is it alright that we're getting people hurt because someone that has influence thinks it's alright, but it doesn't benefit the citizens of the United States? Why have VA medical benefits been cut?

BOTTOM LINE: there is a difference between what is being sold as truth and the truth.


it's entirely possible that the 9/11 thing was done by Americans.

.

Posted by: one thing that you all need to get is that being from a country | March 23, 2006 04:36 PM

Phil Bazhal states:
"Ummm, if they can't be trusted to serve, how can they be trusted to live here?

The contortions pro-illegal immigration "liberals" go through are ridiculous.

YES to in-state tuition for illegals, but NO, the poor dears shouldn't have to serve!"

See, thats a great distortion of the question in the debate Phil.

First off, Emily posed the question in regards to noncitizen residents under the assumption that illegals most likely won't register.

Second, there is a large difference between giving someone whose loaylties you are unsure of a gun and putting him on the front lines for a cause he might not believe in, and allowing him to work as a landscaper, doctor, taxi driver, teacher, etc. If you can't see said difference, you are in luck. In times of draft you will never be sent as you must be blind.

Third, go ahead and blame illegal immigration on liberals. It's cool. Just remember who is currently in control of the government at the moment and who stands to benefit the most from the cheap labor.

Posted by: Freedom | March 23, 2006 04:41 PM

Ummm...sure, it's entirely POSSIBLE that 9/11 was done by Americans, by highly improbable. We can't keep secrets we should keep - so please tell me how a conspiracy involving the deaths of 3000 people wouldn't leak out. Sorry, Occam's Razor...the simplest explanation is usually the best.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 23, 2006 04:43 PM

With the rights of ciizenship and protection of the United States there comes responsibilities and the associated sacrifices which may be demanded. It may be trite but the ability to write and dissent was not won by journalist, judges, or politicians but by the sacrifice of Americans of all shapes and sizes. It is also interesting that in Mexico City there is a very active VFW chapter composed largely of Mexicans who fought in WW2 and Vietnam for the Americans. In the case of WW2 they fought not only for the American and allied side but for Freedoms side. Just as many Americans in 1940 went to Canada not to avod the draft ala 1960's but to fight on the British side by joining the CRAF and the RAF. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Posted by: Harry | March 23, 2006 04:45 PM

boy are you silly.


what about the thousands of National Guard folk that signed up to do in-country duty, with no _real_ combat training that got shipped to Iraq anyway...


as well as getting re-ups/extended stay without volunteering?


there's a lot of difference between someone who signs up for the National Guard and expects to maybe do some work during a national disaster or some civil insurrection or arresting the president for commiting war crimes...than signing up for the Marine Corps.


Heck, the president signed up for the Guard during the Vietnam War as a way of avoiding combat time, although he did cut his stint early in order to help out a senator in his campaign back east...so he's not all bad...

The duplicity of the president in sending people into combat, that had no intention of going into combat really irks, he has clearly usurped their right to chose how to serve their country...


just like he usurped your right as a country to chose or not to be in a conflict by creating a line of bullsh*t, cover story, deversion that makes some Americans hate ME people....when it's really this:

Politics as it's played out by Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Karl Rove, whoever sunk Dukakis, the Starr investigation, demonize the opponent as a way of swaying the electorate.


They create a polarization as a way of exciting and getting people to vote, without looking at it's effect on the voters themselves. Whether it is by telling you that homophobia is right, or that people who have abortions are baby-killers, they're sending out a message that "good people hate bad people," and then they tell you who those bad people are. And usually those bad people are against gawd! or at least that is the message, that's why being gawd-using is making such a comeback amongst the mentally challenged.


Political mudslingers of the hate oriented variety have created monsters and hatred as a commodity. They use fear to orchestrate a cow-like herd of voters that can be swayed much as Pinocchio was swayed by the fox, before being sold to the gypsy.

The media has allowed demagoguery to gain control of the congress, and to stand as the main tool of the current administration.

Labeling is the refuge of those that don't want to examine or be examined. I suggest you resist the urge to call hatred the disease, and identify demagogurey as the disease along with fallicious reasoning, "appeal to emotion," and political tactics that tend to create a "more stupid populance," as the result of training them to think that demagogurery is "all right," and might just be right. We're all citizens and being herded is not a good thing in the long run....if you tell them they're being herded as a way of keeping them from watching the shells in the pea game then you'll be teaching them what they need to know.

Posted by: tool of the industrial military conflict? | March 23, 2006 04:48 PM

It should be mandatory for every young man, permanent resident, citizen, whatever, to serve at least 2 years in one of our military branches. The training you receive and the skills you develop are priceless. It would reduce crime, open up opprotunities for those who have less, and provide the needed numbers to sustain our important overseas situations.

Posted by: PC Gorilla | March 23, 2006 04:50 PM

you write better than an AfghanVet, but who knows perhaps you're not a ringer, perhaps you're a citizen.

REMEMBER the current fiasco/regime STARTED?

probably not, it was actually more than a few years ago.

key player:
Bush Sr. is the former head of CIA, Congressman before that, Vice President, then President...probably more than 30 years of his life making connections...


George H.W. Bush Sr.:
sent April Gillespie to Iraq, who with a nod and a wink told Saddam that his border dispute with Kuwait was an internal matter. I think Saddam was suckered into invading because the US needed a new enemy after the collapse of the soviet union....


Saddam invades Kuwait, we now have an official reason to be there....
looks like we'll establish a presence in Kuwait, we already have one in Saudi...our CIA trains them...CIA trained the 9/11 pilots.

Saudi Royals was given the rights to Saudi Arabia by the Brits after WWII, the Royals were put into power...

who owns the ports on US soil? the Brits...who's supporting us in Iraq?

Protecting the Kuwaiti's:
We go into Iraq with Stormin Norman....and kill a couple of 100 thousand Iraqis and

stop short of Bagdhad....you know why, WE'RE GOING BACK...that's why we stopped...


and now that we occupy, are embedded in Kuwait,
we put the country of Iraq in stasis with embargoes until we need it........or the world economy is shifting and things are ripe....China Pakistan, and India are emerging...

