Hello Richard,   
      
    LL>> Some proponents of reinstating the draft have made the point that   
    LL>> doing so would force politicians to be responsible and accountable   
    LL>> for their actions in matters concerning war and peace.  There is   
    LL>> some merit in that argument, but I would prefer an emphasis on   
    LL>> peace, without the requirement for a draft.   
      
   RW>But face reality, unilateral declarations of peaceful intent and   
   RW>unwillingness to fight don't get us anywhere.   
      
   Actually they can, as one must be able to demonstrate to the draft   
   board as to why he/she should be granted conscientious objector status.   
   Section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act defines what it is   
   all about.   
      
   RW>Also, remember, I'm not talking about a draft so much as I am   
   RW>universal service to go along with universal suffrage.  YOu wanna   
   RW>vote you will serve!  NO questions, no exceptions.   
      
   No person "who by religious training and belief is consientiously   
   opposed to participation in war in any form" can be compelled to kill   
   or train to kill in the military, or be forced to serve in any other   
   capacity (such as community service).  That what the term "in any   
   form" means.   
      
    RW>> YOu might end up toting a rifle,   
      
    LL>> Conscientious objectors will never tote a rifle of any kind.   
      
    RW>> Too bad, then they can forfeit their rights to vote and   
    RW>> otehr such imho.   
      
    LL>> Why should anybody be forced to give up a *right* that everybody   
    LL>> else has, just because they object to war?  Muhammad Ali was a   
    LL>> consientious objector, refused to enter the draft, was jailed and   
    LL>> imprisoned, and stripped of his boxing title.  The courts overturned   
    LL>> his conviction, and Ali went on to regain his championship by   
    LL>> winning another title match.  But he never should have had to suffer   
    LL>> the indignities forced upon him by our society in the first place.   
      
   RW>>YOu ever hear the old tail of a bunch of guys doing sentry   
   RW>duty who suddenly became conscientious objectors?  Their Co   
   RW>decided to give them whistles instead of rifles.  YOu see   
   RW>the enemy in the night blow the whistle.   
      
   Still cannot force an individual who is conscientiously opposed   
   to war to act against his/her will.  This has been part of American   
   law since the time of the colonies.   
      
   RW>Maybe he could have served in a different way.  YEs I can   
   RW>understand the conscientious objector thing, but we have too   
   RW>many folks opting out for other reasons, and opting out of   
   RW>any kind of service at all.   
      
   Still can't make him/her do it, no matter how infuriating it might   
   be for you and others.  However, what most folks fail to understand   
   is that it is not as easy to be granted conscientiously objector   
   status as right wing nutcases make things out to be.  One must be   
   opposed to war "in any form" - including wars that are unpopular.   
   IOW, "selective conscientious objection" is not permitted in the   
   U.S.  Nor should it be.  Else everybody who wanted to opt out of   
   war would gladly do so.   
      
   RW>Btw, I had no objection to Afghanistan, although i did have   
   RW>my objections to Nam, and definitely to Iraq, either time.   
   RW>I won't ever lift a finger to defend royals.   
      
   A conscientious objector cannot pick and choose which wars   
   to opt out of.  It is an all or nothing proposition.  Either   
   one is opposed to war, or one is not opposed to war.  There   
   is no in-between.   
      
    LL>> Today it is much harder for an individual to attain "conscientious   
    LL>> objector" status than it was in Ali's day.  Our society did it to   
    LL>> Ali because he was black and had made a name for himself through   
    LL>> boxing. We wanted to make an example out of Ali.  And we did.   
    LL>> However, Ali got even once the courts overturned his conviction...   
      
   RW>IT should be much more difficult.  ARe you going to allow   
   RW>your society to be overrun by others because you're a   
   RW>conscientious objector?  I'll fight to defend me and mine   
   RW>thank you very much.   
      
   It is not as easy as most people think to be granted conscientious   
   objector status.  The burden of proof is on the individual that he/she   
   is opposed to war "in any form".  That is something easier said than   
   done.  It also has to be something based on more then "personal belief"   
   or "opinion".  The definition really is quite specific.   
      
    LL>> We did away with slavery (for the most part) after the Civil War.   
    LL>> Slavery still exists (sort of) in prisons.  We do not need to make   
    LL>> slaves out of conscientious objectors.  Nor should we.   
      
   RW>YOu give something to get something.   
      
   Give up your life?  For what?  To (maybe) be buried six feet under?   
   That is the reward?  The military trains people to kill.  What do you   
   think other countries' militaries do?  They also train people to kill.   
   When you have two military groups fighting against each other, lots   
   of people get killed.  And for what?  To say one country's military is   
   badder and meaner than another country's military?  Nobody wins in war.   
   Everybody loses.  Especially the mothers of those children.   
      
   RW>YOu grew up here, you had the advantages of our society, then serve.   
      
   In true Athenian fashion.  We are all stoics, being trained to kill   
   since the time we were itty bitty babies.  Is that what this life is   
   all about?  Greeks who found their babies to be weaklings threw those   
   babies over a cliff, thus ridding the population of the problem.  It   
   was their version of birth control, and it seemingly worked.  At least   
   until Alexander came about and started marching toward the East...   
      
   RW>OTherwise forfeit voting.   
      
