Nearly a hundred years ago, the head of the Philadelphia Communist party suggested to conscripts for World War I that the draft was a violation of the 13th amendment rights against involuntary servitude. The government’s response for the expression of this presumably despicable notion was to throw him into jail for a decade, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court (it was from that decision that the “cannot falsely shout fire in a crowded theater” dictum came from.)
So now, of course, when we live in a time that’s far more conducive to open discussion, and we have a much more understanding Supreme Court, I’m moved to wonder…*is* a draft unconstitutional? The constitution gives congress the right to “raise” armies, but I didn’t notice anything that specifically said they can commandeer citizens against the will of the citizens. In fact, there’s yet another amendment–the 5th one–that says citizens will not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That is to say, the only situation in which the Constitution seems to say it’s okay to deprive someone of their basic freedom of movement and right to have their own stuff is if they’re paying for a criminal act of which they’ve been convicted.
So…is there a case to be made for a draft being unconstitutional? And don’t tell me it’s constitutional simply because it’s existed before unless you’re ready to argue that African-Americans should never have been counted as more than 3/5 of a person because that was the way it was done before.
PAD
• 
hey.. this has nothing to do with the subject, but i just finished reading the second apropos book and i absolutley love it. it was everything i was looking for in a book and you couldnt have added more. i havent got to reading the third one but i cant wait. thanks for making the books so great =) keep it up
-teeny
David: I dont really believe it either but I felt people on this board could appreciate the humor of it. Also, sadly can’t take credit for it. Partially stole it from Kevin Smith.
Craig wrote: “And thousands more lives would have been saved, US and Iraqi alike, if Bush Sr had taken out Saddam the first time around.
But he didn’t, so what’s your point?”
As I recall, For Gulf War I, Bush Senior went as far as the UN resolution (and Congress) gave him the green light to go. If he’d have gone all the way to Baghdad to grab Saddam, the U.S. would be in the exact same messy situation you are criticizing the U.S. for being in right now after Gulf War II. If you are going to take a stand, at least be consistent.
The reality of the situation is that there is no easy way to take out terrorists and dictators, and if you take a politically safe approach, you greatly increase your odds of not getting the bad guys at all. Actually, in 1991 I thought Bush Senior SHOULD have ignored all of his carping critics and gone all the way to Baghdad. But, like Clinton did with al Qaida, Bush Senior opted to play it safe, politically. Thus, problems that could have been eliminated a long time ago have come back to haunt us.
Russ Maheras
Fred wrote: “There is a big difference between supporting programming one doesn’t agree with, with your taxes and going off to kill and/or be killed for a program one doesn’t agree with. Big difference.”
In either hypothetical case, you are being forced by law to do something that you do not want to do. And don’t trivialize the tax issue, because it could also involve life and death situations.
For example, let’s say John Doe is a conscientious objector because he can’t stand the thought of being responsible for the death of another person. If there is a draft, and he gets drafted, is it OK for him to run off to Canada to avoid induction? What if John Doe is also against abortion and the death penalty for the same reason he’s against the draft? His tax money pays for government-funded abortions and executions, so is it also OK for him to stop paying taxes as well?
It’s not as big a difference as you may think.
Russ Maheras
Russ, and anyone else who addressed me:
1. I should state that originally, I supported the war in Iraq. Even after the end, when we found no WMDs, I wasn’t opposed to our presence there. NOW, however, when Bush doesn’t give a dámņ about the servicemen and women dying EVERY DAY for a half-assed excuse for a War on Terror, I oppose it. Three people from my home state have died recently – none of whom I knew, thank God – and more are sure to follow. We liberated the people there. Now they’re KILLING OUR PEOPLE.
No one wants us there. I do not wish to take part in something that is insignificant on a world scale. The far right can spout the “War on Terror!” crap all they want: Not finding WMD’s within a YEAR shows that Saddam, while an evil bášŧárd, was not ready to send his best men over here with suitcase nukes and the superflu.
2. As Peter said, if the draft is reinstated and I am threatened by it, I WILL move. It is not cowardice, because this fight is not for America, as much as the delusional would like to think it is. This is about GWB trying to prove he has the largest pëņìš on the planet by sending men and women to die. I _would_ give up my life to defend my country and the ideals which I believe in. I will _not_ die for an unjustified war in which there is no end in sight and no actual “bad guy” aside from the vague concept of terrorism.