THEN, the family needed to intervene....in this case the international riche, which includes the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and the US Affluent that stand to make a bit of cash....mind you the Germans, English and French have their hands in this...but your buddy dubya, is the gawdfathers only visible son....unless you need the state militia called to keep Terry Schiavo from being unhooked...as a grandstanding event...


so we intervene on national television...bombs going off, constant coverage, city surrounded, surveillance on every living thing that's bigger than a booger..


and somehow, miracle of miracles, like the virgin mary turning up on your french toast:
Saddam escapes from Bagdhad with three tractor trailer loads of cash, $9 BILLION$ in CASH right? Anyone in dubyas extended family gotten riche lately?

the museums were emptied right? ha ha ha...that's rich.

as far as conspiracy goes,

there never was a CIA/NORIEGA/BUSH Sr. connection right? and the Chilean president wasn't asassinated in DC with full CIA knowledge, and where'd that white up George W. Bushes nose come from? Panama?

the thing of it is,
the United States suckered, under George H.W. Bush, Saddam Hussein into attacking Kuwait, so we could be the "heroes", and become military occupiers...to lead us to this point....


walking down the road with no impetus to replacing our dependence on oil, a non-renewable resource....because it's not to the benefit of the countries leaders

this has a lot to do with _families_ working together _not related by blood_, as well as politics that don't include you as a positive recipient of thier efforts, as well as...

helping you to understand that it isn't all cowboy hats and honesty leading you...

Saddam was deliberately mislead into attacking Kuwiat, by President George H.W. Bush, we indicated that we would look the other way if Saddam wanted to reacquire some land and oil wells that he thought the Kuwiatis had taken.....so we would have an excuse to extend our influence.

did we tell Saddam Hussein the truth?

no.

it wasn't to our advantage.

the bushes intimately understand the middle eastern tribe mentality, they have trbal mentality, they protect and work with their own....they use the government to get what they want for their tribe

ps. you're not included in their tribe....

morons in charge and morons voted them in...using demagoguery as a political tool needs to be exposed....predjudice as a tool.

you want a better country quit pandering to morons and pandering to hate.....

the point of it is, the bush family, is trying to bury some information that needs to be understood

the ultimate threat to this country is people that can write but can't think or see...or don't want you to.

I would suggest that those who would use thier governmental office for personal gain at the expense of the citizens lose thier citizenship, and be charged with treason and their properties confiscated....

intimidation as control shouldn't be tolerated....
read the bill of rights, the right to bear arms was specifically inserted into the Bill of Rights to prevent the United States from being taken over from within, which is what what is happening now....

that's the point, a dictatorship and a congress that takes advantage of citizens, doesn't deserve to serve....

tom delay: violated his oath of office twice and not a single member of congress has the oats to call him on it....cowards or fellow crooks?

who needs to look for leaks when anyone with two eyes can see a pattern...of deceit and corruption.

Posted by: do you really want to know? | March 23, 2006 04:52 PM

good for the short term goal of making sure that everyone in the country was connected to what is happening in the country.


there is too much exclusivism in the sense that economically speaking, not everyone has to serve their country in the same way...

you know.

.

Posted by: Yeah, I think that opening up the INS as a form of military would be | March 23, 2006 04:55 PM

You're a moron. Where do you come up with this stuff? You need to write a movie script or something.

Posted by: PC Gorilla | March 23, 2006 04:57 PM

some conciousness seeping in?


hope so.


check the facts out, sleepy, you make me laugh....tough guy ina gorilla suit...


abusive people always have perpatrators in their past, that's why they get afraid..

look up April Gillspie, Times Magazine about 1986 or so.

.

Posted by: sounds like you feel threatened... | March 23, 2006 05:00 PM

I opposed the war from Day One and I consider the draft to be a "involuntary servitude." Nonetheless, I would like to see the draft re-instated to include the drafting of permanent residents as well as citizens. That way, "We, the People" will actually have to decide if we want to "stay the course" or come to our senses. As it stands right now, a tiny fraction of the population (consisting mostly deluded 18- to 22-year-olds) is making ALL the sacrifices. The average middle-class American family on most days doesn't even know there's a war going on.

Posted by: Jon Davis | March 23, 2006 05:01 PM

feudal system.

check out the bush family lineage, and whether the bin laden family has ever been to Crawford, or how close bush sr is to the Arab Emirates

or what is Project For a New American Century


PNAC.

.

Posted by: look up the phrase. | March 23, 2006 05:02 PM

has been demoted to working two 30 hour a week jobs to make ends meet and doesn't have time to see what the government is doing...


that is why sound bites work right now.


cat gotcha tongue gorilla boy?

.

Posted by: the average middle class family | March 23, 2006 05:04 PM

The cat doesn't have anything "nameless." Everything you've written is garbage and has no meaning. Shout your conspiracy theories though. Some of the debaters on here may be fickle enough to actual believe it's all true.

Posted by: PC Gorilla | March 23, 2006 05:08 PM

are you old enough to vote?

I'm hearing twelve when I look at what you've written.


Check out the facts jack, otherwise I'll treat you like the childe you are.

.

Posted by: how old are you? | March 23, 2006 05:12 PM


-oo-

everything you've written is garbage!!


waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Posted by: fingers in the ears... | March 23, 2006 05:14 PM

Constitutional:
The Amendments to the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights and 13th and 14th Amendments) constrain the powers outlined in the original Articles. That is why they are called Amendments.

The government cannot seize the citizens' guns in the name of national security. The government cannot force us to board troops in the name of national security. The government cannot search our houses without a warrant in the name of national security (wait, that one was eliminated three years ago). The government cannot prohibit us from criticizing it in the name of national security.

Likewise, the Constitution gives the government the power to establish a post office. They cannot conscript us to deliver mail, or conscript us to build an interstate freeway for that matter. Unless of course we end up on the chain gang for a crime for which we have been duly convicted. Involuntary servitude for military service, while perhaps more important, is legally no different.

I know the Supreme Court says the draft is constitutional, but they say some crazy things in times of war that are patently wrong given an objective analysis where civil liberties are given their proper respect. The internment of Japanese during WWII, ruled constitutional by the Court, is one of the clearest examples, and embarrassments. Or do you agree that Korematsu (the internment decision) was properly decided?

Posted by: DD | March 23, 2006 05:16 PM

PC Gorilla:
While I normally only skim 'nameless'' posts, I'm gonna have to agree with him on this one. Simply calling his posts a conspiracy theory and therefore garbage without addressing anything he says is rather childish and takes away from your validity. You've resorted to simply attacking him without discussing the why. If you're not willing to discuss what he posts and resort simply to labeling it 'garbage' or 'theory,' perhaps a 'debate' is not what you are looking for.

Not very PC, you know?

Posted by: Freedom | March 23, 2006 05:22 PM

"Remember also that only citizens have the right to vote in federal elections. Is it fair to draft someone who does not have the full rights of citizenship?"

I'd say that is a perfectly reasonable criterion for determining that non-citizens should not be subjected to the draft.

However, I might remind you that citizens of the District of Columbia (550,000 strong) also do not have full rights of citizenship. They are denied voting representation in Congress. Yet citizens of Washington, DC have fought and died in ever war fought by the United States, from the American Revolution to the current war in Iraq.

