See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Americans owe it to their strained military to reconsider merits of the draft
Source:
Waco Tribune
URL Source: http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/conten ... /11112009waceditorialfull.html
Published: Nov 11, 2009
Author: Waco Tribune
Post Date: 2009-11-13 20:01:40 by scrapper2
Keywords: conscription talk, Obumski, grunts needed, Obamacare costs $
Views: 737
Comments: 55
Veterans Day 2009 finds our nation not only feeling anxiety about new battles looming in Afghanistan but grieving over the dead and wounded of Fort Hood, victims of what officials say is a gunman troubled over the horrors conveyed by war-weary soldiers, his mission as an Army psychiatrist about to deploy to Afghanistan and his failure to resolve Muslim beliefs and inner demons. But beyond these issues, what does this all mean for our nation’s all-volunteer military? As we prepare to again honor those who have served in the so-called “war on terror” as well as other conflicts in other climes, is it not finally time to ask if we as a society are truly doing right by those we send to war? Has the time finally come to reconsider military conscription? Talk with soldiers at Fort Hood and you’ll find some on their third or fourth deployment. Some claim they’re proud for yet another opportunity to serve their country abroad. Others dread it — not just out of concern for their safety but because they miss time with family, time at home. Meanwhile, more and more of the veterans health system is devoted to treating those suffering severe mental trauma — an issue Central Texans are especially aware of as the Waco Veterans Affairs Medical Center redoubles its efforts to determine root causes of and treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. Last year, a Rand Corp. study indicated one in five military personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffered some sort of depression or PTSD. The report said many don’t seek treatment because they fear the stigma might harm their careers. The study estimates that treatment of those returning with PTSD or depression can cost our nation as much as $6.2 billion in the two years following deployment. That covers both direct medical care and costs for lost productivity and suicide. Official data also show that soldiers from Fort Hood have had the highest rate of suicide among U.S. military installations since 2003. Some Army officials tell The Washington Post they don’t know how much more strain our Army can take — which, for all armchair generals out there, is probably one good reason the president is carefully weighing any troop surge in Afghanistan. So do we have enough troops in our all-volunteer military if we’re having to send the same troops back into the faraway fray time and again? Is it fair to go to the same well repeatedly? We think not. Manpower studies by retired Marine Maj. Gen. Arnold Punaro, former chairman of the U.S. Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, indicate that of the 1.4 million men and women on active duty in our military today, only half are not in overhead jobs and are thus deployable. That’s why the same troops with battlefield expertise keep going back. Some military officials say today’s all-volunteer Army is vastly superior in quality and focus than that assembled decades ago through the ranks of both enlisted and draftees. But other evidence suggests our military, including reservists and the guard, has become exhausted and demoralized by constant deployments and the scourge of stop-loss policies. Beyond that, military conscription arguably makes better Americans of our young, gives them an investment in country unlike any other and teaches them valuable qualities such as teamwork, attention to duty and the meaning of self-sacrifice. Americans like to scoff at how people in other lands address matters, but we should think twice of criticizing the Israelis, who bring something dynamic to their nation through the draft. Do they as a nation have a spark of patriotism, resolve and national engagement that we lack? Do we as a people have enough pride in country and concern for our military to even consider returning to the draft?
Poster Comment: "Beyond that, military conscription arguably makes better Americans of our young, gives them an investment in country unlike any other and teaches them valuable qualities such as teamwork, attention to duty and the meaning of self-sacrifice. Americans like to scoff at how people in other lands address matters, but we should think twice of criticizing the Israelis, who bring something dynamic to their nation through the draft. Do they as a nation have a spark of patriotism, resolve and national engagement that we lack? Do we as a people have enough pride in country and concern for our military to even consider returning to the draft?? I hope the Nesters, DUers, and kossacks are happy. For "free" flu shots and annual physical exams,[ 30 pieces of silver] they sold out the lives of American young men ages 18-26.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-14) not displayed.
.
.
.
#15. To: Jethro Tull (#13)
Your conspiratorial mind is probably 100% correct. I never thought about the stop-gap making them in essence "draftees".
...........and if what happened on 9-11-2001 wasn't an inside job, the borders would have been closed immediately on 9-11-2001.
I completely concur...with the sweeping new powers the government granted itself, they were CLEARLY the winners from that event.
I have sent your names to the Pentagon as willing conscripts. Both of you will be enlisted as PNC's (PRIVATES WITH NO CLASS) hehehehehehehe
In none of the wars 1980 back to 1914 did government have alot of neocon Jews or women - we had mainly white Christian oh so intelligent men in government - and still we engaged in stupid wars.