You want me to cut through all the polite wording? George W. Bush, his cabinet, and any bigoted, narrow-minded jáçkáššëš who want to send me off to die in some miserable desert can blow me.
“But that somehow got construed as, “Sure, it’s okay to own shoulder-mounted rockets for home defense.”
This is not so far out there as the original writer may think.
Consider the Conservatives’ beloved concept of “Founding Fathers’ Original Intent” that is trotted out whenever there is a Supreme Court vacancy:
The true purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to make sure the ‘The People’ (who phillosophically ARE the government) could be armed in order to keep the Government in check. A government can’t oppress a people who are equally armed.
Extending that concept to 2004, one can argue that We The People have a right to own our own personal nuclear arsenal, equal to or greater than that controlled by the government.
(Of course, one would lose, but one can argue.)
As to the draft, under the same concept, in order to keep the government in check, rather than the military drafting me, I have a right to draft the existing military into my personal army as long as it IS to keep the government in check!
I’m sure the Republicans/Conservatives/Ruling Class would agree with this because after all, intellectal inconsistancy is the thing for which they condemn their ideological opposites.
Intriguing Thought
PeterDavid raises an interesting question: is the draft unconstitutional?…
Fred wrote: “There is a big difference between supporting programming one doesn’t agree with, with your taxes and going off to kill and/or be killed for a program one doesn’t agree with. Big difference.”
Russ:
>>In either hypothetical case, you are being forced by law to do something that you do not want to do. And don’t trivialize the tax issue, because it could also involve life and death situations.
I never inteded to trivialize the point, Russ. You understand your point and actually thought of that very example as I was typing. This example is one of extremes. One could also state that I support the death penelty or the Iraq War because I pay taxes. My taxes are broken down and distributed based on votes by “representatives” who give a small percentage to these areas. The big difference I pointed out comes in that I speak out against the war and will/would not pull a trigger over there in this scenerio. That would be a huge jump.
>>For example, let’s say John Doe is a conscientious objector because he can’t stand the thought of being responsible for the death of another person. If there is a draft, and he gets drafted, is it OK for him to run off to Canada to avoid induction? What if John Doe is also against abortion and the death penalty for the same reason he’s against the draft? His tax money pays for government-funded abortions and executions, so is it also OK for him to stop paying taxes as well?
If he is willing to face the consequences, sure.
>>It’s not as big a difference as you may think.
Again, I understand your point and respectfully disagree. The 2 similarities that I see are free choice and immediate, 1st person responsibility for intentially putting a bullet, mortar, etc into a living human being for a “crusade” that is dubious and ever-changing in its purpose. Is it possible that you may be minimizing the difference, while I am understating? 🙂
Fred wrote: “There is a big difference between supporting programming one doesn’t agree with, with your taxes and going off to kill and/or be killed for a program one doesn’t agree with. Big difference.”
Russ:
>>In either hypothetical case, you are being forced by law to do something that you do not want to do. And don’t trivialize the tax issue, because it could also involve life and death situations.
I never inteded to trivialize the point, Russ. You understand your point and actually thought of that very example as I was typing. This example is one of extremes. One could also state that I support the death penelty or the Iraq War because I pay taxes. My taxes are broken down and distributed based on votes by “representatives” who give a small percentage to these areas. The big difference I pointed out comes in that I speak out against the war and will/would not pull a trigger over there in this scenerio. That would be a huge jump.
>>For example, let’s say John Doe is a conscientious objector because he can’t stand the thought of being responsible for the death of another person. If there is a draft, and he gets drafted, is it OK for him to run off to Canada to avoid induction? What if John Doe is also against abortion and the death penalty for the same reason he’s against the draft? His tax money pays for government-funded abortions and executions, so is it also OK for him to stop paying taxes as well?
If he is willing to face the consequences, sure.
>>It’s not as big a difference as you may think.
Again, I understand your point and respectfully disagree. The 2 similarities that I see are free choice and immediate, 1st person responsibility for intentially putting a bullet, mortar, etc into a living human being for a “crusade” that is dubious and ever-changing in its purpose. Is it possible that you may be minimizing the difference, while I am overstating it? 🙂
If you are going to take a stand, at least be consistent.
