USA goes conscription...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I fail to see how it is obvious that they would copy some of the tyrannical practices of the British, against whom they revolted.

Hmmm, all of common law after the revolution was exactly the same as it before the revolution. There is a long history of American courts copying some 'tyrannical' practices of the British.

Yes, and you also have to realize that power corrupts.

That's your argument?!

Yeah, those damn founders had the power when they wrote the Constitution, so we should ignore it because they were corrupted by power.

Oh, so original intent is relevant now? You're gonna have to pick one side or the other.

No I don't. You are an intentionalist and stated it was against the framers' intent. According to the 'intent' argument, the 13th Amendment's intention wasn't to conscript. Using your OWN belief system of the Constitution, your argument fails.

The only way you can justify your contention that the draft violates 'involuntary servitude' is to be a strict textualist.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Daz
Sikander:

When you say "nuk'em" what am I supposed to say? DO you really view this as a serious option? Do you think that in that case China would stand and watch? Do you think the US gov would even think about using nuclear weapons?

Did I give you the impression that my question was not a serious one, thus giving me such an answer? You could at least put a " " to let me know you're joking.

....you're not joking...right?

My answer was serious. I gave you what I thought the range of policy options was given your premise. You will note that option #1 is to not "teach them a lesson". Option #2 is to go all the way. With nuclear weapons and a willingness to kill civilians without regard North Korea can't be "punished" like a child. If we go against them it has to be all the way. Given their capabilities both nuclear and conventional to slaughter thousands or millions of people we simply can't take a chance (at least given what I know about each side's capabilities). My suggestion is to use enhanced radiation weapons to hit the troops along the DMZ who could level Seoul with their artillery and a little time. We could destroy them eventually with conventional weapons, but it would cost South Korea very dearly. Enhanced radiation weapons are a lot safer than conventional nukes from a health and environmental perspective because their radioactive half-life is something like 48 hours IIRC. Their net effect in this instance would almost certainly save lives, given your premise that the administration decides to take out North Korea.

Absent the use of nuclear weapons we have to be willing to sacrifice Seoul, and perhaps Tokyo and Los Angeles as well. We may well be able to prevent a nuclear launch, but we have to prepare for the risk of failure. Whatever we do, Seoul is going to get hit hard, as taking out all of those dug in weapons is going to be very difficult. One risky option might be to try and topple the regime by backing a coup, or to try and assassinate the "Dear Leader". This might be more politically palatable, but it is a lot riskier.

As for smileys, I don't tend to use them. I guess because I learned to write before Al Gore invented the Internet, I feel that I should be quite capable of communicating my ideas and feelings with the written language alone. I tend to dislike posts that use a lot of smileys. They lose a lot of their power if the text is already well-written, and tend to make the author look like an emotional basket case. I realize now that my brief post may have looked like a joke to you, and if it had been it would have fit in with the tone of your line of questioning. It was flippant and brief, but a fairly accurate gauge of my thoughts on the subject. Btw, I only consider the military option in NK when things look really bleak, but I am personally in favor of a multilateral diplomatic approach to the problem, as it seems that unlike Iraq, most of the power players have somewhat similar interests regarding NK, which increase the chances of success significantly.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

that's right, let's nuke those damned jap bastards. nobody needs more red chinks anyhow. fvckin' slopes. those gooks had it comin'.
actually might be a good idea. far too many of them in the first place.

seems a bit overboard, doesn't it? but that's what it'll look like, especially when one notices the only race to ever be nuked is the east asian race. it'll be a public relations nightmare.

I took my tone from the rather flippant nature of the post that I was replying to. I don't council this policy given the curent state of affairs (or for that matter almost any state of affairs short of NK starting a war), but given the premise posed, enhanced radiation weapons seem like they might be useful for neutralizing the DMZ.

[GeneralTacticus]

Just a question - what exactly are 'enhanced radiation weapons'?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Just a question - what exactly are 'enhanced radiation weapons'?

Enhanced Radiation Weapons (aka Neutron Bombs) are nuclear weapons that are designed to emit much higher levels of radioactivity for much shorter periods of time than conventional nuclear weapons, and very little blast effect. They were designed originally to destroy concentrations of Warsaw pact forces making an attack on NATO, or to blow holes in an enemy line to clear the way for attacking forces.

[Provost Harrison]

Let's face it, Allied casualties in this war have been so low (I mean, we are still barely talking double figures), that they wouldn't need to conscript...

[GeneralTacticus]

Enhanced Radiation Weapons (aka Neutron Bombs) are nuclear weapons that are designed to emit much higher levels of radioactivity for much shorter periods of time than conventional nuclear weapons, and very little blast effect. They were designed originally to destroy concentrations of Warsaw pact forces making an attack on NATO, or to blow holes in an enemy line to clear the way for attacking forces.

Ah, I see. I know what neutron bombs are, I just hadn't heard them referred to as 'enhanced radiation weapons'. Thanks for clarifying.

[David Floyd]

Hmmm, all of common law after the revolution was exactly the same as it before the revolution. There is a long history of American courts copying some 'tyrannical' practices of the British.

Common law doesn't have a whole hell of a lot to do with something such as conscription, and a whole lot more to do with things such as marriage and other civil, domestic matters.

Yeah, those damn founders had the power when they wrote the Constitution, so we should ignore it because they were corrupted by power.

When the Constitution was written, there were plenty of people around to stop the exercise of tyranny.

For example, Thomas Jefferson:

Our battalions for the Continental service was sometime ago so far filled as rendered the recommendation of a draught from the militia hardly requisite. And the more so as in this country it ever was the most unpopular and impracticable thing that could be attempted. Our people under the monarchical government have learnt to consider it as the last of all oppressions.

Anytime a draft was suggested during the Revolution (George Washington, for example, suggested it in 1777, 1778, and 1780), it was strongly rejected by the Continental Congress. Now, you may argue that our current Constitution was not in force at that point, but you also have to admit that the Constitution was written by many of the men who so firmly rejected a draft in the Revolution. If these Framers were so opposed to a draft in the Revolution, why should they be in favor of a draft in the War of 1812, and why, then, would they write a document allowing conscription, which they obviously opposed?

Edmund Randolph, at the Constitutional Convention:

Draughts (conscription) stretch the strings of government too violently to be adopted.

Speaking of the Constitutional Conventional, a power allowing for the draft was rejected on the first day.

From the source I'm drawing from right now, www.potomac-inc.org/conscri2.html (which, being a .org site, has a greater degree of credibility than your average geocities.com):

The only mention of the draft at the Convention was Edmund Randolph, a leading Federalist figure and proponent of the Constitution, who denied that the new government should have that power. It is inconceivable that staunch Antifederalists like Elbridge Gerry, who strongly opposed the creating of an standing army, would not have raised the loudest protest about any general power to draft by the federal government if they had thought that it was contained within the general rant of authority "to raise and support armies."

Alexander Hamilton:

These garrisons must either be furnished by occasional detachments from the militia, or by permanent corps in the pay of the government. The first is impracticable; and if practicable, would be pernicious. The militia would not long, if at all, submit to be dragged from their occupations and families to perform that most disagreeable duty in times of profound peace. And if they could be prevailed upon, or compelled o do it, the increased expense of a frequent rotation of service and loss of labor, and disconcertion of the industrious pursuits of individual, would form conclusive objections to the scheme. It would be as burthensome and injurious to the public, as ruinous to private citizens. The later resource of permanent corps in the pay of government amounts to a standing army in time of peace; a small one, indeed, but not the less real for being small.(116)

If Hamilton doesn't think the militia can be compelled to fight aggressive wars, what do you imagine he thinks about the power of government to compel someone to join the standing army?

None of the Federalist Papers mentioned the possibility of a draft.

That website I listed, by the way, has some very good arguments against the draft, and I suggest you look over it.

No I don't. You are an intentionalist and stated it was against the framers' intent. According to the 'intent' argument, the 13th Amendment's intention wasn't to conscript.

You're right. The intent of the 13th Amendment was to end both slavery and involuntary servitude. If the intent was ONLY to end slavery, then the phrase "involuntary servitude" was superfluous. One can only conclude that the intent was to end both slavery AND involuntary servitude, and the draft certainly qualifies as involuntary servitude, in that it forces people who did not volunteer to join the military.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Common law doesn't have a whole hell of a lot to do with something such as conscription, and a whole lot more to do with things such as marriage and other civil, domestic matters.

And torts and contracts and property, maritime law etc, etc. You don't think there can be tyranny in those?

Why do you think that the 3rd Amendment allows you to reject the Quartering of Troops? It was a common law rule that troops could use your house.

When the Constitution was written, there were plenty of people around to stop the exercise of tyranny.

For example, Thomas Jefferson:

Jefferson was in France, and I think it was planned. Jefferson would almost ASSUREDLY voted against the Constitution. He was one of the most anti-Constitution 'founders' as ever existed (well, Patrick Henry maybe was more anti-Constitution).

If these Framers were so opposed to a draft in the Revolution, why should they be in favor of a draft in the War of 1812, and why, then, would they write a document allowing conscription, which they obviously opposed?

Where is the proof that they opposed conscription in ALL cases? They may have opposed conscription in the Revolution and 1812 for practical reasons. Conscription tends not to be a good PR move, especially when you don't really control the areas you are conscripting from (like in the Revolution).

Speaking of the Constitutional Conventional, a power allowing for the draft was rejected on the first day.

And a power to protect the freedom of speech was ALSO rejected until the states forced it on the Congress. Remember the Constitutional Convention rejected a Bill of Rights even though some among them wanted one. Does that mean if there were no Bill of Rights we would have no Freedom of Speech? The Constitiution is not a closed document.

If Hamilton doesn't think the militia can be compelled to fight aggressive wars,

Can I quote your quote? Please?

The militia would not long, if at all, submit to be dragged from their occupations and families to perform that most disagreeable duty in times of profound peace.

Is this merely selective reading or blindness? There had to be a reason he said the draft was wrong in 'times of. . . peace'. Why qualify it? Unless.... it could be justified in other times.

None of the Federalist Papers mentioned the possibility of a draft.

Federalist Papers are not precedencial and only written by 3 founders AND (most importantly) were propaganda to get states to sign the document. Why would they mention the draft at all? Hell, if they really wanted to get the states on board they would have written the federal government cannot institute a draft.

And besides, Madison, the father of the Constitution, believed a draft could be called in times of war.

One can only conclude that the intent was to end both slavery AND involuntary servitude, and the draft certainly qualifies as involuntary servitude, in that it forces people who did not volunteer to join the military.

That is such BS and you know it. Congress and the Northern states trying to end the draft in a war where it was used to protect the country? From the pro-government Republicans?! GET REAL!

The intent of the 13th Amendment was obviously and unquestionably to liberate black Americans from a position of servitude, whether in slavery or involuntary servitude. The intent was only to help the blacks which had been oppressed by the South.

If the intent was ONLY to end slavery, then the phrase "involuntary servitude" was superfluous.

You act like you want every provision to have meaning in the Constitution. I'm SURE that you wouldn't want the 'Priviledges and Immunities' in the 1st clause of the 14th Amendment enforced. The court declined to do so, and I'll bet you'd think that was a great idea, in light of the consequences that may have resulted because of it.

[SlowwHand]

The titled thread topic and initial post is ludicrous.
Enlistment s are high, and nobody wants conscripts.

Bush and Blair's ratings are on the rise.

The protestors picked the wrong issue, out of SO MANY available.