Don T and I have been kicking this around a bit in private emails, so I thought I'd get a consensus of our board members.

Some aging baby-boomers are writhing in guilt because they managed to avoid military duty during the war. Chris Matthews, host of Hardball, is one who has emoted to that effect more than once. Why should anyone feel guilty? The hidden premise here is that when the government calls on you to do something, you have a moral obligation to do it. When stated outright, it is usually put in terms of one's "country" calling. But it is never the country that calls. It's the government. In the case of Vietnam it was Lyndon Johnson and Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara and Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger who were calling. A call by those dishonest social engineers doesn't sound so impressive.

In light of America's individualist and libertarian heritage, it is inappropriate, to say the least, that the government should have the power to decree that young men put their lives on hold-maybe forever-and trot off to a jungle 10,000 miles away to become parties to a war that was as remote as could be. The draft was un-American.

At the height of the war, which the United States entered in secrecy and dishonestly, no one seriously thought that a communist victory in Vietnam would endanger the American people. The most anyone predicted was that U.S. ally Japan would be at risk, which of course it wasn't. The domino theory was falsified: Japan remained free of the communists, along with Thailand, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand. Meanwhile the unified Vietnam fought Red China and invaded fellow communist country Cambodia, ruled by the murderous tyrant Pol Pot.


Some of the guilt-ridden war avoiders feel bad that because they didn't go, someone else did and perhaps died. This is an unwarranted shouldering of responsibility. If you lock your doors and burglars therefore break into your neighbor's house, you are not responsible for the crime. The burglars are. Likewise, if you prevent the politicians from treating you like cannon fodder and they victimize someone else, they are responsible for that crime.

Thus no one who avoided the war on the grounds that he had better things to do with his life or that the United States had no business there should feel the least bit ashamed of what he did.


The other reaction that deserves scrutiny is this: When the United States left Vietnam, the North Vietnamese invaded the south and established a communist tyranny; therefore, the United States was right to have fought. That's a non sequitur. In support of this argument, various ex-communists-turned-neoconservatives, such as David Horowitz, say, in effect, "We were wrong when we said a North Vietnamese victory over the United States and South Vietnam would bring peace and freedom."

There's one problem with this argument. The case against U.S. intervention in Vietnam did not depend on the absurd view that Ho Chi Minh was a Vietnamese Thomas Jefferson. Libertarian and other non-leftist critics of the war, building their case on the principles of the old Robert Taft wing of the Republican Party, argued that U.S. intervention was wrong regardless of Ho's philosophy. (In fact, he was a nationalist communist.)

Why was intervention wrong if it would prevented communism in South Vietnam? It was wrong, as suggested above, because it violated the rights of Americans not to be cannon fodder for American politicians. It was wrong because it was not our business to pick up the colonial mantle dropped in 1954 by the defeated French. It was wrong because savagely bombing people on the other side of the world who were no threat to us was wrong. None of that was changed by the fact that North Vietnamese imposed an abominable dictatorship when the United States left. As a matter of fact, had we stayed out, South Vietnam would very likely have been in a better position to repulse the communists of the North and their agents in the south.

The war was immoral and unconstitutional because Congress never declared war. It sent 58,000 young American men to their graves, along with some two million Vietnamese. It accelerated the decline of American liberty and the growth of government. That's a pretty damning indictment.

What does everyone think?

I did not serve in the military, and did everything possible (within the law) to avoid the draft during a time when I was listed #1 in the lottery. Although I am a believer in serving the country I do not believe the only way to do it is by serving in uniform, and candidly anyone who did not serve in uniform has no reason to feel ashamed or guilty. Service can include volunteering in the community, working for projects like Habitat for Humanity, serving in the Peace Corps (as Chris Matthews did) or eschewing a lucrative white show law firm gig to become a community organizer as Barrack Obama did.

The idea that one who disagrees with the government is unpatriotic belies the core values of freedom. Indeed we should vigorously mistrust our government and keep an eye on the domestic enemies of freedom, as the constitution warns us. "I was just following orders" is no excuse if the Nuremburg trials taught us anything.

It is pretty clear that a total lack of vigilance, spurred in a large part by our own government in the post 9/11 era has had the consequence (intended imho) of eroding out liberties, silencing critics and the media, and getting us into another war much like Vietnam. Just as the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie so was the reason for going into Iraq. Or should I say reasons since this administration keeps changing the rationale. First it was non-existant WMD's which they lied about, then it was to get rid of Sadam, then it was the phony link betweeen Saddam and Al Quaeda, now it apears to be "We'll look bad if we leave, and there will be a bloodbath." The same rationale for staying to long in Vietnam, which, by the way is enjoying the greatest economic boom in its history.