No person should be subjected to the draft who does not have the right to vote for the representatives who have the power to institute the draft and declare war.

The solution, of course, is not to exempt DC citizens from the draft, but rather to extend to them the same basic rights due to any citizen of a democracy. Learn more at www.dcvote.org.

Posted by: Sadie | March 23, 2006 05:25 PM

DD-

What part of Korematsu did you find objectionable?

Posted by: Will | March 23, 2006 05:25 PM

and style.

most people who've not posted before are all caught up in appearing "right"

forming relationships, agreeing.

these are all herd things, going along to get along...

I'm not a herd animal.

There's also a certain amount of _pride_ associated with your noumen, your chapeau.


my writing can kick just about anyones ass, you know why?

it's straight ahead, I don't care if you agree with me or not...I'll stand around while you check...

but I'm okay with myself, I don't need to maintain an image...

the editors know who I am...they have my email.

I'm not freedom,

I'm "I'll kick your ass if you lie to my face," perhaps

but since that's not always who I am, well I like to let the words speak for themselves.

cheers.

Posted by: you know there's a difference between nameless | March 23, 2006 05:30 PM

AfghanVet wrote:
===========================================
I think you're missing my point. My point would be that instituting a draft would instantly bring realization of our policies to those who refuse to see the forest for the trees.
===========================================

No you're missing the point. Those who've been in the military would know that the draft isn't good for morale, unit cohesion and discipline.

Which means -- either you're some still wet behind the ears private, or a poser, because advocating to destroy the military isn't in their own best interest (if you know what I mean????).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 23, 2006 05:52 PM

The movement towards the subsequent complex theological thesis is founded on logic, that is on alethic logic, Radaelli being well aware that theos-logia and logos are, in the universe, two genres that owe their existence to a supernatural beginning, the Word Divine: « He is the nous, the intellect, but also

the noumen,

the thinking object from intellect, and finally He is the same nous-logia, the gnoseology: the way to thinking nous »

Posted by: a bit of fluffe for youse.. | March 23, 2006 06:00 PM

Will,
1. Ignoring the Fifth Amendment "No person shall . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

2. Declaring that because the disloyal Japanese-Americans cannot be distinguished from the loyal Japanese-Americans, all of them should be punished.

3. For the Court acting like "see no evil" monkeys and stating, in an aside, that "we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that term implies."

4. For ignoring the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of equal protection.

5. For relying on evidence that many of those in internment camps were disloyal based on the loyalty oaths that the internees were required to sign while in camp. I, for one, would not swear loyalty to any country that imprisoned me solely because of my race. Ironically, the loyalty oath included a pledge to accept conscription into the military. Would you volunteer to serve in the military of a country that was imprisoning your entire family for absolutely nothing? Many of the internees refused to sign the loyalty oath because it required them to foreswear allegiance to the Emperor. As many of them were born in the United States, they had no allegiance to the Emperor, never did, and therefor had nothing to foreswear. So they wouldn't sign the oath because it implied that they had had an allegiance to the Emperor (not entirely logical, but who can blame them for behaving so in an illogical situation).

6. Habeas Corpus

7. For consciously ignoring the blatant racism (now proven) behind the policy by hiding behind the age old claims of national security. The Justices ignored this comment by General DeWitt, in charge of internment "A Jap's a Jap. It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen or not. I don't want any of them . . . . They are a dangerous element, whether loyal or not"

8. That Korematsu was prohibited by different military regulations from both being in San Leandro and from leaving San Leandro.

What part is not objectionable?

Jackson, in dissent: "I should hold that a civil court cannot be made to enforce an order which violates constitutional limitations even if it is a reasonable exercise of military authority. The courts can exercise only the judicial power, can apply only law, and must abide by the Constitution, or they cease to be civil courts and become instruments of military policy."

Posted by: DD | March 23, 2006 06:25 PM

Should resident draft dodgers be allowed to hold office? Would you trust a willing illelgal more than a citizen who uses their wealth and status to avoid the military while claiming to be a patriot? Should people who avoided the draft be allowed to cause others to be drafted? All of the current arguments about illegals are nothing more than political subterfuge designed to keep your eye somewhere else while they work their magic.

Posted by: V W Allen | March 23, 2006 06:34 PM

why should draft dodgers be allowed to send you off to get shot,


and you're not even on a quail hunt with them...


I'd like to meet them personally, mano y mano

off to the side and discuss this with them, one at a time, without their SS protection....


maybe bring a video camera...


a warm soda.

Posted by: that's a good point. | March 23, 2006 06:41 PM

Jeff,

Point taken but I disagree with your comment about contempt for those who sign on with a clear head. It sounds like you simply don't like the military and would disagree with almost anything the military does or offers its personnel. Thats fine like I said many of us are not here for you or anyone else. Whether or not you approve is meaningless.

I do see what Afghan Vet is getting at. He wants the country to share the load equally. I too think that would be nice but in no way should be forced at this point in time. There is no need. We have fought the war in a half-assed manner and now expect that people will simply roll over and give up.

After WWII we did not see this level of resistance not because there was no one left but because the populations of Germany and Japan were completely defeated. We had killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and millions of service personnel. The will to fight was gone. But in this day of smart weapons and concern over enemy civilian casualties we purposely leave the populations out of it if we can. I would say we should not go to war unless we are prepared to lay waste to our enemies' civilization centers and those of the nations that support them.
The documentary "Fog of War" speaks to this a little bit.

That said we are in no position to do that with our current force structure, not to mention that the political will to do so does not exist at this time. Maybe after someone detonates a nuke in an American city we will go back to the type of war, though brutal, that can be won.

Posted by: Howard83 | March 23, 2006 06:56 PM

DD-

Let me preface by saying that I do not think that internment is a good thing nor do I find it morally defensible in all but the most dire circumstances.

1: During wartime, it could be argued, due process of law must occurr after the fact. As a matter of fact Korematsu was afforded the due process of law.

2: From Justice Black: "...exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members of the group, most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country. It was because we could not reject the finding of the military authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we sustained the validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group. In the instant case, temporary exclusion of the entire group was rested by the military on the same ground. The judgment that exclusion of the whole group was for the same reason a military imperative answers the contention that the exclusion was in the nature of group punishment based on antagonism to those of Japanese origin." I would argue that the court was further vindicated, as Justice Black pointed out: "Approximately five thousand American citizens of Japanese ancestry refused to swear unqualified allegiance to the United States and to renounce allegiance to the Japanese Emperor, and several thousand evacuees requested repatriation to Japan."

