Deserters from the All Volunteer US Military? WTH?

[catdat]

I'm always surprised when I hear about worms who state the only reason they joined the military was to get an education and they didn't realize they could actually get sent to War. So when the going gets tough these worms get going. To Canada apparently.

This isn't a new concept, people fled the country in every war, and years ago if you didn't want to go you simply paid someone to take your place. In most of those other conflicts there was a draft and the unwilling did what they thought they had to. Today we've got an all volunteer army. There's no draft today so to come out and say "I'm a conceintous objector and I can't go to Iraq" is fraud. They were in effect stealing that college money.

I'm in favor of being really tough on these bastards. If you desert and flee to another country during a conflict I think that should be tantamount to renouncing your citizenship. We should just say fine - cya - as of this day forward you are no longer an American and there is no right of appeal. Done.

For reference check out these two maroons:

http://www.brandonhughey.org/

http://www.jeremyhinzman.net/

[Jack Mehoff]

It's not an epidemic problem, so I would not worry about it. I mean, we had like maybe half a dozen deserters out of 2,000,000 since the beginning of the war.

[MetalBoy]

F**k em. If Canada had any balls the government would kick their asses back to America. Oreilly's calling for a boycott on Canada if they are supported by the Canadian government but I don't know if boycotting Canada would be very effective. When was the last time you bought anything Canadian made? :lol: No more Labatt Blues I guess rofl.

[Romulus]

Oreilly's calling for a boycott on Canada if they are supported by the Canadian government

O'reilly is an ass. I think the cowards should be punished too, but boycotting Canada is dumb.

[squeak]

One word sums it all up.

COWARDS

[weedman]

http://www.brandonhughey.org/

http://www.jeremyhinzman.net/I can understand them, where is your problem?

[Tengu]

Can they be shot in times of war??

[weedman]

Can they be shot in times of war??No, but tortured :lol:

[king_nothing100]

Funny how their sites only have nice letters on their, pretty sure that they get more negative letters than positive ones. The cowards probabley will get jail time regardless of how many hippies write letters to them.

[Tengu]

Can they be shot in times of war??No, but tortured :lol:It's legal in my country. (death penalty that is for these kinds of cowards in times of war)

[digrar]

They should get serious prison time (at least 5 years) with no parole.

[catdat]

digrar wrote:

They should get serious prison time (at least 5 years) with no parole.

In the US Military people serve under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Their normal rights as US citizens are superseded by this code. I don't believe that any sentences under UCMJ give a "parole" option but they are subject to appeal.

To apply the UCMJ code you must have the individual in custody. If attempts to extradite these worms faill that's when I would favor revoking thier citizenship. I personally would prefer death to having my citizenship revoked.

The code for desertion is clear:

Article 85. Desertion.
(a) A person, who without authority, goes or remains absent from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty, with the intent to remain away therefrom permanently; or who quits his or her unit, organization, or place of duty, with the intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces or enters any foreign armed service without authority, commits the offense of desertion.
(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his or her post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently, is also guilty of desertion.
(c) Desertion or attempting to desert during war may be punishable by death.

[Marxist203]

F**k em. If Canada had any balls the government would kick their asses back to America. Oreilly's calling for a boycott on Canada if they are supported by the Canadian government but I don't know if boycotting Canada would be very effective. When was the last time you bought anything Canadian made? :lol: No more Labatt Blues I guess rofl.

LAV III's, Elcan sights, electronic targetting systems...the list goes on.

[EchoSierra2]

Oreilly's calling for a boycott on Canada if they are supported by the Canadian government

O'reilly is an ass. I think the cowards should be punished too, but boycotting Canada is dumb.

LOL! another one in the fog :P

[ibstolidude]

I am more curious about this misrepresentation:

2002 - Jeremy is deployed to Afghanistan where he participates in 18 parachute jumps before transferring to non-combative duties
from the hinzman site.

bwaa??? what? 18 jumps - hahaha what in A-stan - not it's neighboring countries? where? who the hell had time for 18 jumps? unless you were roping - rig inspect jump land rig inspect jump land all on the dz

He was 82nd arrived A-stan after November 2003 - if you had time for 18 noncombat jumps you were conducting non-combative duties.

[budanski]

I think he meant that he got jumped in A-stan 18 times by his fellow brothers, why else for the dissention? ;)

[king_nothing100]

LOL PWNED!!! :bash:

You sign the papers, you swear the oath for a reason, to show your not going to pussy out when you have to fight for your country whatever it may be. Joining the military for an education like the first freak is pure cowardness and betrayel of the people you train with.

[MapleLeafInfantry]

In the US Military people serve under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Their normal rights as US citizens are superseded by this code.

am i not the only person who sees an inherent danger to the rule of law and the constitution in this?

up here in soviet canadaikistahn, solider or no soldier, the canadian constitution, and the charter of rights and freedoms is the most supreme law of the land. Yes military discipline is extreemly important, but a legitimate constition in my eyes is moreso..... it sounds a we bit suspect to my ears.

[usa320]

Again, i think the military needs to look closely at their education program. They should give educational benefits to people who have served their time befittingly, but they need to stop taking guys who are joining for college and nothing else. The army fights, thats its purpose, not to pay for some lazy ass who doesnt want a job to go to college.

Another reason why the draft is a poor idea. I wouldnt want to be serving alongside these pansies.

I think once they leave their citizenship should be removed and they should never be allowed back.

These idiots waste tax dollars and they put real soldiers in harms way because of their ignorance.

Bottom line, they took an oath. They need to uphold that oath.

[ibstolidude]

In the US Military people serve under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Their normal rights as US citizens are superseded by this code.

am i not the only person who sees an inherent danger to the rule of law and the constitution in this?

- what way?

[Uninen]

Some nations might be democratic, but their armed forces certainly arent, just remember that. Hence the different laws for the two.

(nation / military)

[Mark Sman]

Request extradition from Canada.
If that doesn't work revoke their citizenship. Let Canada have them if they want them so bad.

If they ever cross the border again, as Canadian citizens or not, they face UCMJ.

If the Canadians return them to the US it is courts-martial time.


UCMJ is necessary for serving troops. Regular U.S. law can not be used to govern serving soldiers, and it isn't used in Canada either. Both countries have adopted seperate codes for serving military personel. If this guys were tried under Canadian Military justice, the results would be about the same as UCMJ.