I AM being consistent. I HAVE said that Bush only went as far as the UN Resolution allowed him to.
I guess you missed those parts.
You’re sitting here blaming Clinton for 9/11, so I gave a counterexample, where not playing it safe might have saved lives in the long run. Apparently you don’t like that.
Fred wrote: “Again, I understand your point and respectfully disagree. The 2 similarities that I see are free choice and immediate, 1st person responsibility for intentially putting a bullet, mortar, etc into a living human being for a “crusade” that is dubious and ever-changing in its purpose. Is it possible that you may be minimizing the difference, while I am understating? :)”
I really don’t think so. Where does responsibility start and stop in either hypothetical situation?
Food for thought.
Russ Maheras
“No, it’s a personal vendetta by the Bush Administration against Saddam.”
Not even Bob “Bernstein-and-I-took-down-Nixon” Woodward and his book were able to establish that. But, if fantasy works for you then, by all means, indulge.
Not even Bob “Bernstein-and-I-took-down-Nixon” Woodward and his book were able to establish that.
And Bush never outright stated that Saddam was being 9/11, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t enough left unsaid and between the lines to think the implication isn’t there.
Bush wanted Saddam out from day 1.
Besides, do you realize what you just said? Ðìçk Cheney was a former secretary of defense, and oversaw operations for Gulf War I, for Pete’s sake. I’d say that even though he never wore a uniform, with SecDef experience and White House chief of staff experience, he’s certainly no rookie when it comes to the military.
SecDef is primarily an administrative job, he comes up with some “big picture” ideas and reviews the budget. It’s the joint chiefs who actually implement military strategy.
I was just mocking your original statement that Kerry’s military advisers would all come from Hollywood. Unlike Bush or Ðìçk, he’s actually seen real combat, so I sincerely doubt he’ll take, say Oliver Stone’s opinions on military strategy all that serious.
“Bush wanted Saddam out from day 1.”
Of course he did. Saddam was a serious problem. Many forget that Iraq was firing on our jets throughout early-to-mid 2001, just to name one of the many things about Saddam that deserved action. But that does not change the consistently supported fact that Saddam was an active funder and cultivator of terrorism… thus making him a part of the War on Terror.
“Unlike Bush or Ðìçk, he’s actually seen real combat, so I sincerely doubt he’ll take, say Oliver Stone’s opinions on military strategy all that serious.”
Yeah, for all of four months. A magical four months, apparently, in which he “earned” three purple hearts and a Silver Star.
“Yeah, for all of four months. A magical four months, apparently, in which he “earned” three purple hearts and a Silver Star.”
But how much time did he also spend in training? And how much more time is that compared to members of the current administration?
I’m not trying to support either side here, just trying support thinking of as many relevant aspects of an issue as possible instead of relying on partial facts and buzz words/phrases that both sides tend to engage in.
Monkeys.
“But how much time did he also spend in training?”
Who cares? Training isn’t combat. The comparison was made between Bush/Cheney’s combat experience and Kerry’s and that is what I was commenting on. As far as the most relevent aspects to consider, I think Kerry’s voting record is his most significant. Bush’s is his presidential record.
“Unlike Bush or Ðìçk, he’s actually seen real combat, so I sincerely doubt he’ll take, say Oliver Stone’s opinions on military strategy all that serious.”
Yeah, for all of four months.
One day in combat can make you dead.
You can make a smarter comment than that,
By the way…getting shrapnel in the thighs and buttocks certainly qualifies you for a Bronze Star in my books.
Sure, Darin, and that’s why I’m NOT voting for Bush this year. Didn’t last time either.
I already know that I don’t like how Bush did the job this time out.
Ack. I meant Purple Heart….
Yeah, for all of four months. A magical four months, apparently, in which he “earned” three purple hearts and a Silver Star.
The merits of his medals (the GOP personal attack of the day) aside, that’s still four more months of combat experience than either Ðìçk or Bush has seen.
Rather than argue whether or not he deserved the medals, I’ll just note that you still haven’t said anything that supports your contention that Kerry’s military advisers would all come from Hollywood.
