cw (11/05/82)
Once again, there is a net article which is mistaken about the
historical basis of the draft. I hesitate to be quite so hard on
Phil Karn because he has an office only two doors away, but he
has failed to understand the basic problem of slavery and the draft
just as Roberts' original submission did.
I begin with a quote from Karn's article:
True, the original US Constitution gives the Congress power to raise a
military; however, the 13th amendment prohibits "involuntary servitude".
If a military draft isn't "involuntary servitude", what is?
To be precise, "involuntary servitude" is slavery and is specifically not
military service under the draft. Let me say why.
First, legal terms are technical terms with precise meanings not necessarily
those of the words taken individually. "Involuntary servitude" is one
such phrase. Further, it is specifically the role of the courts to define
such terms when the legislature does not. The fact that you don't want
to go into the army and that when you get there you are serving does
not make what you are doing "involuntary servitude" legally. I always
have trouble understanding why programmers have difficulty with the
use of legal terms; we use jargon with precise (and non-obvious)
meanings in our work all the time.
Second, a standard principle of legal interpretation is use what
the legislature that passed the law thought it meant. Since the
same Congress that passed the 13th Amendment also passed a number
of very strong draft laws, one can only assume that they did not
believe "involuntary servitude" and the draft were the same thing.
Third, the draft is not involuntary in any case. You may break
the contract with the community and not be drafted. Of course,
to do so you must give up your citizenship and leave the country.
This seems eminently fair; if you will not serve, why should the
rest of the community extend its protection?
Now to speak to a few of Karn's thoughts about slavery. First,
the courts did not recognize slavery out of "practical necessity,"
though its continuance may have based on that reason. Slavery was
part of the economic fiber of the US from the beginning and all
the political theorists of the day knew that, though some did not like it.
Second, domestic slavery did not vanish because of an economic
awakening but because of the Civil War (although that was not
the original purpose of the war in most people's--and certainly
not in Lincoln's--minds). There was little domestic slavery in
the North by 1860, but southern agricultural slavery was thought
still to have room for growth. Third, the industrial revolution
was well underway 100 years before the Civil War and it was
precisely that revolution that allowed the North to win and
expand economically at the same time. Indeed, the South
stagnated economically for most of the next century, a
backwater of the Industrial Revolution. It might also be noted that
southern tenant farming was about as close to slavery as one can come
without laws; one might almost argue that slavery did not leave the South
until World War II finally awoke the region.
Now Phil may well be correct that if the US would renounce a
standing army (drafted or volunteer), other ways of resolving
international differences might be found. But that is a matter
of policy. Work for the policy if you wish, but your success or
failure does not abrogate your requirement to serve your
community if it calls.
Please all note as well that a draft does not, in itself, imply
military service. As a point of fact, I happen to favor universal
service with the draftee choosing the branch of service--military,
conservation, medical, inner city, Peace Corps, what have you.
For many (myself included), it would provide an experience not
otherwise available and (I am quite sure) likely to be extremely
valuable.
One final point. Universal includes women. I have never understood
why women are exempted from the draft. The Supreme Court seems
to feel they should be, but I think that they are mistaken and that
the ruling will eventually be reversed. I also do not understand
why women can not perform in combat. Few people know that in World
War II, a Soviet tactical air support unit of about 3000 women
fought on the Eastern Front. Tactical support units provide close
(very close) fighter plane support infantry and armored units. Women
filled all roles, including pilots and gunners. The reason this is not
well known is that the women were nothing special--one way
or another--which is exactly how it should be.