3: Ok. Neither Murphy nor Jackson mentioned concentration camps in their dissent. Roberts did, which emotionally supercharged his argument. I see no imperative of a court, making it a point not to rule on the constitutionality of internment, to pepper their language and emotionally charge the judicial decision by repeating "concentration camps! concentration camps!" I took the aforementioned quote from Black as a plea for the dissenters to refrain from that kind of emotional appeal. Two out of three of the dissenters accepted that plea.

4: Addressed by Black. Although we should consider extra carefully restrictions based on race, that by no means makes them necessarily unconstitutional. Black: "Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions" such restrictions being those applying to race. The fourteenth protects against restrictions based on race, not racially applied restrictions based on pressing public necessity.

5: At the time all Americans were required to register for the draft, even if this did not mean they had to serve. Japanese-Americans would not be protected from this requirement on account of race (which would be unconstitutional). I don't find anything troubling about requiring conscription, though I do sympathize with those loyal Americans who felt disrespected by their government two fold: by being interned and their loyalties questioned. I find internment highly questionable. However, many did find it in themselves to swear loyalty to the United States which certainly calls into question the motives (which you assume knowledge of) of those that did not.

6: Explicitly not addressed in Korematsu.

7: Touched upon in Roberts dissent, and I sympathize with this point. That the General DeWitt was probably a racist, that the order implied a certain amount of racism, should have been more closely examined by the court. But DeWitt was the representative of the Military and made a judgement. There is some truth to the idea that distinguishing the loyal Japanese from the disloyal ones, among 120 thousand Japanese Americans on the Pacific coast at the time, after an attack on American soil had taken place not 4 months prior, might be a difficult task. I do not pretend to know that the military judgement was absolutely wrong, though I will acknowledge that DeWitt was likely a racist. DeWitt did not write an opinion in Korematsu, as this is typically left up to Judges.

8: Effectively argued as false. Teh March 27th order that later "contradicted" the May 3rd order stated: "until and to the extent that a future proclamation or order should so permit or direct." The future order was the May 3rd order.

Jackson's dissent did not compel me.

Posted by: Will | March 23, 2006 07:30 PM

>> But in this day of smart weapons and concern over enemy civilian casualties we purposely leave the populations out of it if we can. I would say we should not go to war unless we are prepared to lay waste to our enemies' civilization centers and those of the nations that support them.

Posted by: Howard83 | Mar 23, 2006 6:56:18 PM


How would you do that in Iraq? Especially after the first cause used to justify a "premptive" war turned out to be phony and the replacement cause is to liberate the oppressed people there? What's next? We must destroy Iraq in order to save it?

Actually that seems to happen by itself already.

Posted by: Borg | March 23, 2006 07:38 PM

By the way, speaking to Afghan Vet's idea I think the more sensible approach to involve the greater public in war-making decisions is to make them pay for war. A 10% increase in income taxes would cover the cost of war per year and pay a little of the past 3 back. Americans would act more hesitantly towards future wars if they at least knew an acceptable financial consequence resulted from it.

This war is very unique to all others. This is the first war Americans have not had to pay for. In fact, the war is executed while we enjoy tax cuts. Very strange.

Posted by: Will | March 23, 2006 08:15 PM

Freedom -

"Second, there is a large difference between giving someone whose loaylties you are unsure of a gun and putting him on the front lines for a cause he might not believe in, and allowing him to work as a landscaper, doctor, taxi driver, teacher, etc. If you can't see said difference, you are in luck. In times of draft you will never be sent as you must be blind."

Your argument is that a disloyal, or enemy alien should be let in and not called on to sacrifice as Americans are in war...but left only to enjoy the fruits of being a well-paid doctor far removed from battlefield casualties, being a taxi driver safe from any draft, being the teacher that cultivates our childrens minds while American teachers become the dead, maimed, and living heroes of a war that calls them...

Immigrants "trusted" to reap all the benefits and take jobs from Americans in "fair competition" but not trusted with a gun to defend us, "Freedom" ??? Unhh Unhh!

*******************

Emily, I don't know where you got the idea that foreiners are barred from the Active Duty military as volunteers since we have 31,000 of them. Nor the bit about Jews with dual loyalty or other groups being exempt from any Draft.

*******************

DD -

"The internment of Japanese during WWII, ruled constitutional by the Court, is one of the clearest examples, and embarrassments. Or do you agree that Korematsu (the internment decision) was properly decided?"

The Internment of Japs, the great sacred cause of Lefties attempting to make it the American Holocaust, ignores most relocated were enemy aliens and their spawn. That there was extensive fanatical disloyalty to the USA in their ranks, and 10,000 of 110,000 demanded to be repatriated to Japan so they could fight for or otherwise serve the Emperor. It took 2 years to sort out loyal from disloyal. And many of the disloyal were "least-expected" Japs. We did know that every Jap living in US/UK territory the Japs conquered went over to the Jap side (Davao, Singapore, HK, Guam, etc)

That despite all the propaganda efforts about hero Nissei decorated out the yin yang most retroactively 40 years later due to special interest group lobbying - the West Coast Japs had the lowest enlistment rate of any ethnic group in WWII. The Lefty-PC argument that there was no way a few dozen, let alone 5,000 Hirohito fanatics allowed to roam free could even modestly damage "invincible America" effectively came to an end September 11th.

Fred Korematsu was a fine case. As a 22-year old weilder in 1942, he decided to defy a deportation letter. Though an attendee of "black dragon secret society" meetings, and attended Emperor Worship ceremonies in SF, he later confessed he didn't care one way or the other who won the war...as long as he didn't have to derve in it and could get richer. What got Korematsu arrested was the fact he burned all his California ID and had bought forged documents attempting to prove he was "Clyde Sarah" a Spanish-Hawaiian...and when caught, he was found to have had plastic surgery a month earlier to disguise his appearance. As time went by, he got ACLU Jews to take up his cause, saying that he was maybe not loyal to America, but he was not proven loyal to Japan. The Supreme Court rejected his case, with some in the legal profession saying Fred Korematsu was lucky. In any other country he would have been shot shortly after capture on grounds of preponderance of evidence indicating he was a spy.

In following years of rising Lefty PC and WWII revisionism, Fred Korematsu became the "Hurricane" Carter of his race. Capped by the Panderer in Chief, Bill Clinton, getting huge PC kudos with his Lefty base by giving Korematsu his Presidential Medal of Freedom for ????document forgery??? in 1995.