Bush’s is his presidential record.
I can’t think of a better reason to vote against Bush.
Rather than argue whether or not he deserved the medals…
Got a question: why are we still arguing this?
The medical records have been released. In two of the three incidents, there’s extremely hard physical evidence and eyewitness testimony about the injuries and actions taken. Why are we still getting snide comments when the documentation is as solid as you can get?
We’re arguing this because the GOP knows that if the want Bush to win in November, they have to utterly destroy Kerry in the public’s mind.
First:
Toby: I’d like to respectfully ask that you find another sign off other than “MONKEYS”. I know you’ve explained it before, but frankly, every time I see it I just can’t get past the idea that you’re calling us names, and sitting there laughing at the fact that we haven’t caught on yet. I am making a REQUEST, not a DEMAND.
If you say no, which, of course, you have every right to do, fine, but it will likely mean that I’m going to start skipping over your posts from now on because that sign off REALLY irritates me.
Alan Sinder:
I’m hardly “the gun nut’s” sole supporter, although I might be in this forum. I’d also like to point out that he and I also differed on our interpretations of the Constitution.
PAD:
That’s a very simplistic, and fairly inaccurate, summation of my position on the matter.
You have the advantage of me, sir, being the author of your position. I was going solely from memory and interpretation. Neither of which is flawless.
I’ve pointed out that the Second Amendment clearly links the necessity of maintaining a militia as being *the* rationale for the right to bear arms, and therefore have contended that anyone who owns guns should possess them for that specific purpose. And that anyone purchasing guns must be part of a militia and ready to go to war on their country’s behalf.
Once again, that’s YOUR interpretation. The 2nd Amendment makes no such stipulation that the ONLY reason for owning a gun is for it’s use in a militia. It IS the reason stated that your right to OWN them won’t be infringed upon.
If one is going to use the 2nd Amendment to say that one has the right to purchase a gun, one should use the whole Amendment, not just the half that carries no responsibility to use it to fight for America.
See? that’s the point I’m not reconciling with your argument as that was the point the “gun nut” was MAKING. You’re the one attempting to make the Amendment applicable ONLY for use in raising a militia.
“By the way…getting shrapnel in the thighs and buttocks certainly qualifies you for a Bronze Star in my books.”
Two eyewitnesses from Kerry’s unit have gone on record saying that his wounds were band-aid serious. He used the three purple hearts he “earned” to qualify for his star. He put himself in for all of his medals. No superior officer ever looked at his record and said, “this kid deserves a medal.” He gave himself his medals. This isn’t uncommon, by the way. He played up three minor scrapes in order to qualify for the “three purple heart rule” of the time that allowed someone with three such awards to leave Vietnam and not serve there again. It was all part of his plan.
A purple heart is not necessarily worth as much as one might automatically think. They are awarded for injuries sustained in a warzone or behind enemy lines. They can be awarded for serious injuries or, as in the case of someone I served with, as minor as a broken toe.
Kerry’s “war record” is a sham. It’s the flim-flam of a career-minded opportunist. He is, quite simply, not “all that.”
Toby: I’d like to respectfully ask that you find another sign off other than “MONKEYS”. I know you’ve explained it before, but frankly, every time I see it I just can’t get past the idea that you’re calling us names, and sitting there laughing at the fact that we haven’t caught on yet. I am making a REQUEST, not a DEMAND.
Giant radioactive dinosaurs.
Okay, how about rat snakes?
“By the way…getting shrapnel in the thighs and buttocks certainly qualifies you for a Bronze Star in my books.”
Two eyewitnesses from Kerry’s unit have gone on record saying that his wounds were band-aid serious. He used the three purple hearts he “earned” to qualify for his star. He put himself in for all of his medals. No superior officer ever looked at his record and said, “this kid deserves a medal.” He gave himself his medals. This isn’t uncommon, by the way. He played up three minor scrapes in order to qualify for the “three purple heart rule” of the time that allowed someone with three such awards to leave Vietnam and not serve there again. It was all part of his plan.
A purple heart is not necessarily worth as much as one might automatically think. They are awarded for injuries sustained in a warzone or behind enemy lines. They can be awarded for serious injuries or, as in the case of someone I served with, as minor as a broken toe.