The Canadian Forces operates a separate system of military tribunals to serve the particular disciplinary needs of the military. The legislative basis for this separate justice system is found in The Code of Service Discipline, Part III of the National Defence Act B (NDA).

http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/military_justice/can_mil_just_syst/default_e.asp

[Longbranch]

What it comes down to is whether a person is to be considered property of the state. It appears many here agree with that notion, suggesting that freedom is frowned upon by more than just the government.

[Tane Angle]

I would say property of the people as opposed to property of the state. The US Constitution provides for the UCMJ. It is necessary and proper for the preservation of the nation and of American lives for certain rights of servicemembers to be selectively taken away as needed.

It's like this-a person can be arrested for inciting violence, making threats against the President, or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. Personal freedoms stop where everyone else's personal freedoms begin. When signing enlistment papers, one effectively says "I will give up what freedoms of my own that I must, so that everyone else can enjoy their freedoms in safety."

The military doesn't suppress servicemembers' rights just for kicks, and for the most part is "lezze fair (hands off)" about it. But in combat, we can't be making decisions by committee.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Mark Sman]

property of the state

The UCMJ, the Canadian Code of Service, the U.K.s Queens Regulations - none of them say this. These codes are obviously needed.

Most countries, except for outright bandit states, have a version of this code for their armed forces.

It is one of the ways that an unruly mob is turned into a professional armed service.

What should U.S. civil law say about disobeying a direct order?
Nothing, that is for the UCMJ.

[Longbranch]

It is necessary and proper for the preservation of the nation and of American lives for certain rights of servicemembers to be selectively taken away as needed.
That's what the 2nd Amendment is for… by way of personal and private ownership of firearms should the state be defended. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention that a citizen owes the government anything, certainly not a sacrifice of personal rights to be taken away as the government deems necessary.

No, the military doesn't suppress rights just for kicks, they suppress rights to ensure obedience. An odd contradiction that freedom can only be defended by those who've had their freedoms suppressed. If an individual is not free to change their mind, then they are not free. If a government passes law that permits them to restrict freedom from one aspect of society, they can (and do) restrict freedom in all aspects. Which is essentially where we are now.

Defending your own nation on your own soil is one thing. On the other hand, any military action in another country involves political and financial considerations to which the government is privy to know and the soldier is not – the "need to know" basis. Hence the soldier responds to foreign duties in confidence that his government is honest and forthcoming about their reasons for the action. I’ll leave this to you whether you feel government is entirely honest and forthcoming about their reasons for war. But the current system leaves the soldier with no choice should he disagree with what his government asks him to do.

That a person can be imprisoned for no greater crime than changing their minds is a prime example of the servitude nature the government has for its citizens. That other citizens approve of this behavior demonstrates that they accept the notion they are the property of something else. Living as someone else's property is not freedom, nor is it any path which leads to freedom.

[Mark Sman]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention that a citizen owes the government anything, certainly not a sacrifice of personal rights to be taken away as the government deems necessary.

Article 1 section 8 U.S., Constitution
.....
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
.....

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Amendment III
Quartering of soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment XVI
Income taxes authorized. Ratified 2/3/1913.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[admar2]

. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention that a citizen owes the government anything, certainly not a sacrifice of personal rights to be taken away as the government deems necessary...


But the current system leaves the soldier with no choice should he disagree with what his government asks him to do.

That a person can be imprisoned for no greater crime than changing their minds is a prime example of the servitude nature the government has for its citizens. That other citizens approve of this behavior demonstrates that they accept the notion they are the property of something else. Living as someone else's property is not freedom, nor is it any path which leads to freedom.

where do you come up with this hogwash?

they take an OATH, VOLUNTARILY. you know what that oath says?

nowhere does it mention picking and choosing when and where, and whether or not you uphold your oath.

I'm sure it'd be a wonderful military if soldiers were free to change their minds and decide whether or not to go to "work" from day to day.

:bash:

[Longbranch]

Mark Sman, the 3rd and 16th Amendments are components of the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution outlines the State's responsibilities, but in no part confirms the citizen/soldier has an obligation to service, whether through a draft nor by continued voluntary acceptance of service.

Admar2, I did not say the soldier has the right to pick and choose the nature of their duties day to day. If one volunteers to serve, then respect the command structure and follow proceedure. If a soldier can no longer respect the structure and proceedure, or wishes to discontinue their service for any other reason, hand in the uniform and walk away a free man.

[Mark Sman]

They are part of the Constitution.
If not then what are they amendments of?

Article 1 section 8 enumerates the Power of Congress.
Also from A1S8
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;"

The Bill of Rights is only the first 10 amendments.

Later, I have to go get drunk now.

[Jack Mehoff]

Longbranch,

Have you ever serve in the military at all? If not, then STFU.

Part of the oath also says this "According to Law and Regulations", and desertion is a crime under UCMJ.

Those cowards KNEW desertion is breaking the law and they still do it. So tell me, when was the last time breaking the laws is OK? Why can't people start taking responsiblity for their own action? How come the society love to portray criminals as "victims"?

You don't break the laws, OK? You do something about it but you don't break it.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1373/oath.jpg

[Longbranch]

Slavery was once legal, but that practice didn't change through voluntarily agreement by slave owners. The law was challenged and a great many people suffered and died to see it changed. Rule of law is not a moral absolute simply because it's law.

There is no physical injury in this, no blood on the floor nor property damaged. Yet still you would see them punished, as if it were your responsiblity to decide on the course of another's conscience. It's easy to say "Yes, Sir!" right or wrong, because the choice is made for you. These soldiers have decided to make those choices for themselves. They're taking responsibility for the decisions made in their name, and for that you call them cowards. Why? The deserters knew full well the penalty for their actions. Standing up to an entire Federal Government seems to me a far braver act than most people are capable of.

[Jack Mehoff]

Slavery was once legal, but that practice didn't change through voluntarily agreement by slave owners. The law was challenged and a great many people suffered and died to see it changed. Rule of law is not a moral absolute simply because it's law.

There is no physical injury in this, no blood on the floor nor property damaged. Yet still you would see them punished, as if it were you're responsiblity to decide on the course of another's conscience. It's easy to say "Yes, Sir!" right or wrong, because the choice is made for you. These soldiers have decided to make those choices for themselves. They're taking responsibility for the decisions made in their name, and for that you call them cowards. Why, because they're not willing to die for you? What does that say about yourself, that you'd see another person imprisoned because they're not willing to lay down their life to protect you? The deserters knew full well the penalty for their actions. Standing up to an entire Federal Government seems to me a far braver act than most people are capable of.

