97 replies to this topic

[thefirstimmortal]

T.F.I.,

What does T.F.I. mean?

[thefirstimmortal]

ImmInst's first priority is not to be a Free Speech haven. 

ImmInst's first priority is to its mission.

CarboniX has demonstrated a commitment to ImmInst's mission and has been elected to the Leadership position of Navigator.  He was acting to further the mission and in response to my suggestions... which were unclear.  Leadership has since outlined Moderation guidelines which should help.

The braoder point has been lost. The stated mission statement is "The mission of ImmInst is to conquer the blight of involuntary death", and nothing in this thread hampered the mission. In fact since many people die in wars, this thread speaks volumes of support for the mission.

...and yet it was still attacked.

Bruce, almost a week ago, we started posting on proposed changes, this thread was designed to shed light on one of the areas of change. Now is a good time to revisit that thread... So follow me back to the "vote" thread.

[Bruce Klein]

...and nothing in this thread hampered the mission

This is a real gray area... and I could be wrong.. but I instinctively feel that discussion which falls outside of Posting Guidelines represents a negative blow to the mission of ending involuntary death because it impedes on the helpful and logical flow of information... such logical flow is important because we don't have unlimited time in which to read everything anyone wishes to post here here in the forum at ImmInst.

Sadly, ImmInst needs to impose some limitation on speech. Maybe, as a compromise, I can create another site/forum and call it UltimateFreeSpeach.org and let anyone post anything there.

[thefirstimmortal]

This is a real gray area... and I could be wrong.. but I instinctively feel that discussion which falls outside of Posting Guidelines represents a negative blow to the mission of ending involuntary death because it impedes on the helpful and logical flow of information... such logical flow is important because we don't have unlimited time in which to read everything anyone wishes to post here here in the forum at ImmInst. 

Sadly, ImmInst needs to impose some limitation on speech.  Maybe, as a compromise, I can create another site/forum and call it UltimateFreeSpeach.org and let anyone post anything there.

You have a logical and easy solution available, one that involves inclusion, instead of exclusion. You could simply in the forums section, create such a forum way on the bottom, and in the user agreement and by-laws include language that specified that the area (perhaps it could be called ImmInst. CompleteFreeSpeachSpace) was a free speech forum, and that it could possibly contain material that some could find offensive because it was not covered by the posting guidlines. That's a great win-win situation. Think about all of the problems that it would solve. 99% of the site could be regulated without complaint, if someone posted outside the guidlines in the main area they could gently be moved to that section, thus avioding arguing about the vague guidlines. Anyone entering the site would know prior to entering that section that it could be offensive. Any member having a post that could possibly be outside the guidline could post in that area rather than run the risk of testing it in the regular forums. One small section, that's all it would take. I recommend that we put "Fuck the Draft" in there, and any other past offensive posts. What could be more fair than that. One small section.

[Bruce Klein]

Yes.. I think this will work.. would The Catcher be such a compromise forum?

[thefirstimmortal]

Yes.. I think this will work.. would The Catcher be such a compromise forum?

Oh, let's work the details out tomorrow, and be happy that we seem to have a wonderful win-win solution to work with.

[thefirstimmortal]

[lol]

[thefirstimmortal]

Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one act that could most easily defeat us.

[thefirstimmortal]

Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.

[thefirstimmortal]

A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to.

[randolfe]

This has been a most interesting thread. While I agree with thefirstimmortal in his arguments against censorship and think he won this "particular" argument, other things should be considered.
If simple profanity got this site X-rated and banned from libraries and surf-safe shields, our ideas would become prisoners of "adult-only" dimensions. Yet, I am certain that the younger visitors are here, the more open they might be to the idea of embracing immortality. I know that is the case at all the human cloning sites.
Laz's comments on how a word for consentual sex assumes non-consenual dimensions is interesting.

I think that is because males use the word as a threatened attack on the other.

The etiology of profanity is a fascinating topic. I have two friends who exemplify that idea. One is a 40-year-old pot-smoking hippie who gets upset any time I use
profanity. It is just ingrained in him by his upbringing.

The other friend used to do entire humorous routines about how one term seemed to be repeated by low class minority men every other sentence.

I agree that emotionally laden words destroy mental discussion. Look at the Jerry Springer Show. All the women can call each other there is "bitch".

The idea of "totally free speech" is very destructive. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Also, you can't advocate assassinating a public official.

I totally agree with your sentiments. I have a friend who fled the country during the Vietnam War after the AP carried a photo of eating his draft card with ketchup on it. He has lived in exile ever since and is now trapped in Jakarta, Indonesia. I think he made an equally strong statement against the draft as the boy wearing the jacket and he didn't have to use profanity to do it.

I wonder what you thought of today's flack over Sen. John Kerry using the "F" word in a Rolling Stone interview? You realize that "rehabilitating" one word would simply lead to it being replaced by another unspeakable term.

[thefirstimmortal]

Top Story for Jan 7, 2004.

Should the Draft Be Reinstated?

With U.S. forces stretched thin and many reservists on full-time duty, some urge a draft for reasons of fairness and practicality. Opponents say it's unnecessary and dangerous


Now, read in light of todays top story, does this thread not take on a different flavor.

And today I Celebrate the musical genius of Rap Star artist Eminem, who during the middle of the war had the courage to question power and asked life's difficult questions on the possibility that we could have another draft. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.