For at least the last 20 years of that period we had Henry Kissinger telling the presidents what to do.
What?????????? Scrap, you cannot be serious. I wont go to the trouble of naming dozens of names back to 1914...
Scrap, you cannot be serious. I wont go to the trouble of naming dozens of names back to 1914... Take it easy on scrap. She's only a woman! Sometimes their thinking gets erratic or something. It's that right brained, left,er, some sided bullshit thingy that gives them a pass even when they haven't a clue.
PS...if we were in a REAL war, our borders would have been sealed tight 9-12-2001 instead of being FORCED to remain open. **applauding** well said. your postscript is dead on.
bump
Bullshit. Wanna change this absurd remark ??? www.sweetliberty. org/issues/israel/calendar.html Go to the above webpage ... and scroll down to pages 15 and 16 of the Jewish Calendar Booklet ... and read for yourself the Jewish Neo-cons of that era ... and don't ever shit yourself again. While I would NEVER say the "JEWS" dunnit ALL ... I'd be hard pressed to give em a pass. And by the way, every administration since GEO. WASHINGTON has had its NEO- CONNIVING JEWS.
Doing what's right isn't always easy but it's always right.
There ... I'll post it for ya ! Now read the JEW NAMES ... placed there by other (influential) JEWS.
Doing what's right isn't always easy but it's always right.
Disagree. I served in the military, voluntarily, in a very dangerous capacity. I would never shirk from doing what's right even at the risk of my life. That said, I do hold that the draft is involuntary servitude, and further, that the very notion of a standing army present during times of no war is highly against the principles this nation was founded upon. Further, it is my estimation that a drafted peacetime army only provides ample cannon fodder for the ambitions of evil politicians, enabling them to ramble around the world using threat of force against other nations to make themselves feel important. The lives of our young men should not be wasted through involuntary servitude nor in waging unconstitutional acts of murder at the behest of beady eyed politicians.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
More info on booklet.
Doing what's right isn't always easy but it's always right.
Very extensive contradiction there. NO ONE is ever totally a volunteer, NO ONE. The term volunteer has to be viewed as TWO distinct groups when the term is applied to the military. Had you and others NOT volunteered, then most likely you would have been dragooned in, especially in war time. The term "involuntary servitude" begs the question, do we believe it was coined by one of the masses or by someone higher up the social scale???? It is a legal term that bears a Statute of Law by name, a term used by those that are willing others go but not themselves. Here is the Act.. "Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1584, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully hold another person in involuntary servitude." As you see, the law does not apply to any of us that "volunteered" or were drafted.
Bullshit. The million's of chicken-hearted neocon's in this country need to man up and have the courage of their convictions by going down to their nearest recruiting station and signing up. Otherwise their talk of supporting the troops is nothing but hot air. Short of that, the strained military owes it to themselves to tell the American people to fuck off by getting out.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
That makes absolutely no sense. If I volunteer I do not need perfect knowledge to raise the hand and volunteer. This isn't a Kantian question, but a practical one. If I walked in and said "sure, I'll do it" then I for all true intents and purposes volunteered. Speculation at best. We haven't been truly "invaded" since at least the Civil War (which was not a foreign invasion). The real last true invasion was during the war of 1812, if memory serves. We have never truly needed a standing army since the end of the war of 1812. The constitution authorizes a Navy, and we both know the Founders had a huge problem with standing armies, prefering instead a militia of volunteers. There is no "necessarily" to a lack of volunteers to a standing army in peace time. >The term "involuntary servitude" begs the question, do we believe it was coined by one of the masses or by someone higher up the social scale???? It makes no difference who originated the term, the common definition applies. It could have been coined by Ghengis Khan for all it matters. I don't see, please explain how somebody (or group of somebodies) forcing me to serve their interests against my will, to the point of death even, is not involuntary servitude. Fact is, despite semantics, that a draft gives ambitious and evil inclined politicians a vast pool of bodies to throw into the grist at their leisure. That's not something anybody should want. If we wish to inspire patriotism and a sense of common cause in individuals, we could start by reverting back to our founding principles and eschewing the modern trend of pragmatic nihilism. We worked splendidly as a Republic for quite a while, requiring nothing more than common courtesy and a respect for one's fellow man bourne by a benign moral code conceived in Christianity and refined through the Age of Reason into something palatable to the vast majority.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
Who in their right mind would want to serve those communists in the White House? I mean, think through what you are saying. I have said things that were extreme, but it was for the intent of spurring people to come up with more moderate solutions.