Same year Jesse Jackson got his.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 23, 2006 08:38 PM

Borg,

I suspect my position is closer to yours than you think. I agree that we should have focused our energy elsewhere in the first place. We didn't and now we have a different reality. What I am saying is that if we go to war we should be prepared to completely destroy our enemy, if we are not prepared for this there are likely better solutions than armed conflict. You are right that in this case now that we are in Iraq my position would dictate the destruction of Iraq or at least selective portions of it. That along with the other countries aiding the resistance. Personally I have no beef with the Iraqis but I do believe we should seek a way to end this as soon as possible.

Posted by: Howard83 | March 23, 2006 09:22 PM


Many debaters have highlighted the particular inequities involve in USA's present World Wide War On Terror, i.e. , those who did not vote for Bush, did not support the war, spoke out against war before and afer it started, and did not believe the justifications for the wars.

Do I blame Congress for authorizing the war? Well not really, because they put conditions on the authorization.

Though little reported, or ignored by the Bush Administration, there was a stipulation in the Congressional authorization requiring that the US be in Imminent Danger from Iraq before the Honorable Mr. Bush could go to war.

But, there was no threat. There were no WDM's. The condition precedent for the war have not been met!

Therefore, a Congressional authorization has not been legally provided for the invasion of Iraq because the conditions precedent for the war have not been satisfied.

The requirement for the Congressional Authroization was NOT to establish democracy in the middle east.

The war is illegal as are so many thing that the Bush Administration does.

If Mr. Bush had succeeded in his quest in the middle east, well maybe we could forgive him, make him a hero, but he has not.

He has, in my humble opinion, made matters worse and it is not the MSM fault for reporting the generally accept fact that we have a debacle in Iraq.

He can try like as he must to get the church ladies clucking about the MSN, but it will not work this time, because we have been fooled too many times.

I do not believe the Administration properly planned their adventure in Iraq as most adventures are the result of poor planning.

The inner circle did not listen to the experts as to the number of boots needed on the ground.

When Turkey would not let our troops attack from the north, the Administration went ahead without those troops even using less troops than originally planned.

The debate is: should we draft non-citizens?

In my opinion: No, because there are no legal justification to have to do such a thing in the WWWOT.


Should everyone who does not have a job be "drafted". Maybe. Like in England or at least the way it used to be England. Job or service. Pick One!

Posted by: RIchard Katz | March 23, 2006 09:29 PM

Will - "Let me preface by saying that I do not think that internment is a good thing nor do I find it morally defensible in all but the most dire circumstances."

Like war?

Internment is a normal practice in wartime for the last 350 years. America has done it in most of our wars. It is the routine way to deal with enemy nationals and also is intended to protect enemy aliens from bloodthirsty Homeland mobs. 1/4th of the Geneva Conventions deal with internment of enemy aliens.

85% of West Coast Japs America relocated were enemy aliens or spawn. 100% of Japs, Nazis, Italian & Romanian fascists officially interned were enemy aliens.

And the Japs also had the Kebai - those US born Japs educated and recruited to the Japanese way by being sent to Japan's version of Madrassahs. As we are learning in the case of Muslims born in the US or Europe, birthright citizenship does not mean guaranteed loyalty to bithplace nation, culture, or people.

************************

To all the posters that think the Draft is impossible -with a near-religious fervor. I point out that other nations, even the Euroweenies, believe the social contract merits universal national service. If we have to expand the military, we will go back to the Draft. Those that run and dodge a Draft, in a true national emergency, will find themselves blackballed for life socially and in employment - as US and Canadian WWII shirkers were.

********************

To those that think truck-driving, GI duty, patrolling, logistics, and various rear-ech stuff (which is 90% of military manpower needs) is Faaaaaaaar too sophisticated for mere Draftees to ever handle and that only the volunteers drawn from a WalMart fate into the Volunteer Military have the brains and desire to do it -- I point out that our Draftees mastered the state of the art militaries back in their times, and draftees today in Europe and Asia have no difficulty mastering modern military tasks. What other militaries do is find a core of lifers, career officers paid far better than grunts to do the 10% that does experience, continuity, or specialized skills.

*****************

And a Draft is - counter to the special case of Vietnam and the archaic "wisdom" of old hippies stuck in that era - a unifying thing more than a divisive one.....and serves as a check on the elites of both political wings. As long as no divisive and unfair exemptions are given. ....Lefties who know that if they underfund, their own kids might die needlessly. And Right wing corporate cronies who know if they go into a war for profits, their own kids might be in the P&L "loss" column..

*************************

To those saying women should be exempt from combat, fine. From any Draft or required national service - no! Despite the feminists and PC folks, women have 50% less upper body strength, fail to report fit for duty as much as men, and have a dismal historical record, collectively, in combat...except for elite volunteers. Both the Soviets and Israelis tried women in combat roles and rejected it as a disaster. But there is no reason why women can't do alternate service if a Draft starts.

*********************
"Ummm, if they can't be trusted to serve, how can they be trusted to live here?"

"The contortions pro-illegal immigration "liberals" go through are ridiculous. YES to in-state tuition for illegals, but NO, the poor dears shouldn't have to serve! Posted by: Phil Bazhal"

LOL! And dead right, Phil!

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 23, 2006 09:40 PM

"Many debaters have highlighted the particular inequities involve in USA's present World Wide War On Terror, i.e. , those who did not vote for Bush, did not support the war, spoke out against war before and afer it started, and did not believe the justifications for the wars.

Do I blame Congress for authorizing the war? Well not really, because they put conditions on the authorization.

Though little reported, or ignored by the Bush Administration, there was a stipulation in the Congressional authorization requiring that the US be in Imminent Danger from Iraq before the Honorable Mr. Bush could go to war.

But, there was no threat. There were no WDM's. The condition precedent for the war have not been met!

Therefore, a Congressional authorization has not been legally provided for the invasion of Iraq because the conditions precedent for the war have not been satisfied."


but your congress peoples got no cajones, dey gots little kidney beans, dried ones


either that or they're a pack of self serving liars!


the president has broken the law.


he knowingly misled congress into attacking Iraq, and that's okay with congress...


probably wouldn't be with Americans if they truly understood it...


what do you think, the president a criminal?

let's hear your opinion!

.

Posted by: this is true... | March 23, 2006 11:51 PM

they lost their property.


which reminds me where's the mule and 40 acres that were promised to most black Civil War era men?

Posted by: I believe it was more than internment... | March 23, 2006 11:55 PM

cf copies my style and word choice, but on some level it makes me feel dirty...


although he does seem a little less paritsan, perhaps common sense will rear it's ugly head between those Alfred E. Neumann ears...


now if only the dick and prez could get a bit of gingko biloba we might be able to free the United States from the grippe of their tyrantknees...

.

Posted by: I guess I should feel honored that | March 24, 2006 12:06 AM

I think that might waste ten or twenty minutes...before he fell on his impetus.


come on buddy, let's have a dance!


come out, come out, whereever you are....