Kerry’s “war record” is a sham. It’s the flim-flam of a career-minded opportunist. He is, quite simply, not “all that.”
Bûllšhìŧ. You hear what you want to hear.
Jim Rassmann sure as hëll doesn’t think that way. >HE
Hëll….my comments are getting chopped up…
Jim Rassmann was the one who recomended Kerry for a Silver Star. He was the one who was rescued by Kerry in the incident where Kerry received his third Purple Heart.
I suggest you talk to HIM about whether Kerry’s record is a sham.
As Darin continues to duck my comment with the medals distraction, I’ll put it out again:
Unlike Ðìçk and Bush, Kerry has first hand experience in combat. He has seen what the troops on the ground actually go through, so what is the basis for your statement that his military advisers will all be from Hollywood?
Jim Rassmann was the one who recomended Kerry for a Silver Star. He was the one who was rescued by Kerry in the incident where Kerry received his third Purple Heart.
I suggest you talk to HIM about whether Kerry’s record is a sham.
Oh, yes, of course that was a sham. Those fellows in the black pajamas just wanted to invite Rassman to a sleepover! Then that mean ol’ Lt. Kerry came in and made Rassman go home, and wouldn’t play nice with the pajama guys… 🙁
Meanwhile, brave warrior Lt. Bush was bravely defending the skies of Texas from the Commie threat – and then he went and singlehandedly (and bravely) drove Ho’s followers away from the Arkansas Campaign Trail!
Remember – Kerry showoff; Bush hero!
[/sarcasm]
How about a new thead regarding the draft.
Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers.
In his utopian society anyone could serve in the
military, but only veterans had the right to vote.
Not as a reward for serving, but because having
gone through military training and missions they
had beaten into their heads the lesson of putting
the needs of their groups ahead of their own
personal needs.
“Two eyewitnesses from Kerry’s unit have gone on record saying that his wounds were band-aid serious.”
Yeah, negative comments can ensue when lots of people remember you from your military service. So Kerry’s opponent this November has an advantage in that respect.
PAD
“Once again, that’s YOUR interpretation.”
It’s not an interpretation. It’s what’s there: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It’s a dependent clause. Because of this, then that.
“The 2nd Amendment makes no such stipulation that the ONLY reason for owning a gun is for it’s use in a militia. It IS the reason stated that your right to OWN them won’t be infringed upon.”
Right. For this specific reason, the right to own them won’t be infringed. But when you wander away from that specific reason, it’s a new ballgame. If the Founders wanted everyone to be able to own guns for any reason whatsoever, then they wouldn’t have bothered with the first clause. The fact that they went out of their way to provide context points to the ineluctable conclusion that they wanted citizen soldiers to be able to fight in organized fashion for their state at the drop of a hat. If someone is unable or unwilling to comply with that, then they shouldn’t have the right to bear arms. That simple.
PAD
Darin wrote: “Two eyewitnesses from Kerry’s unit have gone on record saying that his wounds were band-aid serious. He used the three purple hearts he “earned” to qualify for his star. He put himself in for all of his medals. No superior officer ever looked at his record and said, “this kid deserves a medal.” He gave himself his medals. This isn’t uncommon, by the way. He played up three minor scrapes in order to qualify for the “three purple heart rule” of the time that allowed someone with three such awards to leave Vietnam and not serve there again. It was all part of his plan.
Everyone seems to be of the opinion that Kerry’s status as a veteran- in fact, a war hero- makes him the better choice in a presidential election. Senator Bob Dole lost the use of his arm fighting WWII. George H. W. Bush was a decorated war hero as well. Then-Governor Clinton was a draft dodger who broke the law and spent part of the war in the soviet union. Did any of you vote for Clinton? How many of you would even be pretending you care about war record if Howard Dean were still in the running (remember, Dean got a deferment because of his crippling back injury, immediately thereafter taking a skiing vacation.) Come on, everyone. At least a little intelluctual honesty. I’m sure you’re say you dislike PRESIDENT Bush enough that it wouldn’t matter who he’s running against. I, on the other hand, am planning to vote FOR somebody this November. I would love to explain to anyone who does not understand the reasons we went to war with Iraq. There are many. You might not agree with all of them, but they I’ll go over them with anybody who is still confused.