The fact of the matter is that there would be an uproar in this country if the draft were reinstated and the inescapable truth is that for the most part the sacrifices of this war are being disproportionately borne by the middle to working classes, and lower. As of now they are taking convicted felons in the army and teaching them how to kill people with semi automatic weapons (great idea). The financial sacrifice will be borne by the next generation.

Personally I am appalled at the way Americans have defined patriotism over the past 28 years with this chest thumping, flag lapel wearing, car magnet ribbon adorning, "U-S-A" chanting, "We're Number One" attitude (btw at what are we Number One?) that permeates our culture.

The seeds sewn from the so called Reagan revolution,to the Bush-Clinton "do little" pause, to the train wreck we have running this country at the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches caused as much by complicit and timid liberals as well as conservatives, and most espcially by Joe Lieberman (ok, that's hyperbole, but he is a two faced back stabbing prick)has involved us in an unwinnable war, ruined our prestige round the world, broken the Geneva convenions, stripped us of freedom, lost one American city in New Orleans, and soon a second, Detroit, is starting to bite everyone economically, and its ging to get worse.

I believe whomever is elected in 2008 is a one term president if he or she stands up and tells the American people the truth, because from every indication I see, the American people can't handle the truth.

1)It was wrong, as suggested above, because it violated the rights of Americans not to be cannon fodder for American politicians.

In what document is that right found?

2) It was wrong because it was not our business to pick up the colonial mantle dropped in 1954 by the defeated French.

Doesn't the US Congress through its law-making and appropriations process determine what is this Nation's business?

3) It was wrong because savagely bombing people on the other side of the world who were no threat to us was wrong.

They were a threat to the people of South Vietnam (Viet Minh) and Laos (Pathert Lao).

4) None of that was changed by the fact that North Vietnamese imposed an abominable dictatorship when the United States left. As a matter of fact, had we stayed out, South Vietnam would very likely have been in a better position to repulse the communists of the North and their agents in the south.

So, prior to the US increase of its ground forces in South Vietnam in 1965, the South Vietnamese were handily containing the indigenous Viet Cong and the Viet Minh from the north?

5) The war was immoral.

Wow! That's definitive, huh?

6) ... and unconstitutional because Congress never declared war.

Where in the US Constitution is there a requirement that US military forces only be deployed for combat pursuant to a Congressional declaration of war?

7) It sent 58,000 young American men to their graves

The Viet Cong and Viet Minh did that. Also, what is the age distribution of those 58,000? One the sergeants in my platoon was in his mid-30s and he was killed in a mortar attack.

8) ... along with some two million Vietnamese.

Had the Viet Cong and Viet Minh let them alone, none of them would have died.

9) It accelerated the decline of American liberty

What liberty has decined? Let's see. Freedom of expression: Texas v. Johnson(89); freedom of religion: Gonzales v. O Centro(06); freedom of speech: Reno v. ACLU(96). Any more necessary?

10) ... and the growth of government.

The Nation's population has increased by 30% since 1975 while the number of federal government employees as a percentage of US population has remained flat.

11) That's a pretty damning indictment.

Sure it is if you don't do your research first.

I thank God for the brave men and women who have have served and yes, some have even given their lives so you could say this kind of crap. I'll stop now before I say something I shouldn't

Camillus Don

Hello Cammy pants.

After the fall of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, an international conference in Geneva established that foreign troops would withdraw from Vietnam pending an election in '56 that would unify the country. The Viet Minh withdrew to the north to await the election, but the US refused to participate or to recognize the victor--because we believed that Ho would win. We continued to prop up the Diem regime in the south. But Eisenhower never saw this as a major US commitment--there were only 400 US military advisers when he left office.

JFK boutht into the "domino theory" and saw Vietnam as a big deal--there were 16-18k US troops in Vietnam when he died. Then LBJ got pumped up with the notion that "if we don't fight 'em in the jungles of Vietnam, we'll be fighting 'em on the beaches of California." But even he never had a vision for what victory would look like--at best, he saw Vietnam as an Asian version of the FDR-era Works Progress Administration. Documents and tapes released from his secret Oval Office conversations show him totally baffled by the war and having no clue about how to get out of it. By the time Ford finally pulled the plug, 58,000 Americans died for those mistakes and misjudgments (as have another nearly 4k for W's "weapons of mass destruction"). And so far, no guerilla warfare has broken out on the shores of California.

The war would never have been waged on that scale, for that long, if there hadn't been a draft to provide an endless supply of warm bodies--and the threat of a five year prison term and a $10k fine for those who refused Uncle's invitation.