   And allow only warmongers to vote?  No way, Jos‚.  :)   
      
   RW>As I noted, even if you're a conscientious objector you can still   
   RW>help build a road somewhere, or help provide people slewhere potable   
   RW>drinking water, build a school, etc.   
      
   While it is true that a conscientious objector could, why would he/she   
   want to?  After all, our law stipulates that he/she cannot be forced to   
   do so.   
      
   RW>Maybe by serving in something such as the peace corps you prevent   
   RW>a war down the road.   
      
   One does not have to be a conscientious objector in order to serve   
   in the peace corps.  But again, nobody should be forced to do so.   
      
   RW>That ought to go along with the philosophy or beliefs of any real   
   RW>conscientious objector.   
      
   Being forced into community service or some other kind of service   
   might be seen by conscientious objectors (and the courts) as serving   
   the military, albeit indirectly.  And conscientious objectors must,   
   by definition, be opposed to war "in any form".   
      
   RW>but, one of the real benefits of universal service to go   
   RW>along with universal suffrage would be expanded educational   
   RW>opportunities afterword.  That would be one of the   
   RW>privileges earned.   
      
   Rights are not earned.  And rights are something that should   
   be protected, not taken away.  In any event, as per education   
   beyond high school (expanded educational opportunities), it   
   is my view that trade school and college tuition should be   
   free for all (public education).  The cost would be paid back   
   many times over through the course of one's employment.  As   
   such, it would be a great investment in our future.   
      
    RW>> Why should so-called physical disabilities exempt you?   
      
    LL>> Some folks are simply physically and/or mentally unable to do   
    LL>> anything worth doing.  I am not saying that all who have a physical   
    LL>> and/or mental disability should be excluded from military/community   
    LL>> service, as many folks in that category did serve honorably in   
    LL>> previous wars, such as in WWII.   
      
   RW>Indeed, there are those who can't do much of anything,   
   RW>because they're both phsyically and mentally incapable of   
   RW>doing anything.  MOst times, they don't vote, and they don't   
   RW>pay taxes either.   
      
   Many do vote, and everybody pays taxes.   
      
    RW>> See earlier in this thread.  Does being blind disqualify a diesel   
    RW>> mechanic or a computer programmer?  Except for the severely disabled   
    RW>> who can't do much useful even for themselves anybody and everybody   
    RW>> should serve imho.   
      
    LL>> There are many things that can be done.  Some folks are limited in   
    LL>> what they can do, but not in all things.  As such, everybody who is   
    LL>> able should not be exempt, with the exception of conscientious   
    LL>> objectors.   
      
   RW>There shoudl be no exemptions, period imho.   
      
   Conscientious objection has always been part of American law since   
   the time of the colonies.   
      
   RW>YOu may declare yourself a c.o.   
      
   The draft board makes that decision, not the individual.   
      
   RW>and those making the assignments should consider that and place you   
   RW>working for programs that are compatible imho, but there should be   
   RW>some sort of service required of you nonetheless.  Give to get.   
      
   No conscientious objector can be compelled to participate in war or   
   noncombative service.  That is the law, like it or not.   
      
    RW>> Imho it just makes sense, helpsyoung people prepare for life as   
    RW>> citizens over adn above hs, and gives us the bodies we need, whether   
    RW>> it be to fight a war, or provide international aid or bodies for   
    RW>> public projects that do us good that need bodies to happen.   
      
    LL>> It makes far better sense to denounce war in all its various forms,   
    LL>> and promoting and practicing nonviolence in its place.   
      
    RW>> Dream on!   
      
    LL>> Nonviolent resistance is not passive, but a very active form of   
    LL>> resistence.  Gandhi knew it well.  So did MLK.  Not only did they   
    LL>> dream, but they achieved.  Isn't that wonderful?   
      
   RW>yEah it is, but don't think MLK would have achieved near as   
   RW>much if it hadn't been for those who just weren't gonna take it   
   RW>anymore and were willing to put their bodies on the line?   
      
   Although MLK had won the Nobel Prize, and led several civil rights   
   marches, real changes in our society did not really take form until   
   after his untimely death came at the hands of an assassin.  There   
   were also many others who were responsible for helping make the   
   changes that we enjoy today.  No one person could do it all.   
      
   RW>Gandhi may have achieved, but is India a place you'd want to live?   
      
   MLK was far more effective than Gandhi, as King's message was based   
   on Gospel values.  However, Gandhi did effect change in his country,   
   and for the better.  Throughout his life, Gandhi hated Muslims, as   
   he was Hindu.  However, he did help prevent a civil war between Hindus   
   and Muslims when India and Pakistan were partitioned.  That is to his   
   credit, as he had travelled throughout India begging Hindus not to   
   attack Muslims.   
      
   RW>As for me, I don't think I'd care for it.   
      
   India is a vast country, and I am sure it is a land in which many   
   tourists have loved visiting.  And it is the world's largest democracy,   
   at least in terms of people.  :)   
      
   RW>Ask the untouchables there how much of what Gandhi achieved applies   
   RW>to them.  They're still victims of prejudice.   
      
   Gandhi did not believe in the caste system, even though he was Hindu.   
   He recognized probably more than anyone else that we are all victims of   
   prejudice.  By "we" I am meaning everybody on Earth.   
      
   --Lee   
      
   --- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb   
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)