Mr. David, let me also point out that even though we apparently differ politically, I am and will always be an enormous fan of your work. I first read Strike Zone when it was published, and I followed your career through The Hulk (esp. the Wolverine issue and the Dystopia special), the reborn X-Factor, the Trek comics and novels- I’m still waiting for the next Sachs and Violens! But even if we disagree on political matters, I and everyone here have one thing in common: David Peters is the best Photon writer of all time.
Seriously, it’s an honor.
Fred wrote: “Again, I understand your point and respectfully disagree. The 2 similarities that I see are free choice and immediate, 1st person responsibility for intentially putting a bullet, mortar, etc into a living human being for a “crusade” that is dubious and ever-changing in its purpose. Is it possible that you may be minimizing the difference, while I am understating? :)”
Russ:
>>I really don’t think so. Where does responsibility start and stop in either hypothetical situation?
>>Food for thought.
*Rereading my post, I realize that I really must begin waiting for my morning cffee to take effect befor posting*
I honestly have spent much time chewing on this food for thought in my mind over the past several years.
My responsibility as a taxpayer who opposes a given service, governmental policy or agency’s practice is to speak out vhemently, vote for those who will most closely reflect my beliefs, and t write letters to the appropriate persons.
My responsility as a “conscientious objector” (*** Knows that I hate that cliched term), is to make the choice to not take up arms should the time come that I’m told to do so.
The former is proactive and twice, thrice or even more removed from the situation, the latter is direct involvement and pulling the trigger so to speak.
I hope that this response is a bit more articulate and clarifies my stance a bit more clearly than my other posts.
PAD : “Yeah, negative comments can ensue when lots of people remember you from your military service. So Kerry’s opponent this November has an advantage in that respect.”
It also doesn’t help when you post someone else’s military record on your official website and try to pass it off as your own. There’s integrity for you.
“In his utopian society anyone could serve in the
military, but only veterans had the right to vote.”
Not exactly. Heinlein’s Starship Troopers world was set up so that one had to volunteer for federal service, but not necessarily in the military, in order to vote.
“As Darin continues to duck my comment with the medals distraction”
I’m not ducking your question. I’m commenting on the premise of your segwey into your question. But since you seem to want me to answer the question, I’ll say I doubt very highly that a President Kerry would take military advise from Oliver Stone as well.
“Jim Rassmann was the one who recomended Kerry for a Silver Star.”
Sure, he may have recommended him, but Kerry essentially promoted himself. He ASKED for the Silver Star, in civilian lingo. It wouldn’t matter how many recommendations he had by whomever, the commanding officer of Kerry’s unit had to put him in for the Silver Star. The commanding officer of Kerry’s unit was Kerry. Kerry “earned” it because he shot and killed a VC who had already been wounded by his boat’s 50 calibur deck gun. Ever see what a 50cal does to the human body? That VC couldn’t have been very alive when Kerry, in an act of utter stupidity, grounded his boat and leaped out to finish this VC off. His crewmates told him he was dead, but Kerry put a round in the VC’s body anyway just so he could say that “he” killed the dangerous, uber-threatening VC who apparently threatened Rassmun so much. Grounding one’s PBR is a court-martialable offense, btw.
“You said
continued from last post…
The simple fact that Kerry had three purple hearts, supposedly from three seperate injuries, all within four months and none of which seem to have given him any longterm problems throws some dubiousness or question into the validity, or perhaps just the severity, of his injuries.
Fred wrote: “The former is proactive and twice, thrice or even more removed from the situation, the latter is direct involvement and pulling the trigger so to speak.”
Only a small percentage of people in the military ever have to directly shoot at, or bomb anyone, thus, in my opinion, your stated rationale of “direct involvement” does not really justify becoming a conscientious objector. Military chaplains don’t shoot at people, and neither do medical personnel. In the Air Force, you could be a cargo aircraft or tanker pilot, an aircraft navigator, or a loadmaster, and unless you were in special operations, you could spend 20 years in your specialty and never shoot at anyone. In the Navy, if you are a ship’s nuclear propulsion technician, intel specialist, or aircraft catapult mechanic, you’ll never shoot at anyone, either. Ever!