Of course it won't be your blood, but it will be the blood of your replacement. Do you believe they actually shut down the whole operation because one guy deserted? All they have to do is take a new guy and put him in your place. If something happens to that replacement, his blood will be on your hands because you are a chicken****.

Now you are comparing slavery to a desertion? Are you that dense? People DON'T CHOOSE to be slaves, but people CHOOSE to serve in the armed forces.

This is why we have a representative government. If you don't like something, go do something about it but don't break the laws. If you break every ****ing law because you don't like them, then we are ****ed.

[TALOS]

Slavery was once legal, but that practice didn't change through voluntarily agreement by slave owners. The law was challenged and a great many people suffered and died to see it changed. Rule of law is not a moral absolute simply because it's law.

There is no physical injury in this, no blood on the floor nor property damaged. Yet still you would see them punished, as if it were your responsiblity to decide on the course of another's conscience. It's easy to say "Yes, Sir!" right or wrong, because the choice is made for you. These soldiers have decided to make those choices for themselves. They're taking responsibility for the decisions made in their name, and for that you call them cowards. Why? The deserters knew full well the penalty for their actions. Standing up to an entire Federal Government seems to me a far braver act than most people are capable of.
O cmon long, thats crap, these guys joined the army, they volunteered, now they have an obligation to pay their dues. It is fraud to take something (education) with no intent to pay your dues. They are dishonest and dishonorable, period.

[Longbranch]

I'm not comparing desertion to slavery, I'm responding to your assertion that they should be punished because they broke the law. Slavery was once law, and now it isn't. Some laws are not absolute. Because a law exists, doesn't necessarily make it just.

Saying the blood of a replacement would be on my hands disowns the replacement of his choices. You speak of responsibility, yet seek to strip the replacement of his and place the responsibility for his life upon me. If he wishes to shed his blood for what he believes, he does so by his choice and in his name, not mine. Who's responsible for your life? We both know I'm not responsible for you. If not me, who then? The deserter? The deserter's replacement? Who are you looking for to protect you?

These fears are not mine. I have no need to imprison men or women who won't serve me. I am responsible for everything I say and do, and for every outcome that comes from that. As I desire a free life for myself, indebted to none, I hold no others in debt to me. This is the type of freedom I'm willing to lose my life for, not the veneer implied by propriety.

[Tengu]

(c) Desertion or attempting to desert during war may be punishable by death. woot

[Mark Sman]

OK, now I'm drunk.

Longbranch,
You make some good arguments. I am going to agree to disagree with you on some points of the constitution.

As far as responsibility goes, by signing up for service you are placing your life in defense of the body politic. It is an old idea, and in the U.S. currently, one based entirely upon individual choice.

I believe that the U.S. constitution gives the right to the government to create the contract of service beteween an individual and the state that the prior sited enlistement document shows.

An individual can sign that document or not.

Once you do, you are bond by that document. This is a matter of individual choice. Maybe the last one you will ever make.

As far as responsibility goes, I want to quote something. Not to refute anything you said, or even to add to the argument. Purely as something to think about in reference to individual liberty and group responsibility.

The quote comes from the Edward R. Murrow radio show in the 50s. On his show he would ask people "What do you believe?" And then he would give them time to state what they believe. From a prepared statement if they wished. Or not. It was a good forum.

Anyway. Here is the response of Robert Anson Heinlein, and it has always stuck with me. As a statement of what is needed in individual liberty and group responsibility. Mind you he said this in 1952. Our world has changed. But our goals have not become less.

Maybe this is out of context, or even inapropriate, but what do I care. I'm drunk.


"I am not going to talk about religious beliefs but about matters so obvious that it has gone out of style to mention them. I believe in my neighbors. I know their faults, and I know that their virtues far outweigh their faults.

"Take Father Michael down our road a piece. I'm not of his creed, but I know that goodness and charity and loving kindness shine in his daily actions. I believe in Father Mike. If I'm in trouble, I'll go to him.

"My next-door neighbor is a veterinary doctor. Doc will get out of bed after a hard day to help a stray cat. No fee -- no prospect of a fee -- I believe in Doc.

"I believe in my townspeople. You can knock on any door in our town saying, 'I'm hungry,' and you will be fed. Our town is no exception. I've found the same ready charity everywhere. But for the one who says, 'To heck with you -- I got mine,' there are a hundred, a thousand who will say, 'Sure, pal, sit down.'

"I know that despite all warnings against hitchhikers I can step up to the highway, thumb for a ride and in a few minutes a car or a truck will stop and someone will say, 'Climb in Mac -- how far you going?'

"I believe in my fellow citizens. Our headlines are splashed with crime yet for every criminal there are 10,000 honest, decent, kindly men. If it were not so, no child would live to grow up. Business could not go on from day to day. Decency is not news. It is buried in the obituaries, but is a force stronger than crime. I believe in the patient gallantry of nurses and the tedious sacrifices of teachers. I believe in the unseen and unending fight against desperate odds that goes on quietly in almost every home in the land.

"I believe in the honest craft of workmen. Take a look around you. There never were enough bosses to check up on all that work. From Independence Hall to the Grand Coulee Dam, these things were built level and square by craftsmen who were honest in their bones.

"I believe that almost all politicians are honest ... there are hundreds of politicians, low paid or not paid at all, doing their level best without thanks or glory to make our system work. If this were not true we would never have gotten past the 13 colonies.

"I believe in Rodger Young. You and I are free today because of endless unnamed heroes from Valley Forge to the Yalu River. I believe in -- I am proud to belong to -- the United States. Despite shortcomings from lynchings to bad faith in high places, our nation has had the most decent and kindly internal practices and foreign policies to be found anywhere in history.

"And finally, I believe in my whole race. Yellow, white, black, red, brown. In the honesty, courage, intelligence, durability, and goodness of the overwhelming majority of my brothers and sisters everywhere on this planet. I am proud to be a human being. I believe that we have come this far by the skin of our teeth. That we always make it just by the skin of our teeth, but that we will always make it. Survive. Endure. I believe that this hairless embryo with the aching, oversize brain case and the opposable thumb, this animal barely up from the apes will endure. Will endure longer than his home planet -- will spread out to the stars and beyond, carrying with him his honesty and his insatiable curiosity, his unlimited courage and his noble essential decency.