OK... We are discussing the term "involuntary servitude" as applied to military service. "Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1584, has ALWAYS been held by the courts to mean that even though one enters into an agreement voluntarily and later changes his mind, yet is held against his will, even that becomes involuntary servitude. Quite obvious over the entire history that when it comes to military service, the term involuntary servitude is NOT covered by the law. All Federal courts have always held that Title 18 Sec. 1584 DOES NOT APPLY to the governments right for military service. I "volunteered" before the draft could get me and many times changed my mind, but knew full well it was prison or worse if I tried leaving under the law. They shoot people for such. The term involuntary servitude is hailed by those that know only too well it does not apply to military service.
Regardless if it's the communist democans or fascist republicrats in the White House it's a neocon war. Those who have and continue to support it need to either man the fuck up and do their part or work with real conservatives to help bring them home. It's time to shit to get off the pot. To force others to fight their war is the height of immorality.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
Now that, I don't agree with (the ruling, not you). When you enter into service, you sign a contract. No matter whom you sign a contract with, you are obligated to uphold your end. That's how contracts work, for everything. If you sign a contract to buy a car, and receive the car, and then decide that you don't want to pay according to the contract, you are not being robbed when the collections agency shows up to get you to pony up the cash. And, frankly, in this case we're not talking about somebody volunteering and then changing their minds. We're talking about the draft, which is where you're sitting on your front porch peacefully minding your own business and the mailman comes up and hands you a letter which says "report to the recruiting station, you've been drafted. Failure to show up will trigger severe legal consequences". You've not even initiated a voluntary action in that case (assuming you disagree and do not wish to go). I don't see how it doesn't apply. Just because the government wishes to state that it doesn't apply, doesn't mean that it doesn't. If they can claim it doesn't apply for the military, they can then exempt anything else they wish. National Service (the Obama Corp), sure why not?
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
We are in total agreement excepting the usage of the term under discussion. During my lifetime I have seen two laws enacted bringing out a draft...when we were not in wartime....we were at peace with the world. Involuntary servitude had its origination with slavery, it was never equated to or attached to military service in this country.
You miss my point completely. A soldier cannot publicly speak in opposition to the U.S. President policies. If you got what you wanted, you would effectively silent any political opposition that is against Obama and his communist/fascist policies. Do you honestly think that would be a good thing to happen? The old saying is true. Becareful what you wish for.
For the past eight years, the government/military has been doing just that by "extending the time limits" of an agreement of those that volunteered. There is nothing voluntary at all, strictly a one way street, they forcibly keep you against your will..YET IT IS LEGAL. At advent of Korean war, thousands of men had their agreement extended by the military for a period of nine months. Volunteers that were not really volunteers at all, especailly when the other side can rewrite the agreement to their advantage at any time. And they did.
If you got what you wanted, you would effectively silent any political opposition that is against Obama and his communist/fascist policies. Do you honestly think that would be a good thing to happen? The old saying is true. Becareful what you wish for. I guess I am missing your point because I have no idea what you are talking about. When I say that the American soldier should tell the American people to fuck off, I'm speaking figuratively, not literally. No one is calling for any one of them to get on national TV and say fuck you. A soldier doesn't have to say anything. Just leave when their time is up. That's what I did when I came back from Bosnia. After Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia I finally woke up to the fact that I was being used for political rather than defensive purposes and said "fuck you" to both the government and the American people. If soldiers today did that in mass, this war would end for two reasons. One is because within a year we would not have a force large enough to maintain the op tempo and the other is because the American people as a whole WILL NOT ALLOW a draft to take place. The majority of the American people are fully aware that the WOT is bullshit and those who still support it are not man enough to fight it.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
A soldier is obligated to obey the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. If they don't realize that the enemy has been domestic in recent decades, why bother talking about kids who in essence joined the military in lieu if a job in an industry (pick one) that has been outsourced?
"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy ." - Henry Kissinger. this is the sentiment of the elites. until and unless americans realize this, the wars will go on and on.
"The Thirteenth Amendment does not interfere with the enforcement of " duties a citizen owes to the state under the Common Law" . Government may require a person to serve on a petit or Grand Jury, to work on public roads or instead pay taxes on those roads, or to serve in the militia. Compulsory military service (the draft) is not a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, nor is compulsory labor on work of national importance in lieu of military service, assigned to conscientious objectors.