As a matter of fact, there are hundreds of military specialties where the only time you may ever see or fire a weapon is on the target range for qualification training. Things are, of course, different in the Army and Marine Corps, but even in those branches of service, there are lots of people who never fire a shot in anger.
So you could easily serve with a clear conscience — provided you don’t back off from your “direct involvement” rationale.
Russ Maheras
As long as it came up:
I went off Googling for Second Amendment references and found what seems (to me) to be a well-balanced article on the subject written by someone who claims to be in favor of gun control. You can find it here:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html
Sure, he may have recommended him, but Kerry essentially promoted himself. He ASKED for the Silver Star, in civilian lingo. It wouldn’t matter how many recommendations he had by whomever, the commanding officer of Kerry’s unit had to put him in for the Silver Star. The commanding officer of Kerry’s unit was Kerry. Kerry “earned” it because he shot and killed a VC who had already been wounded by his boat’s 50 calibur deck gun. Ever see what a 50cal does to the human body? That VC couldn’t have been very alive when Kerry, in an act of utter stupidity, grounded his boat and leaped out to finish this VC off. His crewmates told him he was dead, but Kerry put a round in the VC’s body anyway just so he could say that “he” killed the dangerous, uber-threatening VC who apparently threatened Rassmun so much. Grounding one’s PBR is a court-martialable offense, btw.
Sorry, but you’re not making a whole lot of sense here, nor does it match up with a whole lot of what’s been published. Published reports I’ve seen quotes an eyewitness who saw Kerry chase down a lightly wounded enemy who was ducking behind a hut.
Now, it could possibly be that he shot a combatant who was essentially taken care of by his boat’s weapon, but that seems to be in ADDITIOn to this other kill.
The very idea that he could have earned three purple hearts and a silver star when most other servicemen serving in the jungles and on the front lines for far longer earned tells you something
It tells you that he volunteered for an operation (Operation Sealords) that had 75% casualties (according to Adm Elmo Zumwalt). I would NOT consider getting three Purple hearts for that unit that surprising.
And Kerry’s division commander, George Elliott had no problem with his actions, “This was an exemplary action. There’s no question about it.”
Well, Russ, in some specialties, it depends on how strictly you define “direct involvement”.
When I enlisted in the AF, I was a coputer programmer, sent directly to HQ SAC in Nebraska. Sounds pretty peaceful, right? Especially during the ’80s?
My job was writing software to help plan the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) – to make sure that if the balloon went up, our weapons wouldn’t destroy each other on the way in. (You’d be amazed at what can set off an armed fusion warhead – everything from explosively-propelled debris, to neutron flux from another warhead going off.)
Trust me – if you have a vivid imagination, the last job you want is one where the devices employed are measured for effectiveness in terms like “megadeaths”. My service was “peacetime” – but I still dealt with bizarre nightmares for most of the ensuing decade. (My least favorite was the one where something went wrong in one of my programs, and that sparked WWIII…)
Everyone seems to be of the opinion that Kerry’s status as a veteran- in fact, a war hero- makes him the better choice in a presidential election
Not I — or at least, not in the sense of “being a war hero automatically makes him the best choice.” In the primaries, I voted for and contributed to Dean over Kerry, and still maintain he’d have been a better choice.
In the scheme of veteranhood, being a decorated vet beats the hëll out of being AWOL, yes, but I’m voting based more on policy, on the sorts of court appointments he will or won’t make, and on the fact that he generally seems to be intelligent enough to surround himself with competent people who come closer to my views than Bush does.
The vet thing, at least for this voter, is just icing on the cake that I think will help in the campaign — it’s by no means the only, the first, or even in the top ten list of reasons I have for voting for him.
Frankly, I think there are far better issues for the election to turn on than either candidate’s past in Vietnam — but y’know, if Karl Rove et al. really think trying to hammer Kerry on whether the wounds he got in Vietnam were serious enough to justify a Purple Heart, while Bush in that same period was busy snorting coke off a høøkër’s ášš and avoiding flight physicals … well, I’m just politely perplexed is all.
TWL
If the issue of a thorough debate on Second Amendment would advance here, perhaps this site — http://www.saf.org/AllLawReviews.html — also found via google, might offer more breadth and scope to this hotly debated Amendment.