.

Posted by: why doesn't this red state guy come over and talk to me? | March 24, 2006 12:55 AM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"The Internment of Japs, the great sacred cause of Lefties attempting to make it the American Holocaust, ignores most relocated were enemy aliens and their spawn. That there was extensive fanatical disloyalty to the USA in their ranks, and 10,000 of 110,000 demanded to be repatriated to Japan so they could fight for or otherwise serve the Emperor. It took 2 years to sort out loyal from disloyal. And many of the disloyal were "least-expected" Japs. We did know that every Jap living in US/UK territory the Japs conquered went over to the Jap side (Davao, Singapore, HK, Guam, etc)"

Oh, little Hitler, you love the idea of putting all the people not like you in concentration camps. Remember how you defended the Nazis in another debate? You racist pile of S@@t.

"Coast Japs had the lowest enlistment rate of any ethnic group in WWII. The Lefty-PC argument that there was no way a few dozen, let alone 5,000 Hirohito fanatics allowed to roam free could even modestly damage "invincible America" effectively came to an end September 11th."

Your liar, you made those stats up to forward your racist points.

"In following years of rising Lefty PC and WWII revisionism, Fred Korematsu became the "Hurricane" Carter of his race. Capped by the Panderer in Chief, Bill Clinton, getting huge PC kudos with his Lefty base by giving Korematsu his Presidential Medal of Freedom for ????document forgery??? in 1995. Same year Jesse Jackson got his."

Chris "little Hitler" Ford is a draft dodging coward that never served his county.

Posted by: Jamal | March 24, 2006 01:14 AM

Jamal - I see you are still stupid.

Too stupid to look up the 10,000 out of 110,000 that declared for Hirohito.

Too stupid to read about the turncoat events in Davao, US Territory of the Philippines. Or too stupid to know where to look. Or know about Repulse Bay. Or MAGIC.

Ignorant of the Kebai.
Ignorant --- you know -- I could go on and on about all the vapidity of Jamal....

But, basically, the real problem is your range of ignorance of 20th Century history and use what little you do know articulately is so vast it defines you. You lack the ability to have frames of reference on matters like the Red Terror, the rise of "countering" parties that opposed the Terror including what became the national Socialists, the 10 million killed by the Japs before Pearl Harbor, clueless on who the Spartacists were, or how Fascism arose from a disaffected wing of Italian Marxists. You crown your stupidity with your anti-Americanism, being unable to resist the concentration camp imagery your fellow Lefties wish to use to present the relocation of enemy aliens and allowing them to take their underaged dependents with them into camps(at Issei insistance) - as a 2nd Holocaust. America managed 2 million POWs in WWII and interned or relocated 160,000. We also had all of Hawaii and captured lands in Europe and Asia under martial law. We set an example. Survival of all we had in some control in WWII was 99.9%. Survival in Jap camps for POWs was 61% and for foreign civilians only 68%.

So, to confirm your stupidity and lack of knowledge, you follow the usual method of educationally crippled unable to coherently debate or even have the savvy to look up how wrong you are. Your usual ploy? Call the debater who knows far more than you a liar and a racist. Yeah, the mighty race card wins all arguments!!

Like a little child.

Pathetic.

Then even get going on things you know nothing about because by now you are so frustrated by the debunked PC that you lack the intellect to defend - so it's groundless accusation time.

Draft-dodging coward!

(Too young, no draft!)

coward!
(I've watched people die in the military, and helped make others die)

Never served his county!
(Jamal is so stupid he doesn't know a county from a country. But I've served both. Country in time of war. County on a Board. Served my Governor, too, on an appointed Task Force - which stiffed us on promised mileage and meal expenses 2 years running.)

Ever do anything besides play your whittle race card Jamal? From what I gather of your education, what you do is either menial work or menial gov't work..or you still live with your Mammy...

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 24, 2006 03:55 AM

During WWI legal immigrants were drafted coming off the boat at Ellis Island. Perhaps the basic assumption was they were arriving with the intention to be residents then citizens (not tourists). As to their loyalty in the lower ranks, that wouldn't be much of a problem as the military training system is built on the valid assumption that "if I have your a__ your mind will follow."

Has anyone mentioned the implication that if non-citizens are exempted from the draft then they become relatively more desirable civilian employees.

I served during the VN period of an active draft. The draft system had three discernable effects, two positive and one negative. It quickly clarified the young man's mind about his immediate direction around age 18-20, and often induced him to preemptively choose a preferred branch of service (my case). It created enlisted ranks which were more representative of a true cross section of society than the present profile. The greatest injustice in the system, hopefully not to ever be repeated, is that it deferred college students giving an indefinite way out for more affluent families.

Another technical issue is length of service. Volunteering was typically a 4-year commitment (although today's volunteers frequently must commit for longer periods to qualify for higher training). Draftees typically were committed for 2 years, meaning they had to be recycled pretty often with no so much investment in training. With a more technical military, 2 years would be a squeeze.

Lastly, the selective service panels constituted at a local level to make individual call-up selections were not free from influence that amounted to corruption. I'm aware of one Alabama panel that always skipped over the young healthy dude he was too valuable at home, making sure one of the panel member's yard work was always kept up for free.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 24, 2006 07:01 AM

Chris Ford,

Lay off the racial junk, as you're upping the ante. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another when you calling anyone who's not WASP racial slurs without redress.

If you don't want to be nice to your fellow debaters, then I'll start adding "white trash" and other racial slurs --that stick-- to your name. After awhile Emily will have to step in, as this place will start looking like a KKK meeting.

It's got to stop, Chris, and now. If your next reply is going to just defend your "rights" to discriminate anyone but WASPs, you'll see how it feels to be regarded as the slurs you post.

At least Archie Bunker had a heart and willing to change. Where's your evolution?

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 24, 2006 09:01 AM

SandyK,

So, why exactly would you choose to personally attack me because I disagree with you. And, what exactly is YOUR rank and experience. For me, it's my 20th year as a Major who was prior service enlisted, Infantry, with an additional 14 years in the Intel community. However, I'm not sure that matters given your choice to come after me personally.

As for your assertion that a draft would destroy the military, it is just that, an assertion with no relevant basis in fact. For every example of detriment, one of good can be found. As is part and parcel with the BELIEVER set, you seem to not be able to consider another side.

And, lastly, the point of a draft in my discussion is to point out that we as a country have not mobilized for war and that we pawn off service to anyone other than ourselves...in general. My POINT is that the VAST majority of Americans have no "skin" in the game and therefore at least half are blissfully happy to ship those who volunteered off to war. My POINT is that this attitude would change if their wallets and livelihoods were affected.