As for the war being "illegal" or "unconstitutional": The Constitution unambiguously appoints the President as Commander-in-Chief. He has to be able to move the military into action immediately to protect the country and respond to threats or attacks. But setting us out for a protracted military campaign is more ambiguous. Yes, he needs Congressional approval to declare war or a state of national emergency. But it'd take another Pearl Harbor to get Congress to declare war because of the vast extra powers that the President gets. That's why LBJ asked for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (and W asked for a similar bill before invading Iraq). After LBJ's buildup, Congress also passed a law requiring the President to report intentions (i.e., ask Congressional approval) if a military action lasts longer than 30 days. Constitutional scholars doubt that any such requirements are Constitutionally binding because of the "Commander-in-Chief" clause. But Presidents have chosen to get "sense of Congress" declarations to provide cover for them anyway. If push comes to shove, the only way Congress can stop a war is to refuse to approve the Defense Department's budget--and that'll never happen.

Wow Camillus, your original thinking blows me away. I respect and pity the men and women in Iraq, Vietnam, Korea and all the skirmishes in between, none of which did one thing to allow me the freedom to say what I please. The Revolutionary War possibly the Civil War and WWII were the only wars the U.S. has fought to protect the rights set forth in the Constitution.

"What are you a nam lover or something -- are you on their side?"





"Well if you feel that way why don't you just quit college and go to -- go to join"




"A bunch of saps."




"dontomasso, why -- why didn't you come to us? I mean Pop had to pull a lot of strings to get you a deferment."

Olivant, I admire the lip service you have paid to research.

That's Pop talking.

"You're god damn right that's Pop talking."

[/quote]

Mommy...daddy's fighting again.....tee hee heee.....Don Tomasso.

DT, although on some level, I agree with what you've said, I also disagree on others.

Quite frankly, I was too young to understand the Vietnam conflict, except to understand that I had two brothers that were of draft age, but were exempt because they were in college (and I never saw my mother so terrified as when my brother was accused of plagiarism and they threatened to throw him out of school). Although I have read about it some, I don't know enough about to speak very intelligently on the subject. I do know enough, however, to agree that it was a waste, though, of money, resources, and, most of all, lives. It's not something that we needed to be a part of.

I am a bit perturbed by your disdain for flag-waving and lapel pins, though. Why? If you have the right to disagree with the government, why don't others have the right to worship it? They certainly should. Although I personally don't believe in blind faith in one's government, that doesn't mean that I should look down on those that do. And although I loathe the current administration, I still believe that we are the greatest country in the world. Perhaps that's why people chant, "We're Number 1!"

Well Said SB!!! BOTH types have their rights! That's what makes many feel that this country is # 1!

It's my contention that, the draft can serve as a valuable means of reducing a nation's "potential" criminal population - that is, the young men between 18-24, who although are not yet technically "hardened criminals," have exhibited no signs of productivity and are likely to either end up in prison or leaching off of America's social welfare programs. We might as well put a rifle in their hands.
If they survive the war, they'll place a new value on their own personal lives and their role in society. It makes sense to assume they'll change their habits in the process.

But, if you're a young man between the ages of 18-24, and you're in school, or you have a job, or you're doing SOMETHING that is constructive, you have the right to continue doing that and not have your efforts halted by war.
I would have done the same as dontomasso. The President's right to declare war doesn't necessarily give him the right to make me fight it for him.
Don T realized that. He channeled the law in his favor; such is the nature of law. Good for him.

But back to this notion of a national draft serving as a way of apprehending future criminals -- I bet the Vietnam war had to have taken the lives of 15-20,000 of America's best future drug dealers, dead-beats dads, sex offenders, and welfare benefactors; and reformed countless others. The same on the Vietnamese, Chinese, and Russian side.
The fact that others, who were not as likely to fail in society, were also drafted, is due to their own personal lack of intuition or initiative to fight the system and use the law to their benefit, ala dontomasso. Plus, like the Marines said: we're looking for a few good men -- to lead the scum bags.

TO SUMMARIZE: I see a lot of low-life Neanderthals in my town who need to either be sent to prison, or Iraq. One or the other, I don't really care which...

Are you serious???

ds

Smitty, yes.

Also, to offer a view on the original question:



Many notions of legality are ambiguous, of course. Nowhere in the Constitution does it require one to answer to the draft. There are only implications of legality, which are set forth by various resolutions, acts, amendments, etc., however, one has the right to challenge, and offer their own interpretation of those implications.