"This I believe with all my heart."

[ibstolidude]

Some nations might be democratic, but their armed forces certainly arent, just remember that. Hence the different laws for the two.

(nation / military)
There is not difference the laws of the military are approved by the civilian military leaders - when one enters the military you sign a CONTRACT that is a legal binding document.

[ibstolidude]

It is necessary and proper for the preservation of the nation and of American lives for certain rights of servicemembers to be selectively taken away as needed.
That's what the 2nd Amendment is for… by way of personal and private ownership of firearms should the state be defended. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention that a citizen owes the government anything, certainly not a sacrifice of personal rights to be taken away as the government deems necessary.

No, the military doesn't suppress rights just for kicks, they suppress rights to ensure obedience. An odd contradiction that freedom can only be defended by those who've had their freedoms suppressed. If an individual is not free to change their mind, then they are not free. If a government passes law that permits them to restrict freedom from one aspect of society, they can (and do) restrict freedom in all aspects. Which is essentially where we are now.

Defending your own nation on your own soil is one thing. On the other hand, any military action in another country involves political and financial considerations to which the government is privy to know and the soldier is not – the "need to know" basis. Hence the soldier responds to foreign duties in confidence that his government is honest and forthcoming about their reasons for the action. I’ll leave this to you whether you feel government is entirely honest and forthcoming about their reasons for war. But the current system leaves the soldier with no choice should he disagree with what his government asks him to do.

That a person can be imprisoned for no greater crime than changing their minds is a prime example of the servitude nature the government has for its citizens. That other citizens approve of this behavior demonstrates that they accept the notion they are the property of something else. Living as someone else's property is not freedom, nor is it any path which leads to freedom. - actually you are wrong a citizen does owe the gove something when they enter into a legal contract as is required by the government for volounteer service in the military. the US constitution does rpovde the Congress with provision for both the draft and the duty for the defence of the Republic.

and reference "changing my mind" how come I can;t just walk away from the Cell phone contract I hate with out consequence, how come I have to pay back student loans in which I have contractul obligation? Why can't employees of company A use their priveleged status to sell info to company B, when they decide they want to? - because contracts are a legally binding document. - FYI the Congress is tasked to uphold both state and federal contracts in the constitution.

[MapleLeafInfantry]

Request extradition from Canada.
If that doesn't work revoke their citizenship. Let Canada have them if they want them so bad.

If they ever cross the border again, as Canadian citizens or not, they face UCMJ.

If the Canadians return them to the US it is courts-martial time.


UCMJ is necessary for serving troops. Regular U.S. law can not be used to govern serving soldiers, and it isn't used in Canada either. Both countries have adopted seperate codes for serving military personel. If this guys were tried under Canadian Military justice, the results would be about the same as UCMJ.


The Canadian Forces operates a separate system of military tribunals to serve the particular disciplinary needs of the military. The legislative basis for this separate justice system is found in The Code of Service Discipline, Part III of the National Defence Act B (NDA).

http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/military_justice/can_mil_just_syst/default_e.asp


yes thats correct, it does, but it is still subject to the constitution... nothing is supreme, thats why its called a constitution....
maple

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

What I dont get is that they come to Canada, and all of a sudden everyone has a hard on for Canada...Remeber these guys are from your country, if they "pussy out" after taking there oath and run it doesnt matter to us. Actually you should be more pissed off at there cowardice then pissed off at the place they now live......

[Tane Angle]

Good point, bud. As far as I know, the Canadian courts have ruled against them every time so far.

[rob]

Oreilly's calling for a boycott on Canada if they are supported by the Canadian government

O'reilly is an ass. I think the cowards should be punished too, but boycotting Canada is dumb.

an invastion is much more effective ;)

seriously i think that we should let let chill there if canada is unwilling to deport them, but as soon as they return have them tried for something, hell id go as far as treason.

it pisses me off that some people join the army for college money and dont think they would possibly be sent over seas, but it is a grim reality.

[rob]

Oreilly's calling for a boycott on Canada if they are supported by the Canadian government

O'reilly is an ass. I think the cowards should be punished too, but boycotting Canada is dumb.

an invastion is much more effective ;)

seriously i think that we should let let chill there if canada is unwilling to deport them, but as soon as they return have them tried for something, hell id go as far as treason.

it pisses me off that some people join the army for college money and dont think they would possibly be sent over seas, but it is a grim reality.

[Longbranch]

Mark Sman, agreed to agree to disagree on points of the Constitution. I'm thinking about your statement of "service being in defense of the body politic", and this is "Y" in the road perhaps on with our differing thoughts. My understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has always been that it's a document from the people to the Government, outlining what the government is and is not permitted to do.

The Constitution was designed to essentially be a restraining order on the authority of government. Today, society seems to perceive the government as the final authority concerning the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the government behaves without much restriction as to how the two documents are interpreted and enforced. Examples of that are the litany of firearms laws which conflict with the 2nd Amendment, and aspects of the Patriot Act which conflict with many other parts of the Bill of Rights. The founding of the nation started with the people saying to government, "Here's what you can and can't do" and has now become the government saying this back to the people. The concept of freedom to live by your own conscience and choosing has been reversed, to where now "placing your life in defense of the body politic" is seen as synonymous with defending the Constitution. The body politic and the Constitution are two very different masters, and the body politic has won out when it comes to exercising authority.

I appreciate your including the belief text by Robert Heinlein, it's a very compassionate expression of respect for the lives of others. Heinlein's example for life cannot be forced as a behavior from citizens, nor forced upon them. It's a manner of living which can only be chosen – freely. If the freedom is not there to reach Heinlein's expression of life, it will never be reached. Any law, no matter how noble and righteous by intent, which goes against a person's freedom to choose their own path for liberty, will be challenged and wrestled until the State finally gives way. The crime is the suffering it inflicts upon those who are commanded to serve the will of others. If service is not offered freely – not once when signing an Oath, but continuously – then service becomes servitude. No nation is free when freedom is not practiced.