In WWII, the war the NEO-TARDS love to compare the GWOT to, we had 16 million MEN and WOMEN in uniform. Roughly 10% of the population. Today, if you count every swinging Richard and Mammary (div 2) you might get 2 million. Which is roughly less than one half of one percent.

Add to that the COST of the war that we are NOT paying for and you have a recipe for ambivilence.

Get it?

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 24, 2006 09:09 AM

Chris Ford wrote:
===========================================
(I've watched people die in the military, and helped make others die)
===========================================

Behind a desk as a company clerk doing dictation?

My brother watched a fellow tanker die after a track rolled over him (7 of his friends died in the Army from training accidents). His hand was crushed while being a loader. His hearing is shot because those expensive custom formed earplugs didn't work with those cheap headsets. But that was in peace time.

There's little glory in service, Chris. They use you, then destroy your body, and when you retire yank your health benefits away.

Then papered patriots come around showering them praise for not cleaning up the very military they love only when the spotlight is on them.

I despise papered patriots.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 24, 2006 09:16 AM

Chris Ford,

Why tha anger and personal attacks. Are you really trying to justify intenment camps? Interesting.

As far as killing thousands, let us not forget the American Indian. That's not a judgment, but an observation. We can wrap it all up in Manifest Destiny, but that does not change the reality that we displaced an entire people by force. Perhaps the trajectory of the human race made such an event, and others like it, enevitable, but it does not change the FACTS.

Why are you so angry that you feel the need to attack people instead of their ideas? If you have the knowledge that you say YOU have, post the links. Let the source of your knowledge be seen and reviewed by peers. Is it possible that your sources are less then credible?

And for the others here who cannot seem to wrap their heads around the concept that America, the country I love and have served for many a year, is NOT always right; why do you feel this way? Does this translate into your personal life? Can you ever look in the mirror and not blame someone else for your problems?

I love my country, but we are far from perfect and probably will never be perfect. But simply burying our collective heads in the sand to ignore the shame of our occasional ignorance is simply sad. If we choose to ignore our mistakes and not debate them, we lose the opportunity to learn from the mistakes.

In the military, do we not carryout AARs after every action in order to accurately assess how to do better? Why should this be any different. PR approaches to fixing problems does not fix the problem, it explains it away...that is a problem.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 24, 2006 09:27 AM

Chris Ford = AfghanVet?

Oh, now that's just sooooooo sockpuppetry funny! lololol

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 24, 2006 09:27 AM

What? I don't think so. I can assure you I have never been a politician of any stripe.

Where did you get that idea?

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 24, 2006 09:31 AM


And you're posting politics, worked for a governor and on a task force and never been a politician?


SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 24, 2006 09:42 AM

I post politics because I have lived in this town for 40 years and have two parents who worked in the government for almost as much. I, however, have no wish to be a politician and have never been one, appointed or elected.

You made an assertion that I was the same person as Chris Ford and ran with it. This is simply not the case.

Posted by: AfghanVet | March 24, 2006 09:56 AM

Ford blindly posts,
"Your argument is that a disloyal, or enemy alien should be let in and not called on to sacrifice as Americans are in war...but left only to enjoy the fruits of being a well-paid doctor far removed from battlefield casualties, being a taxi driver safe from any draft, being the teacher that cultivates our childrens minds while American teachers become the dead, maimed, and living heroes of a war that calls them...

Immigrants "trusted" to reap all the benefits and take jobs from Americans in "fair competition" but not trusted with a gun to defend us, "Freedom" ??? Unhh Unhh!"

That's cool Ford. Completely take my comment out of the context of my argument displayed in the thread. Its cool, because I know that is the only way you can make a point and get your mastabatory material for the day, besides using racial slurs to attack and enrage people.

That said, first look at the context. In previous posts I have said that I feel that residents can in fact fight for us. Assuming we can address their loyalty. In the particular comment you quote from I was discussing the absurdity of Phil's comment, a comment you go on to congratulate.

And no, my argument is not that a disloyal legal resident should get to reap the benefits of the country. My argument is that it will probably be hard to tell, and the argument that Phil makes is flawed. There is a large difference between putting someone who's loyalty is inquestion (not disloyal-try not to distort the issue constantly Ford) in charge of weapons and forcing them to fight for something they might not believe in and letting them live in the country and work their job. If you can't see that, your ignorance is only less astounding than your will to attack everything in an effort to annoy.

Im surprised Ford, your anti-anything not whitebread American would have made me think you'd be all over keeping immigrants out of the draft. Then again, maybe I shouldn't be surprised that you would want non Americans to die.

You may think its fair for them to be drafted. I do as well, assuming their loyalty can be completely guaranteed. Otherwise, I think its a stupid idea. ,

Posted by: Freedom | March 24, 2006 11:06 AM

SandyK wrote:

"There's little glory in service . . ."

___________

That's why they call it service.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 24, 2006 11:27 AM

Hello to the Washington Post online readers. I am ex-Navy Hospital Corpsman and enlisted VOLUNTARILY to serve my country, the United States!
I truly believe that for ANYONE to be drafted into military service...the persons in question, regardless of WHERE they are from, must do so. To live in a democratic society...must have a moral duty, without fear of deportation and other means of punishment, to serve the US in a military capacity, if they chose to do so. Under the draft act, well....I believe that if you live here, work here, enjoy life here in the US...then you have a duty to serve in the US military. My ex-husband is a resident..even though he is from El Salvador, he is a great dad, and father...husband material..that's for another story...haha...he would do so...!
Why can't someone come up with a checklist of items and requirements for these individuals who want to serve in the military...but cannot do so due to visa regulations and other problems that may arise from their immigrant status, or lack thereof.
Have a great day, Leticia H.

Posted by: Leticia Garcia Hernandez | March 24, 2006 12:01 PM

some little indonesian, philipino guy, either that or chris had been drinking some inca cola...

Posted by: that wasn't Chris ford, that was someone with an accent... | March 24, 2006 12:19 PM

look, the _occupation_ is for control.

it has no thing to do with democracy or having been attacked.

it is a staged operation, that can be tied back to WWII and the Brits handing control of some Oil Reserves to the Saudis and Kuwiatis.