As an rejoinder to that point, I'll note the insufficiencies of the Internal Revenue Code. No where does it specifically and unequivocally require one to pay their income taxes...no where. But, try not paying, and see if the ol' "boots and guns" do not immediately replace the institution of "law and logic." However, you absolutely can challenge the ruling. Many have done so, and succeeded. No where in writing, will the court be able to positively and undeniably prove that you've broken the law by not paying your income tax.

Point being: one has the right to challenge both being drafted and the system that created the draft. Vietnam draftees who could afford high-dollar lawyers to plead their case of ineligibility could technically delay the draft process long enough to avoid the war. Of course, I assume that others were even luckier, and the courts outright approved their request based on a variety of factors including, but certainly not limited to, educational and occupational status - which I don't think could be classified as socio-economic discrimination, could it? B/c that would be a federal case that could explode.

I think nothing could be further from the truth. I was in grade school when the Viet Nam War ended, and know a good number of men and women, who served. I also have a cousin, whom I've never met, killed in the war. I am also aware that in the county where I presently reside, a judge would give convicted criminals the option of enlisting or serving a sentence in prison; most chose jail.

I've often heard it said that those, who resisted the draft and moved to Canada, showed as much courage and character as those that served. I don't believe this for a moment.

Ice, how stupid can you be?

"Nowhere in the Constitution does it require one to answer to the draft."

But Article I, Section 8 of that same Constitution does empower the US Congress to raise armies and the last paragraph of that same Section empowers Congress to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying nto execution the foregoing powers ... (it's refered to as the Elastic Clause or the Necessary and Proper clause)" To wit: US Code Ttile 50, section 451 through 538. Your induction letter commands one to appear just as a subpoena comands one to appear. If you don't appear, you have demurred the command.

"No where does it specifically and unequivocally require one to pay their income taxes...no where."

"No where in writing, will the court be able to positively and undeniably prove that you've broken the law by not paying your income tax."

Title 26, Section I of the US Code defines the imposition of the income tax and Section 6301 empowers the Secretary of the US Treasury to collect said tax. Further Sections of the code define the collection process and what constitutes one's failure to comply with the collection process. So, upon your failure to comply with the collection process, the federal government's burden will be to show that you did not comply with the collection process. Having failed to comply, you have broken the law.

You know Einstein, you won't find any provision of the Constitution or US Code that requires that you drop your weapon when commanded to do so by a federal agent. However, US Code empowers federal law enforcement agencies to use deadly force when their agents believe their lives or well-being are threatened. It also requires that one obey the command of a federal agent. But go ahead and put yourself in the "ambiguous" situation of not doing so and see what happens. On the state and local level, there's nothing in a state law or a municipal ordinance that requires that one operate a motorized vehicle at the posted speed limit, but those same laws and ordinances unequivically state what are the consequences of not doing so.

Again, as I said before, the President has the right to declare war, but that doesn't necessarily give him the right to make me fight it for him. Many appealed the Vietnam induction letter in the courts, and many won. That's a fact. You challenge ANYTHING, dude!



Yes, but that code was written was after a 1908 resolution that stated the US Government would administer NO new taxes. You can challenge on that basis.

Read more about it here: http://nontaxpayer.org



The traffic sign serves as the written documentation of the law -- whenever one becomes a certified driver in their respective state, they acknowledge that they have been made aware of those signs and the legality that they hold.

And as far as dropping your weapon in the presence of federal agents, that's not written anywhere either b/c again, as I said earlier, that's when "boots and guns" take the place of "law and logic." The boots and guns don't need a law to tell them they can shoot anyone resisting. That's why they're the boots and guns.

The President does not have the right to declare war--he needs Congressional approval to declare "a state of war" or a "national emergency," both of which give him extraordinary powers. BUT: he can deploy troops and equipment anywhere in the world without calling it a "war." That's why the Korean War was called a "police action" or the "Korean conflict," and why the 1991 Gulf war was called "Operation Desert Storm." And he can keep 'em there as long as money doesn't run out. LBJ found it prudent to have the Senate pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, and W did likewise before invading Iraq. But those weren't requirements, and are regarded as "sense of..." resolutions.

Re. the draft: When I was draft eligible, I got the notion that the draft was unconstitutional because it violated the 13th Amendment ("involuntary servitude"). I asked a lot of lawyer and law-student friends about this. Law is a very specialized field, and none of the guys I asked was a Constitutional lawyer. But, the consensus view I got was that the Supreme Court had heard that argument and had ruled that the 13th Amendment applied to "Negro slavery," not the draft. They also cited the Constitution giving Congress the power "to raise and maintain standing armies." And drafting someone against his will didn't violate "due process" (Fifth and 14th Amendments) because the draft process had plenty of "due process" built in for a registrant to challenge or appeal local draft board decisions. What they didn't take into account was the way the government used the draft to target people they didn't like--such as Muhammed Ali and some of the better known Vietnam War protesters.