Jack Mehoff mentioned, "if you don't like something, go do something about it but don't break the laws." Whether it's realized or not, these deserters are trying to change this law by the only means available. As Jack pointed out earlier, the military has little to no respect for non-military opinions ("Have you ever serve in the military at all? If not, then STFU.") So the only place this law will change is from within the military. If a soldier today is ordered to do anything which goes against his conscience, what are his options? Fulfill the order, or refuse it and be incarcerated. The only other option to this is desertion, which still means a life without freedom while running, and imprisonment when caught.

Hopefully one day we all reach the wisdom of Robert Heinlein about what's important. Some enlisted for the wrong reasons, or their reasons changed after they joined. Now they're offered no way out. It makes the road longer and more difficult when society wishes to imprison people for such errors and misjudgements. It fuels anger instead of alleviates it, in the end leaving society with more soldiers, more police and more laws to combat the anger. Nothing is gained by creating more anger.

[catdat]

Longbranch wrote:

If service is not offered freely – not once when signing an Oath, but continuously – then service becomes servitude.

There is a contract Longbranch and you'd know exactly how long that contract is before you give your oath. The oath is a formality now because of the signed contract.


As Jack pointed out earlier, the military has little to no respect for non-military opinions ("Have you ever serve in the military at all? If not, then STFU.")

That's cute.

http://www.fortliberty.org/patriotic-humor/graphics/dating-pussy.jpg

[Jack Mehoff]

Mark Sman, agreed to agree to disagree on points of the Constitution. I'm thinking about your statement of "service being in defense of the body politic", and this is "Y" in the road perhaps on with our differing thoughts. My understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has always been that it's a document from the people to the Government, outlining what the government is and is not permitted to do.

The Constitution was designed to essentially be a restraining order on the authority of government. Today, society seems to perceive the government as the final authority concerning the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the government behaves without much restriction as to how the two documents are interpreted and enforced. Examples of that are the litany of firearms laws which conflict with the 2nd Amendment, and aspects of the Patriot Act which conflict with many other parts of the Bill of Rights. The founding of the nation started with the people saying to government, "Here's what you can and can't do" and has now become the government saying this back to the people. The concept of freedom to live by your own conscience and choosing has been reversed, to where now "placing your life in defense of the body politic" is seen as synonymous with defending the Constitution. The body politic and the Constitution are two very different masters, and the body politic has won out when it comes to exercising authority.

I appreciate your including the belief text by Robert Heinlein, it's a very compassionate expression of respect for the lives of others. Heinlein's example for life cannot be forced as a behavior from citizens, nor forced upon them. It's a manner of living which can only be chosen – freely. If the freedom is not there to reach Heinlein's expression of life, it will never be reached. Any law, no matter how noble and righteous by intent, which goes against a person's freedom to choose their own path for liberty, will be challenged and wrestled until the State finally gives way. The crime is the suffering it inflicts upon those who are commanded to serve the will of others. If service is not offered freely – not once when signing an Oath, but continuously – then service becomes servitude. No nation is free when freedom is not practiced.

Jack Mehoff mentioned, "if you don't like something, go do something about it but don't break the laws." Whether it's realized or not, these deserters are trying to change this law by the only means available. As Jack pointed out earlier, the military has little to no respect for non-military opinions ("Have you ever serve in the military at all? If not, then STFU.") So the only place this law will change is from within the military. If a soldier today is ordered to do anything which goes against his conscience, what are his options? Fulfill the order, or refuse it and be incarcerated. The only other option to this is desertion, which still means a life without freedom while running, and imprisonment when caught.

Hopefully one day we all reach the wisdom of Robert Heinlein about what's important. Some enlisted for the wrong reasons, or their reasons changed after they joined. Now they're offered no way out. It makes the road longer and more difficult when society wishes to imprison people for such errors and misjudgements. It fuels anger instead of alleviates it, in the end leaving society with more soldiers, more police and more laws to combat the anger. Nothing is gained by creating more anger.
Good post stoli

actually you are wrong a citizen does owe the gove something when they enter into a legal contract as is required by the government for volounteer service in the military. the US constitution does rpovde the Congress with provision for both the draft and the duty for the defence of the Republic.

and reference "changing my mind" how come I can;t just walk away from the Cell phone contract I hate with out consequence, how come I have to pay back student loans in which I have contractul obligation? Why can't employees of company A use their priveleged status to sell info to company B, when they decide they want to? - because contracts are a legally binding document. - FYI the Congress is tasked to uphold both state and federal contracts in the constitution.

[EchoSierra2]

Longbranch wrote:

If service is not offered freely – not once when signing an Oath, but continuously – then service becomes servitude.

There is a contract Longbranch and you'd know exactly how long that contract is before you give your oath. The oath is a formality now because of the signed contract.


As Jack pointed out earlier, the military has little to no respect for non-military opinions ("Have you ever serve in the military at all? If not, then STFU.")

That's cute.

http://www.fortliberty.org/patriotic-humor/graphics/dating-pussy.jpgLOL! :D :) :lol: :P ;) I love it!

[TALOS]

Longbranch, what you are advocating is anarchy, the people are not required to accept or abide by the rules laid out by society or to respect oaths that they themselves have made. I personally very much fear the anarchist agenda and the me first movement.

[Longbranch]

Nice pussy cartoon catdat.

TALOS I'm not talking about anarchy without law. Murder, rape, theft, assault, fraud… these things inflict suffering upon others and have no place in a civil society. However, a person may quit a job, change apartments, divorce a spouse… any of which may entail contracts or agreements. There may be financial penalties for breaking these contracts, but not automatic imprisonment.

The Enlistment Oath is between two parties – the soldier and the government. The soldier is not the only one capable of breaking the agreement between them. Should the government break their part of the contract, what options does a soldier have to remove himself? Should the government violate any aspect of the Constitution, or violate any International Laws concerning treaties the government itself has signed, what is the soldier to do?

[Jack Mehoff]

What the hell are you talking about, Longbranch? The contract IS the enlistment oath. Go read the enlistment oath I had to scan it for you just to prove that you don't know ****.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1373/oath.jpg


Where the hell you see that on the oath?

The soldier is not the only one capable of breaking the agreement between them. Should the government break their part of the contract, what options does a soldier have to remove himself? Should the government violate any aspect of the Constitution, or violate any International Laws concerning treaties the government itself has signed, what is the soldier to do?