If the ability to extend the term of enlistment is included in the original contract (I honestly don't know), then you signed it, you suck it up. If it is not defined in the originating contract, then yes, that then becomes involuntary servitude AFTER THE POINT that your initially agreed upon term ends. Which, while interesting, does not pertain to the mechanics of the draft in regards to involuntary servitude.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
Saying it ain't, don't mean it isn't. To devolve into my Appalachian roots parlance. :)
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
I've never heard that one particular quote from the esteemed asshat. Is there more context for it (date, location, etc) that I can reference. It would be *great* to be able to throw that up to people so intent on military worship in this day and age of the Grand Game.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
Which, while interesting, does not pertain to the mechanics of the draft in regards to involuntary servitude. The contract states that if you enlist you owe the government eight years. So if you signed a two year contract (if they even have them anymore) then you would spend two years on active duty (or reserves/guard if that's what you signed up for) and the rest of the time you would be on the inactive ready reserve (IRR) for the other six. If the government feels it needs you within those six years, it has the right, by contract, to call you back to active duty. However, if you serve your entire eight years, you can walk away and they cannot call you back. This is for enlisted personnel. Officers have different rules. I'm not 100% sure but I believe that with officers once you leave active duty you are kept on the IRR until you write someone a letter asking that you be removed from it. However, I may be completley wrong on this.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
Regarding "involuntary servitude" standing alone, the law has held that as a VOLUNTEER you have the right to change your mind and may NOT be held against your wishes. Throw in the military and there is no protection for the individual, they may do as they wish. So, as far as the law has always been concerned there is NO such thing as involuntary servitude in the military. Those words are always trotted out by the upper class, not by the like of me, as a vocal way to voice their displeasure.
You're discussing what the government says is legal. I'm discussing the modern version of slavery. The law and reality rarely co-inhabit the same dorm room in the college of life, these days. I agree that the government most likely will say that anything it wishes to do, is legal for them to do. No argument. The issue however is not what the government justifies to itself as right, but what we know is right and wrong. Queueing up millions of young men via the draft to go out and fight in actions that have no constitutional authorization is utterly wrong. Queueing up millions of young men via the draft to sit around stateside, with no actual military crisis is going on, for no apparent real reason, is also wrong. Society would be much better served in both cases if the military was as small as possible, to prevent ambitious men of power from using a temptation too powerful for them to resist.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
You forget my original assertion that "involuntary servitude" is a crutch used by those that are willing others go but not them???? They hobble on that crutch knowing full well it has NEVER had a leg to stand on during our entire history. The term only comes to fore when the upper classes see themselves as endangered species. Then and only then. Class society. Accept draftee or volunteer Cyni and Son, the world is all right, think about ME serving, never, involuntary servitude.
That is not the same thing as being able to have political freedom of speech.
A soldier can be court martialed and sent prison for speaking out against the U.S. President.
I believe I explained myself adequately in post 39.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
You said you missed my point, so I explain further. I am pointing out the effect of what you support.
I do not support members of the military getting themselves into trouble by speaking out against the president, which I clearly clarified in post 39.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
You still miss my point. Please note, I am not saying this to be rude. It's just that you don't see what I am getting at.
My conspiratorial mind told me when NAFTA was passed, causing the exodus of middle class manufacturing jobs, the military will fill the void. And that it did. Once they're in, the "stop-gap" orders kick in and they then become 'drafted' for all intents and purposes.
#16. To: Freedomsnotfree (#14)
PS...if we were in a REAL war, our borders would have been sealed tight 9-12-2001 instead of being FORCED to remain open.
#17. To: LACUMO (#16)
#18. To: LACUMO, Jethro Tull (#15)
(Edited)
#19. To: noone222, LACUMO (#9)
(Edited)
Furthermore, if we had a general populace that wasn't dumbed down, propagandized to hell and back, wasn't so cowardly, and a government that wasn't being infiltrated by so many neo-con jews and women who haven't a clue, we wouldn't be engaged in these useless and criminal wars and the general population would take up arms alright and would fight a war against the real enemies destroying America and the ones sending "volunteers" off to endless mindless wars.
#20. To: scrapper2 (#19)
In none of the wars 1980 back to 1914 did government have alot of neocon Jews or women - we had mainly white Christian oh so intelligent men in government - and still we engaged in stupid wars.
#21. To: scrapper2 (#19)
In none of the wars 1980 back to 1914 did government have alot of neocon Jews or women
#22. To: Cynicom, Scrapper2 (#21)
In none of the wars 1980 back to 1914 did government have alot of neocon Jews or women What??????????