As TB as stated in his recent post, the President of the United States has no Constitutional authority to declare war. Such a declaration is the exclusive province of the US Congress as expressed in Artilce I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Article I, Section 8 also gives the US Congress the exclusive authority to raise armies. Thus, such authority does not reside with the President.

What's wrong with you? The 16th amendment to the US Constitution ratified in 1913 provides the US Congress with the authority to lay and collect taxes. My God, learn the difference between Constitutional provisions, statutory law, and Congressional resolutions before spouting off about them. How daft do you have to be to think that a Congressional resolution takes precedent over a US Constitutional provision?

No, the traffic sign serves no such purpose. Speed limit signs on local government right of way have to be authorized in the form of an ordinance by that local government's governing body. State laws provides a state's transportation department or public safety department with limited authority to establish speed limits until the respective state legislature convenes to do so by legislation. Such ordinances or legislation do not require compliance. They simply state the speed limit and the consequences of exceeding the speed limit.

US Code requires that you obey the lawful commands of a federal agent and authorizes the use of deadly force (Start with US Code 31, Section 321). State laws require that you obey the lawful commands of law enforcement officers and authorize the use of deadly force if you don't. It's as simple as that. The only stipulation is that the command be lawful (any dispute over such lawfulness will be adjudicated post facto). And yes, law enforcement officers do need "a law to tell them they can shoot anyone resisting" (Texas Penal Code, Subchapter E, Section 9.51).

And even then, most police departments conduct an internal review of every incident in which a policeman fired his gun, whether or not the perp was killed or wounded. District Attorneys can, and have, filed criminal charges against policemen who killed or wounded others in the line of duty if the circumstances were questionable. And even if the shooting was absolutely justified under criminal law, the perp or his family can still sue the policeman and/or the department in a civil action. They may not win, but they can cause a lot of trouble.

TB, wait a minute. I'm talking about a cop -- that's mixed up in drugs. I'm talking about ah - ah - a dishonest cop -- a crooked cop who got mixed up in the rackets and got what was coming to him.

Seriously though, you are right TB. Even something as small as a complaint, filed with the civilian review board, can really cause a lot of problems for a law enforcement officer.

Board members. Attenzione! Below is Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution quoted in its entirety.

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.”

DT, the floor is yours. Cite for our fellow Board members where in the aforequoted Section those “rights” you refer to above are expressed.

And that's really the bottom line. Anyone can say what they will, but the fact is, the courts gave you the right to appeal your war time status.

To be listed #1 and not get drafted is almost impossible. I'm glad the law gave you the opportunity to do what ever it is you wanted to do with your life. I'm interested in knowing exactly how you avoided draft status...

I talked to a professor of Constitutional Law who confirmed to me that, a draftee would have the option of filing a consciousness objective status, meaning he has a consciousness objection against killing, war, etc.

Jesus God, I smell conservative-bullshit leaking from the assholes of... even larger assholes; ones with teeth and limbs.

Bottom-line is, in regard to the draft, this is, or is supposed to be, a Democracy... The government should not have the authority to tell anyone what to do, as an abundance of centralized power is pretty much why we're all here, and why things like Nascar, mullets, and trailer parks exist. The idea that anyone should be sent off to war against their will is absolutely absurd to me. Besides... Why the hell would you want someone filling the shoes of a life-or-death job when they don't even want to put those shoes on?

Furthermore, what the hell did the War accomplish? Why should there have been a war in the first place? The entire Cold War is a joke to me... Basically, a bunch of dudes in suits with briefcases sat around for half a century, pulling their hair out over a system they clearly did not understand, and as a result, that system reacted the same way. It's sort of like going up to someone and yelling in their face; it doesn't matter what the hell you yell about, you can expect them to yell back at you and match your hostility, if not amplify it. Well, Vietnam is basically the epitome of that entire idea.

I'm not willing to die for any flag, and I don't think anyone should have to. We're all human beings, despite of race, nationality, or cultural origins, and the second a big, gaudy piece of fabric is strung up on a pole, people start to adopt an international God-complex.

LLC - Absolutely NO NEED for the first part of your post. This discussion has kept on course, those involved have remained both civil and respecful throughout, and there has been some legitimate and valid points made all around........all without any name calling, labeling and/or mudslinging. The second part of your post is very reasonable, intelligent and you've made some very interesting points that no doubt will inject some legitimate thought and discussion for all involved here. So let's remain mature and civil in continuing this discussion...continue with sharing some intelligent views... and do so without any labeling, name calling, etc.

Since when were politics respectful?