Charlesmag (11/06/82)
I would like to address one point made by Charles Wetherell in his last article, namely: Third, the draft is not involuntary in any case. You may break the contract with the community and not be drafted. Of course, to do so you must give up your citizenship and leave the country. This seems eminently fair; if you will not serve, why should the rest of the community extend its protection? To say that it is "eminently fair" that you should be forced to leave the country if you wish to "break the contract with the community" really does havoc to another "American" concept--freedom. If we indulge in legalisms, I was always under the impression that when one of the parties to a contract was forced into it, then the contract is void. Agreements made under duress are not "fair" in my book. In fact, I think that calling one's status under the law a "contract with the community" is a distortion in itself of where our draft liability comes from. It's really a form of collective tyranny, which is one of the negative sides of a democracy. This discussion is very interesting, and I would like to see it continue, but I hope that some differentiation can be made between legal and historical facts and moral opinions. I was very interested to read Charles' historical information, but it's polluted when an opinion such as I quoted above is injected. We're talking about the use of force to impose the will of some citizens on others (and themselves, in a sense). I agree that the founding fathers thought that this was OK sometimes. I don't think that the fact that they think it OK means that I should be content to follow the rules of the system (and go to Vietnam and fight and die or whatever). Anyway, I vote to hear more comment on the issue. Mike Gray, BTL, WH
wagner (11/06/82)
Charles comment about women in service makes me think of the Israeli army, where women serve. Mostly they fill support positions - my girlfriend of the time was a communications officer (I cant remember if it was telephone or radio) - but if they ask, I think they can now get into front line combat. The remaining assymettry (I am told) is due to the fact that the society as a whole feels that they are still underpopulated, and keeping the women a bit safer is worth the social cost of keeping them out of front line combat. No flames, please, about whether Israel *really* is underpopulated, whether Israel should have the right to a compulsory draft, or whether should exist. My only point was that Israel runs a whole army with almost no exclusion of women from active duty. Incidentally, I think it is a poor reflection on the reactions of some people on the net that I (and many others) have to spend a significant part of each submission delimiting the things we did *not* say. I am not sure where the problem is - perhaps I dont spend enough time writing my submissions and making them unambiguous; perhaps others dont read them carefully enough before responding to things I didnt say. In other broadcast media (radio, TV), the people who do the programming (not computer ~) are trained specially in things that arent relevant here, like voice control to be understandable, but also in chosing words and avoiding regionalisms and ambiguities. Being a broadcast medium of a mass of people, the net does not have this pre-filtering on its content. Is this problem solvable? Mini-courses on net etiquette before one is allowed on sounds so authoritarian and downright stupid, but look at how much more useful and workable the ham frequencies are than the CB ones (and also inaccessable, of course). I dont know the answer; I only barely know how to phrase the question, but I think the various problems we have with misunderstanding-type flames (as opposed to genuine differences of opinion) demonstrate that we have a genuine problem. Enough. Thoughts, anyone? Michael Wagner, UTCS (decvax!utzoo!utcsstat!wagner)
soreff (11/08/82)
There is one minor point of fact which I would like clarification on in
Charles's article on the draft. Charles wrote "Third, the draft is not
involuntary in any case. You may break the contract with the community and
not be drafted. Of course, to do so you must give up your citizenship and
leave the country.". I think I read that the U.S. government signed treaties
with governments of Canada and Mexico a few years ago (at about the time
that draft registration was reactivated) which enabled the U.S. government
to extradite draft resisters from Canada and Mexico. If this is the case,
then leaving the country and dropping one's citizenship seem to be insufficient
to protect one from the draft. I realize that this would only imply that
leaving is not a Sufficient condition, while it may still remain a Necessary
condition. Does Charles intend to make that particular distinction, or is
my recollection of the treaties inaccurate, or is something else amiss?
Jeffrey Soreffjj (11/08/82)
~!wagner's comment about the fact that we have to spend so much of our time stating what we do NOT mean should point out the fundamental problem with this net, i.e. those who wish to cloud reason by using emotional tactics (and I include sophistry in that catagory) will deliberately misuse anything that is said. It is impossible to not be misquoted, all that is necessary is to leave out the right words. For some of the effects of this controversy, see net.audio, and the discussion on "dB spl" if you care.