#23. To: Freedomsnotfree (#14)
The only thing ANY soldier serving in the military is doing is forwarding the advancement, and goals, of those in DC and their globalist goals to destroy this country...PERIOD. How can it be otherwise...if you are serving those wishing to distroy this country, but default, you HAVE to be serving them in those goals. Serving your country and serving your government can be 2 VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. Our sons and daughters are giving their lives for evil folks in Washington that do nothing but lie, cheat and steal...We don't need a draft, we need to get out of the 140+ countries we're in, close the 700 overseas bases we have and apologize to half the world for interfering in their sovereign affairs. Nation building IS NOT what made this country great. Our founders, VERY WISE MEN, warned us of this very thing.
#24. To: christine (#23)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
#25. To: scrapper2 (#19)
In none of the wars 1980 back to 1914 did government have alot of neocon Jews or women - we had mainly white Christian oh so intelligent men in government - and still we engaged in stupid wars.
#26. To: scrapper2 (#19)
#27. To: Cynicom (#5)
It has always been used by those perfectly willing to see others go, but not themselves. It is nothing but a olde and tired hackneyed saying using a lofty idealistic view, when in reality it is based on simple cowardice.
#28. To: All (#25)
(Edited)
#29. To: SonOfLiberty (#27)
Disagree. I served in the military, voluntarily, in a very dangerous capacity. I would never shirk from doing what's right even at the risk of my life.
#30. To: scrapper2 (#0)
Americans owe it to their strained military to reconsider merits of the draft
#31. To: Cynicom (#29)
NO ONE is ever totally a volunteer, NO ONE.
The term volunteer has to be viewed as TWO distinct groups when the term is applied to the military. Had you and others NOT volunteered, then most likely you would have been dragooned in, especially in war time.
"Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1584, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully hold another person in involuntary servitude."
As you see, the law does not apply to any of us that "volunteered" or were drafted.
#32. To: Hayek Fan (#30)
Bullshit. The million's of chicken-hearted neocon's in this country need to man up and have the courage of their convictions by going down to their nearest recruiting station and signing up. Otherwise their talk of supporting the troops is nothing but hot air.
#33. To: SonOfLiberty (#31)
That makes absolutely no sense. If I volunteer I do not need perfect knowledge to raise the hand and volunteer.
#34. To: PaulCJ (#32)
Who in their right mind would want to serve those communists in the White House?
#35. To: Cynicom (#33)
(Edited)
"Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1584, has ALWAYS been held by the courts to mean that even though one enters into an agreement voluntarily and later changes his mind, yet is held against his will, even that becomes involuntary servitude.
They shoot people for such. The term involuntary servitude is hailed by those that know only too well it does not apply to military service.
#36. To: SonOfLiberty (#31)
Fact is, despite semantics, that a draft gives ambitious and evil inclined politicians a vast pool of bodies to throw into the grist at their leisure. That's not something anybody should want.
#37. To: Hayek Fan (#34)
#38. To: SonOfLiberty (#35)
Now that, I don't agree with (the ruling, not you). When you enter into service, you sign a contract.
#39. To: PaulCJ (#37)
A soldier cannot publicly speak in opposition to the U.S. President policies.
#40. To: PaulCJ (#37)
(Edited)
You miss my point completely. A soldier cannot publicly speak in opposition to the U.S. President policies.
#41. To: Hayek Fan (#39)
If soldiers today did that in mass, this war would end
#42. To: Jethro Tull, SonofLiberty (#40)
#43. To: Cynicom (#38)
#44. To: Cynicom (#42)
#45. To: christine (#41)
"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy ." - Henry Kissinger.
#46. To: SonOfLiberty (#43)
If the ability to extend the term of enlistment is included in the original contract (I honestly don't know), then you signed it, you suck it up. If it is not defined in the originating contract, then yes, that then becomes involuntary servitude AFTER THE POINT that your initially agreed upon term ends.
#47. To: SonOfLiberty (#43)
Which, while interesting, does not pertain to the mechanics of the draft in regards to involuntary servitude.
#48. To: Cynicom (#47)
#49. To: SonOfLiberty (#48)
You're discussing what the government says is legal.
#50. To: Jethro Tull (#40)
A soldier is obligated to obey the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.
#51. To: Hayek Fan (#39)
I guess I am missing your point because I have no idea what you are talking about.
#52. To: PaulCJ (#51)
A soldier can be court martialed and sent prison for speaking out against the U.S. President.
#53. To: Hayek Fan (#52)
#54. To: PaulCJ (#53)
I am pointing out the effect of what you support.
#55. To: Hayek Fan (#54)
(Edited)
I do not support members of the military getting themselves into trouble by speaking out against the president, which I clearly clarified in post 39.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest