http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/29/mandatory.military/index.html

Without comment

I'm all for it. Most of the people today running the country have never worn a uniform, been tested in basic training, and battle, or faced the possibility of having to actually fight in a war. It is all to easy for people like that to not think twice about throwing somebody elses kid into battle. Nixon made a big mistake when he ended universal service.

Shelly

What will the impact be on universities/ colleges in the short run? Also do u think it will pass and if so will it pass constitutional test. Won’t it violate freedom of choice?

I personally don't see it passing.

It won't pass. But if it did, most likely there would be a whole laundry list of reasons why people wouldn't have to join (religion, CO, medical/psychological, etc.). The military is pretty good at weeding out the bad apples from a bunch.

No it won't pass. But this is not exactly new. This country had universal military service continuously from 1941 through the end of the Vietnam war. We had universities, and college students then too. There is nothing in the Constitution baring conscription. All serving in the military did was delay my college education for several years, but it also made me a better and more serious student. I got far more out of my education than I would have if I went right from high school into college.

Shelly

But these are different times, where people will bitch about it to the point where the government would have to start making concessions.

You think there was no bitching back then? People are the same, they have always been the same. Twenty years ago or 2000 years ago. If it came to a draft, the government gives you two choices. Go into the service or go to prison. Prison is the "concession".

Shelly

>You think there was no bitching back then? People are the
>same, they have always been the same. Twenty years ago or
>2000 years ago. If it came to a draft, the government gives
>you two choices. Go into the service or go to prison.
>Prison is the "concession".

their is always canada

Don't expect Canada to accept anyone. Different times, different administrations.

I'm in favor of universal service (not necessarily military) under certain criteria.

1. No deferments.
2. Minimum of 2.5 years.
3. The ability to eliminate from service those who fail to adapt, refuse to try, or are otherwise unsuitable to service with an appropriate discharge, one that carries a consequence for those who are slackers or quitters.
4. Expansion of the Armed Forces to deal with the influx, and no change to the pay structure, so as to encourage voluntary enlistments and the continuation of a core professional military.

Having led troops in the final years of the Carter Administration and seen some of the final dregs of draftees, I have no interest in placing that same situation on the shoulders of the NCOs and Officers of todays' force.

3. The ability to eliminate from service those who fail to adapt, refuse to try, or are otherwise unsuitable to service with an appropriate discharge, one that carries a consequence for those who are slackers or quitters.


They already have something like that, if you have graduated from Boot Camp. Prior to that, its an ELS and doesn't show up on anything. The problem is that ELS doesn't apply to just those that can't/won't do it, but to those injured during training, test positive for drugs, etc. Most of those people can rejoin the military after 6 months. (At least, thats the way it was when I was at boot camp, not sure if its the same). It would be nice to have something like what you suggest, although it may lead to quite a few people with "bad stuff" on their records, and may end up being "no big deal" if its not used appropriately.

> Most of those
>people can rejoin the military after 6 months. (At least,
>thats the way it was when I was at boot camp, not sure if
>its the same)

was when I did in '98.

I know lots of guys that went back in. Most of them were just made a bad decision, and smoked pot before they went and didn't give it enough time to work it out of their system. Some were for really crappy reasons, like recruiters not checking their academic eligibility for a certain MOS, or just not checking period. One poor bastard got his hand smashed in a door, ended up with nerve damage, and had to stay at MCRD for almost 6 months before he could leave.. ended up getting paid for 20 years at E3 or E4, though.. still, spending 6 months there when all you can do is deal with recruits can't be any fun.

>I'm all for it. Most of the people today running the
>country have never worn a uniform, been tested in basic
>training, and battle, or faced the possibility of having to
>actually fight in a war. It is all to easy for people like
>that to not think twice about throwing somebody elses kid
>into battle. Nixon made a big mistake when he ended
>universal service.


Dont you think that the rich and powerfull will still get their kids out of doing service?

>>I'm all for it. Most of the people today running the
>>country have never worn a uniform, been tested in basic
>>training, and battle, or faced the possibility of having to
>>actually fight in a war. It is all to easy for people like
>>that to not think twice about throwing somebody elses kid
>>into battle. Nixon made a big mistake when he ended
>>universal service.
>
>
>Dont you think that the rich and powerfull will still get
>their kids out of doing service?

being with political connections and being around people that have political connections they maybe be abelt to get their son/daugter out. However mostlikely they will just get them transfer to national guard and maake sure its will not go active duty.

We live in a democracy. If you don't like the current administration's appetence for war, vote for a more circumspect canidate in the 2004 elections. Reforming a system which works well is not the answer.

It doesn't surprise me one bit that this particular congressman would want an unconstitutional law passed. That's par for his course.
The part about the lawmaker's kids serving is a con job and he knows it. As it is we are free to vote based on whether or not somebody has served. The fact is that people do vote based on that and this is just a way for him to get their votes.

I wonder if the words "involuntary servitude" have any meaning to any of the gung ho pro draft types. The draft is directly against the Constitution, but it, like many other forms of involuntary servitude forced on the people by the govt gets over looked. They want your land, they will take it. They want your body, they will take it.
Let me try to "hire" someone against their will and see how long it's claimed that there is nothing in the Constitution against it just because I pay them $300 a month and provide "free" room and board.
It wouldn't matter if I was paying $1,000,000 a month, as long as it is involuntary servitude it is unconstitutional.

And I don't know if any of the gung ho types have noticed, but the US military doesn't want everyone off the streets to serve. They have gotten selective about who they accept and our military is better because of it. Like Al said, they have already seen the dregs of draftees, they don't want them back.

As for Al's Scarlet Letter painted on the backs of those who refuse to accept their terms of involutary servitude, exactly which country do you plan on having take in these political refugees? Because that's what you will be making out of them.
There should be no consequence for those who refuse to accept involuntary servitude even if that servitude is for the govt. Not in this country.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

After a quick reveiw of your last two Presidents' service record I suggest that the rich and elite would find loop-holes to avoid such service and that these same loop-holes would not be available to those people of a lesser class. And in MHO, if anyone thinks that the common "Joe" can grow up to be the President I am of the opinion that they are dreaming in technicolor. So the good man's (Rangel's)sugestion and purpose are actually defeated before they begin.
But having said that, I also belive a stint in the service would be benificial to most people.

I've got an equally good idea. Pass a law that makes members of congress subject to the same health and pension benefits, and the same laws in general, as the rest of the population so that "maybe legislators will think twice before passing legislation."

Dave

Dell 8300 Dimension
Pentium 4
W XP Home


www.woodenpropeller.com

Involuntary servitude is a legal term for slavery. Surely even you can't equate the defense of ones country and way of life as a paid member of the armed forces, as slavery. The only reason you live to to spout such crap is because enough of us, living and dead, believed in this country enough to defend it with more than cheap lipservice.

Shelly

Wouldn't it be redundant to have the 13th prohibit both slavery and a legal term for slavery? It says "neither" and "nor". Obviously the law makers had the idea they were different things.
I think you should look up "involuntary servitude" and some recent cases.

"Section 1584 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in a condition of slavery, that is, a condition of compulsory service or labor against his/her will. A Section 1584 conviction requires that the victim be held against his/her will by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion. Section 1584 also prohibits compelling a person to work against his/her will by creating a "climate of fear" through the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will." From the USDOJ.

If I forced you, through any means, to work, whether or not I paid you to do that work, it would be involuntary servitude. What's good for the goose, is good for the govt.

I recall one time and ONLY one time in fairly recent history of this country that the military was used in defense of this country. Even then most of the lives were lost not defending this country, but defending other countries.
I've had more likelyhood of NOT being alive "to spout such crap" because we were busy fighting other's wars, not because we were busy DEFENDING this country.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Myk,

The argument has been in front of the Supreme Court. They disagree with you, and they are the final authority on what is constitutional or not.

So if the SC decides that the right to bear arms is not a right of the people that will end your talk about that? And that's all it will take to get you to apply for a brown shirt to start confiscation?

We all know what is and isn't. Just because a court gets stacked to give a decision does not mean it's a correct decision.

If the SC does take the coming 2nd case to go decide the odds between the circuits and they decide wrong. I am not rolling over and giving up just because the govt told me to.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Well they wouldn't need to do anything if everyone were 'Patriotic'.
I went in on my own accord. Knowing fully, that if we went to war, I might die. So? I would fight for our freedom.

Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

>Well they wouldn't need to do anything if everyone were
>'Patriotic'.
>I went in on my own accord. Knowing fully, that if we went
>to war, I might die. So? I would fight for our freedom.
Patriotic? give me a break. Their is no reason for a draft to be resumed plus our military will go down in its efficence when u force people to join that really don't wante to be their,plus their will be protests and court challenges for the next 2 years if it's even passes which i predict it will not .

"Patriotic? give me a break. Their is no reason for a draft to be resumed plus our military will go down in its efficence when u force people to join that really don't wante to be their,plus their will be protests and court challenges for the next 2 years if it's even passes which i predict it will not ."

Beyond the fact that you seem challenged in your ability to write or spell, the act of thought seems to be beyond you.

In World War-II millions of our citizens were drafted, along with the men and women of our allies. Not just for two years, but for the duration of the war plus six months. I remember us doing fairly well in that war, we won, and in the process saved the world. Many volunteered for the war, but most were drafted. You owe your very freedom to that generation.

It is unlikely that the draft would be reinstated, or even needed in any foreseeable conflict, but if needed it would happen. In a way it is too bad that we no longer have universal service. Military training turned boys into confident, self reliant men. That is something sadly lacking in our society today.

Shelly

I agree that there was justification for mandatory military service during World War 2, however times have changed, and now it is not only unnecessary, but potentially deleterious.

And your assertion that the military is salubrious for youth is a poor justification for forcing people into service under threat of imprisonment.

Just because people don't join the military doesn't mean they are not patriotic.

>Just because people don't join the military doesn't mean
>they are not patriotic.

True. But if we have the attitiude..."just let the other guy do it" then nobody would do it.

Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

Maybe what I should have said is that patriotism can be expressed in other ways than just military service, such as working as a civilian in a shipyard, working for a military contactor, working at a company that provides weapons, camera systems, ammunition, body armor, night vision equipment, clothing, etc. One could say that most in the military (but not all) are true patriots, they aren't necessarily more patriotic than someone who is not.

I agree.

Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

Bah, I know you, the only reason you said that is because you wanted the 100th post ... I believe this is the first 100+ post in the OT lounge at PCQandA.

LOL!! What do I win for being the 100th poster?

Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

Well, since its a thread about the military, how about you give me 200 push ups, run around the parade deck twice, then over to the PT field and shoot a few planes down, then when you can't scream anymore, go back and clean the head. Oh, and then I'll start the hurricane with your footlocker... that's always fun.

>Well, since its a thread about the military, how about you
>give me 200 push ups, run around the parade deck twice, then
>over to the PT field and shoot a few planes down, then when
>you can't scream anymore, go back and clean the head. Oh,
>and then I'll start the hurricane with your footlocker...
>that's always fun.

lol, will do that as soon as i get in shape.Which will take me 20 years or so. Only 160 lb 5.6 so need to lose 30 pounds before i can do that lol

>Well, since its a thread about the military, how about you
>give me 200 push ups, run around the parade deck twice, then
>over to the PT field and shoot a few planes down, then when
>you can't scream anymore, go back and clean the head. Oh,
>and then I'll start the hurricane with your footlocker...
>that's always fun.

Whew!! Finally finished. I also scrubbed the deck with my toothbrush. That's why I didn't get done till now.....SIR!!

Wow, talking about the parade deck, I miss that. I also miss starching my 'cover'.

Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

"I also scrubbed the deck with my toothbrush"

Just wait until you get to the poop deck }>

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

And after your done with the poop deck, guess who gets to brush their teeth

>Maybe what I should have said is that patriotism can be
>expressed in other ways than just military service,
>such as working as a civilian in a shipyard, working for a
>military contactor, working at a company that provides
>weapons, camera systems, ammunition, body armor, night
>vision equipment, clothing, etc. One could say that most in
>the military (but not all) are true patriots, they aren't
>necessarily more patriotic than someone who is not.

would u consider public service that is not related to military woudld u still call that person patriact.

Well, I guess it would depend on how you define "Public Service". Some people think that eating dead babies is a form of art, and therefore a "Public Service".. Now, call me pretentious, but thats just now exactly what I think people are looking for in life right now. If by public service you mean things like the State Troopers, City Police, County Sheriff, Lt. Governor, Senate Page, then my answer would be yes, that would seem to be patriotic, provided that the INTENTION of the persons involved are not so they can say "well, I did this and its patriotic, so its OK if I smoke crack" or if they are in the position because it serves only their purposes.

There are hundreds, thousands of ways people can show their patriotism, and in some cases its not up to the masses to decide if its patriotic. Thats why we get into these discussions, so that people can connect and find out what is really pissing the other guy off, (or what really makes him proud, or happy, or whatever) and hopefully try to change the bad and keep the good. I know just from reading this thread that people think I have some shortcomings, and all I can say is that I'll try to stop doing bad stuff.

Sorry, I'm really not trying to be vague in responding, but making a blanket statement here probably isn't going to do much good anyway

The Supreme Court defines what is constitutional, and you know it. Not only have they found that a draft is constitutional, there has been no serious effort to question that decision since the 1860s. You're argument is ridiculous. There are plenty of reasons against universal service, and plenty of reasons for it. You don't have to suggest reasons that are imaginary.

Just because the Supreme Court (and thats a ridiculous name, really.. whats that saying about one man being smarter than a thousand?) says something is legal doesn't make it right. And, judging by the hundreds of laws that have been overturned by the Supreme Court (when the old ones die and the not-so-old ones come in), it seems safe to say that any decision they make would only be a temporary one at best.

Try challenging draft registration. Have fun.

Hehe, I can't be drafted, so I don't have to worry.

>Hehe, I can't be drafted, so I don't have to worry.

why not?

I got a medical discharge from the Marine Corps in 1997. Granted, I could always be put back into service doing what they originally wanted me to do (intelligence), but the odds of me going back are about 1 in 10 billion, since I am also enrolled in college on my own dime. That doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't go back if they reactivated me, but it won't happen.

Anyone who has honorably served in the Armed Forces cannot be drafted. They can be recalled.

>Anyone who has honorably served in the Armed Forces cannot
>be drafted. They can be recalled.

when u say they can be recalled, do they have to go is it voluntary?

It is not a "voluntary" thing when you get recalled, unless you have developed a medical condition that the military doesn't know about.

>It is not a "voluntary" thing when you get recalled, unless
>you have developed a medical condition that the military
>doesn't know about.

Confused, doesn’t a person have to only sever max of 8 years when they are in army and after that they can't be recalled? or I am I mistaken on that?

If I remember correctly (and Al will probably know more about this than I do), but a person can be recalled to active duty for up to 4 years AFTER their initial enlistment. However, I'm pretty sure that during a time of war, the military can recall basically anybody they want to, even if it is passed the eight years.

got it, as for the 4 years was told the same thing.

The law allows for the callup of any male between the ages of 18 and 65. Military personnel are subject to recall until age 65 in times of war.

Don't worry about what the Supreme Court will rule.Sent it to this court first.That's when the fun starts.

81 Newbee

Attachment #1, (html file)

I think Hal is right. When you get challenged on something you don't want to fight with facts you come back with hyperbole.
My imagination? Seems there are plenty of others who have that same over active imagination also.
Ridiculous? Read the legal definition and apply it to anyone else but the govt. What is ridiculous is if you apply it with unequal terms when you apply it to the govt.

I think you should recheck your history. You didn't give an exact date but I think you are talking about the times when you could buy your way out of the draft for $300 as long as you supplied someone to fill in in your place.
Perhaps you could supply a better date or case name. Because the 13th was ratified on Dec. 6th, 1865, while the war (which was the most likely cause of a draft case) was from '61-'65. Was the case you are talking about even about involutary servitude?

You want a SC Justice opinion on compelled military service?
"It is argued, however, that, although this is abstractly true, it is not concretely so, because, as compelled military service is repugnant to a free government and in conflict with all the great guarantees of the Constitution as to individual liberty, it must be assumed that the authority to raise armies was intended to be limited to the right to call an army into existence counting alone upon the willingness of the citizen to do his duty in time of public need, that is, in time of war." CHIEF JUSTICE C.J. WHITE, 245 U.S. 366 (1918) (USSC+)
He goes on to say that the draft is good, but it's more of an ends justify the means opinion rather than a test of contitutionality. Obviously someone, whether a lawyer or another Justice, thought that it was repugnant to a free government to have a compelled service.
(Cornell's site just went down or I'd tell more about what he says.)

Perhaps instead of throwing out things like "imagination" or "ridiculous", you could explain exactly how forcing someone to do a job against their will, one which requires them to sign their person over as property, is not involuntary servitude.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

For the record I think it would be great if we had some sort of compelled service like the Swiss do. But that model doesn't fit in with ours, although their model of compelled service and what it is used for would fit a lot better than the one we have used does.

Also, am I to gather that if the SC defined what is constitutional and legislated from the bench against the right of the people to keep and bear arms that if you got recalled to enforce that decision I would be looking at you through my scope or sights?

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Myk, there is no reason or evidence to indicate that the Supreme Court would rule the 2d Amendment didn't exist...

More than a slight difference for them to rule that military service is slavery (did you know that it is possible for someone to voluntarilly enter slavery? Still illegal in the US)...

Some previous decisions around the 2nd weren't very giving. The 9th Circuit just said that it's not an individual right. Anything is possible, it all depends on which way the wind is blowing in the courts when and if they decide to take it.
The question is will you go along with something that you know is not true just because the SC said so.

No, I didn't know it was possible to enter into voluntary slavery. I'm fairly sure the labor laws would have something to say about that.

I'm not saying the military is slavery though I never said such a thing. There is a difference between involuntary servitude and slavery.
Look at the qualifications of Section 1584 of Title 18. Compelled military service does fit.
You seem to forget that rights are not contingent on the situation. I have a right not to be forced or coerced to do something with my body against my will, PERIOD. There is no if, and, but or who about it.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Really?

How about going to jail? Being executed?

I'm not sure what that was in response to. But if it was in response to the 13th, you should try reading it. Punishment is exempt.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Like it or not draft and selective service will always be constitutional. Even if Supreme Court would rule its unconstitutional congress would pass an amendment in about a year making it constitutional if not earlier. It would be stupid to take away requiring people to help defend their country when it’s in need of defense. Also president can declare marshal law making constitution irrelevant so draft would be legal in that case even if it was illegal before.

Myk, you know ZERO about military service. Your body is not property when you serve. If it was, we wouldn't need the Uniform Code of Military Justice. By the way, I think you will find that a number of attempts have been made to claim the draft was illegal. Each and every one failed.

Are you saying that if someone clubs a military person they can't get charged with damaging govt property, the same as if they took the bat to a military vehicle? I was even under the impression that if someone in the military tried to harm themselves they could be charged with damaging govt property. But a lot of military people like to blow smoke out of their butts, so it's hard to say whether or not I (and those I asked today) was (are) being lied to.

I'm not surprised the govt doesn't find against the govt about the draft being illegal.
They want to have a draft, they will have a draft. The 1st has been ignored enough. I certainly am not allowed to bear arms. The 4th was thrown out the window by the Supreme Court. They don't want to follow the 5th Amendment, so they ruled it doesn't apply. The 6th has been overruled in favor of "victim's rights". It's fairly common for the 7th to be tread upon. The 9th and 10th have never been followed. The 8th depends on which way the wind is blowing for punishment and I think $25,000 is excessive for putting the wrong gas in your car.

Was anyone charged for Ruby Ridge? What happened to the State who decided to take action on Ruby Ridge because the Fed's were covering it up? The solicitor general argued that "federal law enforcement agents are privileged to do what would otherwise be unlawful if done by a private citizen." The state didn't buy that so the feds dragged their feet until they could get a friendly in charge who dropped the criminal case.
Was anyone charged for shooting Esequiel Hernandez Jr.? Following orders? Then why aren't those in command in prison?
Where is Calley today? I'll give you a hint, running a jewelery store in the US is a far cry from serving time for war crimes in Vietnam.

Nope, I'm not surprised at all that the govt has not and never will find that the 13th doesn't apply to themselves. It only applies to the chickens and the goats, because some animals are more equal than others.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

No, you can't be charged with damaging gov't property for attacking a member of the military. You can be if they were wearing a uniform and you damaged the uniform. You can be charged with additional crimes besides assault and battery. That is because there are additional crimes on the books.

Federal Law Enforcement are NOT military, so most of your examples are just raving. As for Calley, it's been over 30 years since Mai Lei. And how much do you actually know about that incident and all the aftermath of it? Not nearly as much as you think you do, I'm sure.

Only one of those "ravings" had to do with law enforcement. Sounds like you also don't know as much as you think you do.
The point is that the govt is known for not policing itself and for sticking up for those under its command. It doesn't matter if it's about a rouge cop, a sicko in the military or Clinton stealing tax money from American hunters. Some animals are more equal than others.

I think where the raving comes in is with anything to do with military and you. A draft is not about the military. It is about the govt forcing people into involuntary servitude. I don't care if that compelled service was to work for a charity @$50,000/year pay, it would violate the 13th.
The military is not who makes or enforces a draft. It's not military service that I am saying violates the 13th, it is forced enrollement in that service that violates the 13th.
But since a draft has to do with joining the military, that is as far as you can see.

I know Calley was in command, war crimes were committed. The time he served was short compared to the crime committed. Vietnam was not allowed to try or have a say in his punishment. He served 4 1/2 months and some years of house arrest out of a life sentence at hard labor.
He was the only one who did any time. We sure wouldn't settle for that if it was against us.
That's enough for me to know. Anything you can come up with to justify his actions or the govt's handling of it would make you out to be as much of a wacko as anything Hal has posted.

FYI, Esequiel Hernandez Jr. was an 18 year old American citizen tending his flock of goats in Texas. He had an antique single shot 22rf for the protection of his flock against snakes and wild dogs/coyotes. Four Marines stalked him while in camo. Thinking the movement was a wild dog/coyote he fired a shot in their direction to scare off what he thought was a dog. They stalked him for 200 yards or so further and killed him while he was not facing them. He was not a threat.

The answer to this was to make it so the military can't be held criminally liable in situations like that. In both this and Ruby Ridge, the govt admitted fault by making cash settlements but refuse to allow those responsible to do the time. In these and many other incidents the govt also shows that while at fault they don't wish to apply their laws to themselves and do the time.
Much like with all of the Constitution, when they don't want to follow a law, they don't.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Myk, do you recall as to if that individual was still on his own property at the time of the incident?

From what I gather it is a goat herding town on the Rio Grande. He was on his way to and from the river to water them. So I'm guessing from the story that he had left his property and was heading down the lane to the river.

I gather that it's "no mans land".
This is another case of the "war on drugs" eroding the freedom of the people and giving that freedom to the govt. The jury ruled the commanding Marine was following orders, but the one who gave those orders was never tried.
The fact of the matter is that the "war on drugs" had no business entering into that town because it does not have a history or suspicion of being a drug running town.

Search his name and/or REDFORD, TEXAS to find more about the story than you are probably willing to read.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

I just read about 10 pages on it, most of them say the same thing (one metioned at the end that "The Texas Rangers and Presidio County district attorney's office are reviewing the shooting. Officials with the two agencies have said some of the physical evidence in the case doesn't coincide with the military's version of the shooting." Too bad a lot of the links in the articles are dead, would be nice to have a little more info.

Nice to see you have such a command of the facts. Tell me who those Marines were working for? Oh, yeah. INS and the Border Patrol...Law Enforcement. OPCON...

Seen any black helicopters recently, Myk?

I didn't know our Marines were available for hire by outside agencies. Oh wait, I don't think they are and these four weren't, they were still Marines under Marine Corps given orders. The Marine Corps was in a joint effort to enforce law on American civilians.
That joint effort is very questionable as to its legality. I'm sure you know about Posse Commitatus.
But again, why should those who make the law have to follow the law.

Do you still have your jack boots all shined up and ready in your closet?

BTW, yes, I have seen dark unmarked helicopters, although not lately. There is a park here run by the Army Corps that nobody wants to take financial responsibility for so the Corps took it back and uses it for training.
But you really can't discredit me by bringing up black helicopters. I don't think they are as sinister as some conspiracy nuts think. I just think the lack of markings while in US air space is yet another way that the US govt refuses to obey its own laws. I fully understand them denying their use, citizens don't have a need to know everything that goes on with the govt or military.

I think it's hilarious that you're trying the same methods you use when you are trying to discredit Hal. My information comes from sources that are from a lot more respectable civil liberty writers than the ones Hal has posted, yet you make the same tired, factless claims.
Ooo yes, anyone who says there is anything wrong down in Whoville is a conspiracy nut who's out to get you.
Better check under your bed for commies.

You did a lot better at holding my respect when you didn't just blindly throw out insults because someone said something you didn't agree with.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

MYk,

Very familiar with the laws on the attachment of military personnel to law enforcement agencies. Obviously more familiar with it than you are. Also familiar with the rules and regulations regarding use of deadly force by military personnel. Something you obviously are not familiar with.

By the way, all military aircraft fly with markings. Some are just more difficult to see than others.

Actually, I have no desire to discredit you. You do that on your own.

By the way, when will you protest sending people to prison as involuntary servitude?

Obviously you are more familiar with the use of deadly force by military. So obviously, you should also agree that someone should be sitting in a jail cell for the murder of an 18 year old in Texas.

You should also know that someone should've done 3 years for even allowing that situation to come about with the military involved.

I don't know the rules word for word, but I think the markings on aircraft are supposed to be able to be identified from the ground.

I won't ever say that imprisonment is against the 13th, because it isn't.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Either List the names of my sources along with a statement in support of your allegations or re-consider making arrogant claims like this. If you do neither, you're no better than Al.

Generally rather than getting information from sources that Art Bell would have on his site, I get information from REAL news papers or places like CATO.

I have no idea why you would want me to list your sources. Did you lose your bookmarks?

Those other sources may be good to steer you in the direction of something, but you'd do much better if you'd dig around to get some more realistic viewpoints.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

That doesn't cut it smart ass. You're employing the same shallow tactics as Al. If you want to question my sources, or anybodys sources, you should do it in the context of one of my posts so you can substantiate your challange with specific references to the source/sources I've provided.

These stereotypical, flat and frozen innuendos put you in the same petrified, mindless category as some of the other reactionaries around here.

My respect for you rapidly wanes.

Funny thing, Hal. My sources are the people who were actually in the countries that you like to suggest were so abused by Americans. Both Americans and indigenous peoples. That opportunity avails itself when you actually get off your ass and do something.

Nice to see you have such a command of the facts. NOT. Tell me who those Marines were working for? Oh, yeah. INS and the Border Patrol...Law Enforcement.

Seen any black helicopters recently, Myk?

>No, you can't be charged with damaging gov't property for
>attacking a member of the military. You can be if they were
>wearing a uniform and you damaged the uniform. You can be
>charged with additional crimes besides assault and battery.
>That is because there are additional crimes on the books.
>
>Federal Law Enforcement are NOT military, so most of your
>examples are just raving. As for Calley, it's been over 30
>years since Mai Lei. And how much do you actually know about
>that incident and all the aftermath of it? Not nearly as
>much as you think you do, I'm sure.


Confused let see if I understand the law and correct me if I am wrong. When military person is off duty and not in uniform he is subject to civilian law. So if u strike him wile being civilian and him being dress in civilian cloth u are saying that I will not be charge with battering him? Or I’m I misunderstand you post completely?

First, a member of the military is such regardless of if they are wearing the uniform or not.

I'm saying there are charges in addition to assault and battery that may be brought against someone who does bodily harm to a military servicemember.

Just my two cents at the end of a long day. WHY THE F@#K DO WE HAVE TO KILL EACH OTHER? F@#K THE DRAFT AND F@#K WAR!!! If you want to settle a disagreement then get f#$cking online and kill anyone you want. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE CREATED THESE 'KILLER' GAMES FOR; TO KILL!!!!!!!!!!! War and all that goes with it is for stupid people in my not so humble opinion. Have watched this world be destroyed time and time again over trivial s#$t and get no further in the conquest.

Now. If we, as humans, were able to UNITE.... What a F@#CKING concept, eh? After all we are all HUMAN, aren't we?

In my darkened opinion; If we cannot unite as a family we are all better off dead. So bring on the weapons of mass destruction and rid this Universe of one of the most despotic and pathetic races known to the masses. If we can't get our shit together by now without it than I guess we should 'die by the sword'.

Stranger than life

Somehow, I don't see Saddam Husseing and George W Bush squaring off in a game of Command and Conquer or Unreal Tournament 2K3. Maybe Pong.

Can't we teach them? They might like it. You may be right though, Pong might be more their speed.

Stranger than life

Crazy,

When you can rid the world of criminals, then you will have made a start on ridding the world of war...

Al, I beg to differ. War is not needed to get rid of criminals, brains are. You find them, you Kill them and you move on. You set the standards for what is and is not accepted in a workable society in this manner. WAR is the obliteration of all and anything that stands between you and your intended target and thus creates chaos and unnecessary death and usually the criminal end up lost in the works or living a life of ease at some institution where they are completely taken care of. It may not be the most comfortable place for them but they are still alive to tell the tale. To set the standard you do not kill, in any fashion, innocent people!!!

I have nothing against those who have served in this respect only those who have led. I believe that those who have defended the moral base of humanity are to be respected with all honor as that is what they deserve for they it is who have won that standard. On the same hand I also hold those who have lead them accountable for not learning from the past and changing the way that the ends are met. There is no need for war in the present state only selective dismemberment of the unsavory parts of society by means of complete extracation. This will take 'brains' not brawn.

Salute to you my friend, you have served well.

Stranger than life