[catdat]

LOL you guys crack me up. Longbranch is sticking to his guns (sorry about the military reference) and Jack Mehoff is partially correct. An oath is like an oral contract. Oral contracts can be binding in many circumstances and in many courts. There is actually a written contract that is signed on enlistment. (It's somewhere in those 300 documents you sign dont ask me for the DD#)

This is the enlisted oath:


''I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God!"

It's actually similiar to the oath when becoming a citizen. Assuming that immigrants are no more or less obligated than I as citizens, I would think that this oath applies to me too.

here's the citizen's oath:


I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

So Longbranch what obligations do you have?

[Longbranch]

Jack, the second paragraph of the Oath which speaks of the Constitution and Amendments:

"…I will uphold and champion its provisions and will shield and protect it."

-----
The Patriot Act has put into law many aspects which go against the Constitution and Bill of Rights
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12263&c=206

-----
Every federal firearms law violates the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

-----
Article 1, Section 8 (U.S. Constitution)
The Congress shall have power to… To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

Congress is the only authority to create and regulate national currency, but this responsibility now lies with the Federal Reserve Bank, not Congress. The Federal Reserve Bank is a private corporation, and the Federal Reserve Act (1913) is in direct violation of the Constitution, no amendment affording control of the nation's currency to private interests.
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html

-----
Amendment XIII
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

If you commit a crime, you go to jail – involuntary servitude. If a soldier cannot quit by his/her choosing, then that's involuntary servitude without a crime having been committed. The conditions for enlistment itself are in violation of the 13th Amendment.

-----
catdat, the only obligations I have in life are to pay taxes, feed myself and breath. Every other responsibility I have, I do is by my own choosing.

[hank]

In the US Military people serve under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Their normal rights as US citizens are superseded by this code.

am i not the only person who sees an inherent danger to the rule of law and the constitution in this?

up here in soviet canadaikistahn, solider or no soldier, the canadian constitution, and the charter of rights and freedoms is the most supreme law of the land. Yes military discipline is extreemly important, but a legitimate constition in my eyes is moreso..... it sounds a we bit suspect to my ears.

I'm not an expert in FMCJ, but as long as you are on American sovereign soil nothing can take away US Constitutional rights - except your informed consent. Unless catdat knows different, and he might, I doubt that anything in the FMCJ abridges, or attemptes to abridge, constitutional rights. Now, the military will affect many of those rights, liek teh 4th Amendment for example. You would have less rights under the 4th in your barracks than in an apratment off base because the expectation of privacy is much lower, but you still have the right.

Catdat, am I in the game on this? Anybody eelse who knows pipe in. I have a good friend who is a Captain, formerly an Army Engineer, soon to be an ARMY JAG Captain, I'll ask him.

hank

[hank]

I would say property of the people as opposed to property of the state. The US Constitution provides for the UCMJ. It is necessary and proper for the preservation of the nation and of American lives for certain rights of servicemembers to be selectively taken away as needed.

It's like this-a person can be arrested for inciting violence, making threats against the President, or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. Personal freedoms stop where everyone else's personal freedoms begin. When signing enlistment papers, one effectively says "I will give up what freedoms of my own that I must, so that everyone else can enjoy their freedoms in safety."

The military doesn't suppress servicemembers' rights just for kicks, and for the most part is "lezze fair (hands off)" about it. But in combat, we can't be making decisions by committee.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Tane, not to disagree because you have of course eloquently stated the balancing of interests inherent in the US con, but what rights do you give up as a soldier? I mean, on duty you can't speak freely, but off-duty you can if not treasonous, right? I mean soldiers don't lose all rights, just he ones that might affect their soldiering or nat'l security? Am I right about this?

hank

[catdat]

Hank,


Offenses. The UCMJ is essentially a complete set of criminal laws. It includes many crimes punished under civilian law (e.g., murder, rape, drug use, larceny, drunk driving, etc.), but it goes beyond that to punish other conduct which affects good order and discipline in the military.

These "unique military offenses" involve conduct that need not be made criminal in civilian life, but must be made offenses in a military justice system because the misconduct goes to the heart of military duties. For example, in civilian life, if people choose to be disrespectful to a civilian supervisor, or if they choose not to go to work or to quit their job for any reason – that decision does not potentially violate any criminal laws and is a matter between them and their supervisor. Military members, however, have tremendous responsibilities and must be counted upon to perform them. These responsibilities require that the military have a disciplinary system that enables commanders to respond to such misconduct - potentially with criminal charges. When a military member doesn’t report for duty, the consequences to the mission and national security can be quite severe. Unique military crimes include, for example, such offenses as desertion, absence without leave, disrespect towards superiors, failure to obey orders, dereliction of duty, wrongful disposition of military property, drunk on duty, malingering, and conduct unbecoming an officer. The UCMJ also includes provisions punishing misbehavior before the enemy, improper use of countersign, misbehavior of a sentinel, misconduct as a prisoner, aiding the enemy, spying, and espionage. Some of those offenses are capital offenses, meaning the maximum punishment is death. The UCMJ reflects the seriousness and importance of the military’s mission and recognizes that ultimately the safety of our forces and the security of our nation are being protected.

Officers’ Special Responsibilities: Traditionally, all military systems place additional and special responsibilities upon officers. Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 USC § 933) establishes the offense of "conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman (or gentlewoman)." This article may be violated by any action or behavior in an official capacity that, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises that person’s character or standing as an officer.

In addition their are lesser offenses that would be in direct conflict with some of your rights as a citizen such as freedom of speech. Example: It's illegal to make disparaging remarks about the President or anyone else in the Chain of Command.

Documentation can be found on this site:
http://www.usapa.army.mil/

[hank]

Wow, I tried to respond piecemeal but I should have finished reading before I started. So many good points and very little flaming. This is a great thread, sorry I missed it.

Let me first clear up what I was trying to say in the previous posts. Nothing in the FMCJ says "you loase all constitutioanl rights when you sign up". If it did then the FMCJ would be unconstitutional and somebody would challenge it and win. As others have pointed out, what the FMCJ does is provide the military the means to be effective. It abridges the constitution only when, as Tane says, your right comes in contact with the larger right (or privilege or whatever) of the US to be defended by our military. That balancing is totally analogous to allowing me to bash Bush if I choose but not to yell "fire". I think Tane made that point.

Now, all this about property and the person and all that. I'm not exactly sure what all that meant, but remember that service is voluntary. Stoli or somebody pointed that out. You can't disobey military orders, even the ones you don't like, because you risk more than yourself if you do. That idea doesn't necessarily implicate the Constitution. When it does, the balancing of interests takes over and if the military had a good reason, like protecting US lives and nat'l defense then its OK. If not, then its not OK.

Some misquoting of the constitution and the amendments. First, the Bill of Rights are as much a part of the constitution as the Aricles themselves. Sman said this and he is 100% right. Drafted by the same people at the same time. Don't know where longbranch got that idea, but that is incorrect. The BoR are fundamental to our system of government and really the largest source of rights in the Con for individuals.

Where does this idea that soldiers are property come from? I'm not military and I've never heard that before. Any BTDT who can explain that to me I would appreciate it. Soldiers still have rights as I explained above. But, disobeying an order or deserting are not among them.

Servitude - I think Longbranch brought this up. Military service is consenual. Where is the servitude? I'm confused by this.

Where is the analogy to the FMCJ and slavery? I miss that altogether. FMCJ is consensual - slavery was an unconstitutional system of involuntary servitude. I don't get this at all.

Every firearm law violates the second amendment? Please, that's somebody else talking not you. Every right in the constitution gets limited in some way for the good of the nation. Speech, religion, freedom from search and seizure - all are gone in certain circumstances. Guns are no different. I happen to agree with you that gun laws don't work and go too far but they are not unconstitutional on their face. These blanket statements are unpersuasive.

13th Amendment deals with slavery AND specifically says that jail time for a crime is not prohibited. Military service is voluntary and therefore not INVOLUNTRY servitude. If you want to make this argument you need to explain yourself a little more.

Congress does have he power to coin money that you describe, but the idea that the Federal Reserve Bank is unconstitutional is silly. What do you think, Trent Lott is going to sit around and print $100 bills? Congress also has the power to delegate authority. (I'll get the cite if you need it but its there). They do it all the time. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, EEOC, all these are examples of Congress having power and DELEGATING it to a body it creates to enact its constitutional power. This is your worst argument of all.

I agree with you on many points of the Patriot ACt. It is the single worst thing that has happened for individual rights in the US in this century. Scary stuff, but look at its wide popularity. Justice Black said that "F**k you" on a jacket is the price we pay for freedom of speech. I agree with that statement. As bad as it sounds we can't take away rights to fight terrorism lest we lose before we start. OBL already got a little of what he wanted when we passed some parts of the Patriot Act - he took something from us. But, that has no bearing on these deserters.

There is nothing in the Constitution about the military except the provide for the Nat'l defense part. FMCJ is not a constitutional idea. Its something the military created with the authority Congress delegated it just liek teh Fed Reserve. Its not like the forefathers sat around and thought of the FMCJ, it did not exist as we know it in the 1770's. But the US Govt. has sweeping powers when it comes to the military - its one of the few areas where they are unquestionably the only source. Any idea that Govt has to allow someone out simply b/c they change their mind is just not based in fact. Hell, look at the draft. Talk about unconstitutioanal and involuntary servitude - that is it. But we have it. Why? The balancing that Tane talked about. Same with these deserters. The good of the many outweighs their personal needs. Cruel. Tough. Necessary. Not some big bad government out of whack. I bet George Washington would have agreed with this.

Sman - you quoted the 3rd A and highlighted the rule of law thing. That does not refer to FMCJ. I may be misinterpreting you, if so disregard. That simply means that during war the govt can't make you take a soldier into your house to live with you unless the Congress passes a law first. Nothing to do with FMCJ.

Longbranch, you make good points about limited government and those are well taken. But you misread much of the constitution and the BoR by taking it out of context when it suits you and then going big picture when it suits you. Dangerous. Read something that is not propogandized about the Federal Reserve Bank. Your assertions are plainly false.

Last thing and then I'll quit. I wish that people would stop saying if you aren't in then STFU. We are allowed to have opinions, and to express them in this country. I have not BTDT, but any of you that want to disagree with me on the con are free to do so. I keep my mouth shut on military matters b/c I don't know, but the law is different. How many of you have studied the Constitution more than a Poli Sci class? I've been to law school, but that does not mean that I can tell you to STFU if you talk about law. I can point out what I think are your mistakes, but STFU is silly. Let's leave that in the past.

hank

[hank]

Hank,


Offenses. The UCMJ is essentially a complete set of criminal laws. It includes many crimes punished under civilian law (e.g., murder, rape, drug use, larceny, drunk driving, etc.), but it goes beyond that to punish other conduct which affects good order and discipline in the military.

These "unique military offenses" involve conduct that need not be made criminal in civilian life, but must be made offenses in a military justice system because the misconduct goes to the heart of military duties. For example, in civilian life, if people choose to be disrespectful to a civilian supervisor, or if they choose not to go to work or to quit their job for any reason – that decision does not potentially violate any criminal laws and is a matter between them and their supervisor. Military members, however, have tremendous responsibilities and must be counted upon to perform them. These responsibilities require that the military have a disciplinary system that enables commanders to respond to such misconduct - potentially with criminal charges. When a military member doesn’t report for duty, the consequences to the mission and national security can be quite severe. Unique military crimes include, for example, such offenses as desertion, absence without leave, disrespect towards superiors, failure to obey orders, dereliction of duty, wrongful disposition of military property, drunk on duty, malingering, and conduct unbecoming an officer. The UCMJ also includes provisions punishing misbehavior before the enemy, improper use of countersign, misbehavior of a sentinel, misconduct as a prisoner, aiding the enemy, spying, and espionage. Some of those offenses are capital offenses, meaning the maximum punishment is death. The UCMJ reflects the seriousness and importance of the military’s mission and recognizes that ultimately the safety of our forces and the security of our nation are being protected.

Officers’ Special Responsibilities: Traditionally, all military systems place additional and special responsibilities upon officers. Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 USC § 933) establishes the offense of "conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman (or gentlewoman)." This article may be violated by any action or behavior in an official capacity that, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises that person’s character or standing as an officer.

In addition their are lesser offenses that would be in direct conflict with some of your rights as a citizen such as freedom of speech. Example: It's illegal to make disparaging remarks about the President or anyone else in the Chain of Command.