Certainly when Schwartzkopf didn't take Bagdhad the first time, we, anyone on the inside knew, that the United States would be coming back....and then we were even more embedded....Turkey, Saudi, Kuwiat, Afghanistan.

it was also an operation that wasn't voted on. We the people, were not given honest information...we were lied to, apparently not for our own good.........now we're looking at a draft right...no one could have forseen that? That's about as funny as my finger up your but.

inducement:
it, was disguised as an attack by a foreign power on us....even with that


they have not come up with an Iraqi connection or WMD...


what they have come up with is a plan since 1997 to control a region using military force, PNAC


The fact that the president and his families have a vested interest in oil, sort of means that they would back a bunch of half-baked imperialists if it made them richer

a real strategist would have made us OIL INDEPENDENT


it's more cost effective.


two things at work here though:

greed and

It's always a lot easier to solve things economically if you've ever worked with something besides a gun....remember Cuba?


Kennedy's military were wanting him to start WWIII.


Maybe it's a bad idea to let the Defense Department run the country?

Why not let engineers run it? They don't think their penis/gun is everything, or as you put it their richard or mams?


why not ship in 2 million televisions and set up satellite television with I Love Lucy reruns and tobacco and coffee ads, with Aunt Jemima falafel mix?

we'll have McDonalds on every corner before next Wednesday....occupation is not a good idea, when you have a bunch of people that have been settling their disputes between them for thousands of years by wiping out the opposing tribe, comprimise is not a big thing in the ME.

Posted by: Dear AFghan vet... | March 24, 2006 12:44 PM

Afghan Vet -

No real anger. Jamal was playing the race card since he has less than a full deck. I generally point out how ill-educated he is when he spouts off with what he hopes is the (for him) debate-ending "racism", "liar" charges.

If you go through Asia, you will find real anger, though, 60 years hence, for the inhuman Japanese conduct in WWII. We in America focus so much on Nazi atrocities and Japan's and our own Japanese ancestry folks model behavior AFTER the war that we are tempted to extend that collective sense of innocence in hindsight to the war activities.

Any Chinese, Filipino, Indonesian atrocities - or the long-avoided issue of barbaric treatment of civilian internees has been largely avoided in America in favor of the "Positive, nobel, Japanese or Japanese-American image".

Few Americans know of the mass graves of Asia, whole villages exterminated, hospitals full of British nurses who were raped then bayoneted as Japanese troops arrived. (Similar to how the Euroweenies themselves will dwell on Nazi evil while avoiding the greater slaughter of Totalitarian Communism).

In the US, we did indeed have 10,000 fanatically pro-Hirohito Japanese, Kebai. We were not well suited when war came to determine for sure who was in that camp, since the Japanese immigrants were a largely closed society. (Similar to Muslim communities today which have been hard to determine who was loyal or not until we got into the Al Qaeda documents you and others recovered in Afghanistan - BTW - thanks) We became arrogant after WWII thinking America was so mighty with all our high tech weapons that it was impossible for an enemy within - be it 10,000 fanatics serving Emperor Hirohito or 19 fanatics serving radical Islam - could have possibly inflicted any harm.

We from the 60s onward when the Left dominated the debate - we ignored the MAGIC spy network, the turncoating of ethnic Japanese in US/UK territories the Japanese captured, the mass atrocities in Asia, the arming of Chinese and Filipino Americans prepatory to attacking Japanese ethnics here and on Hawaii. We ignored the possible hindsight consequence if 10,000 dead Americans washed up on West Coast beaches and it was thought Japs had guided Japanese subs....all distinct possibilities at the time.

On top of that, the Lefties began America-bashing on the Relocation. They were concentration camps, no better than the Nazis, etc. etc. All while the Left built up the mostly Nisei Hawaiian 442nd as the greatest American combat unit of WWII, far greater than their actual war record merited....and pioneered the practice of mass retroactive military awards targeting one special interest groups pet project 30 years after the fact until--- the textbooks could be revised to say the 442nd was the most decorated unit of WWII (at war's end, they were average in awards and accomplishments, but the Hawaiians had served bravely and homorably). The same puffery by senior black Democrats, vs. senior Japanese-American Congressional Committee Heads, is being used to inflate the Tuskegee Army Air Squadron into the Greatest Flyers of WWII and that myth is being inserted in textbooks.

As a military person, no doubt you are familiar with Geneva. 1/4 of Geneva deals with internment. It codifies how internment of enemy aliens must be conducted - in large part because the massive death rate the Japanese inflicted on enemy nationals. It is, as you may know, a normal practice of war where enemy aliens and their children who may be birthright de facto citizens...are interned for three main reasons:

1. Keep them from doing harm.
2. Trade them for their own nationals interned by the enemy.
3. Keep enemy aliens from harm by mobs - which had been known to seek out and kill all enemy civilians caught behind lines when war broke out.

We initially had thoughts of trading our Japanese enemy aliens and their dependents for US, Dutch, and British civilians held - who we knew were dying in great numbers in abysmal Japanese forced labor camps almost as bad as the POW ones. We did swap with the Germans. But the internees and relocatees, though many welcomed the chance to be repatriated, were frustrated in their wishes by Japanese government perceptions of them and by naval tactics in the Pacific.

1. Japanese government viewed the Japanese in the Western Hemisphere as potentially tainted Yamotos who had lost the racial purity of true Japanese. They were considered soft, possibly only extra mouths to feed, and having loyalty issues - starting when they left Japan in the first place. We were far more interested in trading enemy held than the Japanese were. The British and Free Dutch even more so since their civilians were taking the brunt of atrocities and they had few enemy Japs to trade whereas the Western Hemisphere had plenty..

2. The respective Navies, who wielded enormous clout, had decided that attacking enemy shipping was essential to winning the war. Neither Navy wished to preserve the other side's commercial shipping as a floatilla while repatriation details were worked out, neither side wished substantial shipping assets be diverted from the war effort when every ton delivered could make the difference in war.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 24, 2006 04:57 PM

Should anyone impeach Chris Ford as a source on Japanese atrocities during WWII, they can get full independent backup by referring to William Manchester (Professor Emeritus of History, and U.S. Marine in the Pacific campaign) and his book entitled Goodbye, Darkness. This is as moving an account of war and its bitter aftermath as a supremely intelligent person can provide.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 24, 2006 06:22 PM

How would you know of Chris Ford's sources, On the plantation? No links to show for it, no email addy to consult where he got it.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.............

Oh, and this is interesting about Manchester, too...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/634944/posts

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 25, 2006 06:23 AM

The concept that allegiance to a country (rather than a cause or a sense of justice) is what motivates somebody to fight is flawed. During WW2 many countries that did not send troops authorized their citizens to enlist in Allied armies as part of their contributions to the war effort. Many of hese volunteers fought under the US flag, retaining their allegiance to their native lands, believeing Hitler to be a menace to their countries as well as to the US.

Second, not every person who immigrates has positive feelings towards their government. Many emigrated for precisely that reason.

Posted by: Pedro Saavedra | March 30, 2006 11:41 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.