Documentation can be found on this site:
http://www.usapa.army.mil/

Right, but a soldier can still go to a John Kerry rally, just can't go on the radio and say Bush is a criminal. That is the balancing. The right is still there, but the balance is different b/c of the enlistment contract and the consent to have the right limited. Limited and gone are not synonymous. We're on the same page with this.

hank

[Longbranch]

hank, I’m not a constitutional lawyer, so if you and others see the Constitution and Bill of Rights as one document, I won't argue it further.

Military service is consentual when the soldier is recruited. Part of the consent is to forego freedom of choice once enlisted. It becomes servitude once the soldier has signed on, because from that point there is no longer freedom of choice to “sign-off” until the contract expires. Most soldiers freely accept these terms. A few have a change of mind after recruitment and seek to remove their contract of service. If a soldier is forced to participate against his own wishes, the participation is not voluntary. If it’s not voluntary, it’s not consentual. He may suck it up and do his time, but it remains non-consentual servitude. His only alternative is prison, which is still non-consentual servitude but in a smaller room. A few soldiers refuse to suck it up, and prefer flight to continued forced service. This is my view about soldiers as property. If you have no right to decide upon your own life, then someone else holds your life in their hands. If they will not relinquish your life as per your wishes, then what are you to the other, if not their property? A soldier consents to being property where the slave has not, but regardless of how they got there, the responsibility for their own lives is no longer in their hands.


Every firearm law violates the second amendment? Please, that's somebody else talking not you. Every right in the constitution gets limited in some way for the good of the nation. Speech, religion, freedom from search and seizure - all are gone in certain circumstances.

No, that was me talking. I said every Federal firearms law violates the 2nd Amendment, not every law. States, counties and towns may write whatever firearms laws they wish. The Bill of Rights as a document is speaking to the Federal Government, not coming from the Federal Government. The Amendments are there to say what the Federal Government can and cannot do. There is no authority for the Federal Government to pass laws which remove or restrict the rights within it, unless the document itself is altered by further amendments. The Patriot Act is one example of legislation which contradicts the Bill of Rights. I tied this whole thing to the deserters, because the Enlistment Oath is a contract between soldier and government to defend the country and the Constitution from all enemies. By passing laws such as the Patriot Act, the Federal Government is not “supporting and defending” the Constitution. The Federal Government is violating its side of the agreement with the enlisted soldier. Essentially the Federal Government is in breech of contract with the soldier, yet the soldier has no path to free himself from the contract if he so desires.

I understand that Congress has the power to delegate authority, but the Federal Reserve Bank is a whole other kettle of fish. It would take a completely separate thread to cover that one, so I won’t waste anymore time with it here. I appreciate everyone’s thoughts in this thread, I’ll get off my soapbox now.

[hank]

Read the Commerce Clause, that is Congress's Authority to regulate import/sale/manufacture of firearms. It is a big document and you can't just look one place. What authority do states/towns/counties have to regulate firearms? That ability to regulate comes from the respective state constitution. Note, however, that the US constitution necessarily trumps state constitutions.

This type of confusion about the rights of Americans drive me crazy. You said "Military service is consentual when the soldier is recruited. Part of the consent is to forego freedom of choice once enlisted. It becomes servitude once the soldier has signed on, because from that point there is no longer freedom of choice to “sign-off” until the contract expires." The constitution does not grant that right "to choose". Go find it in the constitution. It is not there. We don't have a constitutional right to choose to "be in" or to "get out" of a contract. We do have a right to be free from government interference with contracts (its in there). But, you can't just pick and choose like that and say "I have a right to choose to enlist" and then once you do say "I have a right to get out". You can say that, and somebody might actually believe it. But don't confuse your idea with the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that even remotely touches what you espouse. Servitude in 13th A = slavery and nothing more.

By your argument my lease creates involuntary servitude. I signed it and I have to pay rent or I don't have a place to live. I mean, I lose my freedom of "choice" for the $500+ a month I pay in rent, right. That is unconstitutional. Bull. Choosing to be bound by enlisting no more creates involuntary servitude as contemplated by the 13th A as my lease does. The signor choses to get involved and to be bound, voluntarily. Not being able to "get out" is the very essence of contracting in the first place.

Also, don't confuse an individual's right to own and bear arms and Congress's right to regulate that ownership. There is a fundamental difference between "can't own" and "can own with a permit"/"can't own one that holds 100 rounds". The second amendment is hopelessly vague and Congress will always get away with regulating firearms unless something is done to strengthen the Second A. Simple as that.

However the 1st A is not hopelessly vague and speech/expression gets regulated everyday. Why would the analysis be different for handguns/firearms? That makes no sense to allow regulation of sppech but not guns. In fact it makes less sense because the connection between TV/radio is much more tenuous than distribution of a tangible good like guns. The Commerce Clause give Congress the sole authority to regulate interstate commerce. How could a Bush ad impact that? Well, the SC says it does and that is that.

You want to complain about servitude? Why not complain about Congress's regulation of employment under Title VII? The authority to do that is much les sure than the maintaining of an effective military under the constitution. See the point?

The Bill of Rights is not "talking" to the Government. It is an enumerated list of basic rights enjoyed by Americans. You confuse the existence of the right with an inability of our Government to regulate activities associated with those rights. Think about this: The 1st A, primo, # 1 = a right to express political views. The most basi nad cherished right that our forefathers held most dear. Yet, that right is hopelessly regulated. Look at what Bush/Kerry can and can't do with ads on TV. Do you think that their right to speak is as protecteed as mine? Sure it is. Is their speech more regulated than mine? Just as surely it is. Yet they are both rights under the 1st A. No difference there.

Servitude cannot result from a consensual arrangement. Servitude means that someone comes and makes you do it. Nobody made these two guys join the military. Disagreement about a duty does not transform enlistment into servitude. Why would it? There is a fundamental difference between the servitude dealt with in the 13th A and enlistment into a volunteer force that results in a limitation, not a loss, of some constitutional rights.

Well start a new thread on the Federal Reserve Bank because you have made a mistake on that one. I have heard these arguments before and I do not buy them. Congress has authority to charter banks under the constitution and the Fed Reserve is just that. Somebody has to set monetary policy for the nation, who do you suggest? You are right however, this has nothing to do with deserters.

I've had these discussions here before and I'll tell what I've told the rest. If you feel strongly about this, then change it. We as Americans can amend the con, so why not do it. You've identified an injustice and alleged an unconstitutional act, ask for change.

hank