Yeh you laugh til your motherfucking ass gets drafted
When you're in bed here thinking the draft cant happen
'Til you fuck around getting anthrax napkin
Inside a package wrapped in saranrap wrapping
Open the plastic, and then you stand back gasping
Fucking assassins hijacking anthrax crashing
All this terror, America demands action
Next thing you know, you've got uncle sam's ass asking
To join our army, or what you do for their navy
You just a baby getting recruited at 18
You're on a plane now eating their food and their baked beans
I'm 28, they 'gon take you 'fore they take me
Crazy insane or insane crazy?
When I say Hussein, you say Shady!

From the Album "The Eminem Show", title track, Square Dance

MichaelAnissimov
William, I don't really care about the draft. I'm not afraid one will happen. If I were drafted, I would probably just run away to Canada.

I have my doubts about them getting the draft reinstated too Michael, but if this thing grows legs, wanna go half's on a place in Canada?

[Lazarus Long]

What? Are you looking for a housewarmer?
Aren't you beyond the age of worrying about this one personally?

I will piss a lot of people off, I think the draft is a good idea though it could already be too late as the social protection against tyranny that it has traditionally been..

[randolfe]

I don't know where Laz got the idea that the draft is "social protection" against tyranny. When I was draft age, I felt very strongly that "the state" did not have the right to draft me, to possibly cost me my life without my consent.

I felt even more strongly about all that with the event of the Vietnam War. To me, the real heroes of that war were those who chose to go to Canada rather than become murderers of innocent civilians for the USA's war on communism.

I think I would feel just as strongly if faced with going to Iraq to fight George Bush's supposed war on terrorism.

My idea of immortality is not being a name carved in a curved piece of stone like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. That is not to say that I am not patriotic. I would probably have volunteered to fight in World War II.

No one can ever achieve immortality if government has the right to sacrifice your life for its purposes.

[Lazarus Long]

I was against the Vietnam War and I was number 17 when the last draft was called off. I was not happy about it and I argued conscientious objector status but I do believe in the idea of service as a standard requirement of a democratic state and as for the importance of the draft it is the best way to prevent the all volunteer army from turning into the SS someday.

After a lot of serious study of history I came to agree with the principle of a citizen army, and as the militia is not the standard of this imperial Republic the draft is the default mode. I do not in fact think the idea of a standing army is entirely constitutional but as the standing navy is; the argument is moot.

For what it is worth I was never inducted as a draftee and later in life I volunteered for service and did so honorably. I do not think we can prevent the volunteer army, especially as it s becoming essentially a remake of the Roman Auxiliaries to the Legions, manned by immigrants from becoming an eventual threat domestically. It is more likely than disbandment so drafting is the fall-back mode.

For what it is worth I would prefer unilateral disarmament and the elimination of the standing army along with a stand-down from the military industrial economic system upon which we depend. But in a democracy, even a peaceful one, I still think there should be a period of public service after university (or high school which ever first ends the education) required for both genders. Of course it could be argued that we don't really have a democracy and there is sadly some merit in that postition.

Like I said, I didn't expect to please a lot of folks or win many people over to my point of view. )

[DJS]

I do believe in the idea of service as a standard requirement of a democratic state and as for the importance of the draft it is the best way to prevent the all volunteer army from turning into the SS someday.

This was the position taken by Charlie Rangle (D-NY) in the days leading up to the second Gulf War. He went so far as to try to push draft legislation through Congress. He failed in his attempt as the DOD values the voluntary nature of our current standing army and viewed his efforts as nothing more than political grand standing cloaked in legislation.

They were probably right. Charlie had to know that his efforts were doomed to failure. However his line of reasoning is valid. Tell a man that "his army" is going to the other side of the world to take care of business and he'll probably say, "Ah, why the hell not, go for it." Tell him that he's coming along for the ride and he may think twice.

Poll after poll taken at college campuses across the country show support for an aggressive foreign policy approach at significantly higher levels than during the Vietnam War. Could this be, at least in part, a result of a volunteer army creating a "detached reality" for the youth of this country? I think so.

DonS

[bacopa]

It would be kind of cool to have a totally free speech forum to get our frustrations out, but I thought that was already established in the "free speech forum." However I think Michael and Bruce have a good point as swearing can turn logical thought, especially towards a specific goal, into mush. Merely screaming obscenities can be childish and counter-productive.

[DJS]

It would be kind of cool to have a totally free speech forum to get our frustrations out, but I thought that was already established in the "free speech forum."  However I think Michael and Bruce have a good point as swearing can turn logical thought, especially towards a specific goal, into mush.  Merely screaming obscenities can be childish and counter-productive.

Yeah, I agree. Although, as long as the intent is to remain civil, an occasional swear within the right context should be permissible. I try to edit my vulgarities so as not to offend...f*** or sh**. [thumb] [lol] Also, swearing in text just doesn't have the same appeal as swearing verbally.

[bacopa]

f***ing ** it...you're right! Well I'll be a **** ** @&$%!!

[thefirstimmortal]

Nice Avatar Don

[thefirstimmortal]

=dfowler It would be kind of cool to have a totally free speech forum to get our frustrations out, but I thought that was already established in the "free speech forum."

We do have such a forum, and this thread should be moved there (God damit')

[thefirstimmortal]

=Lazarus Long
Aren't you beyond the age of worrying about this one personally?

Hmm, Yeah Laz, I'm so old I don't even have a specific memory of performing my civic duty by registering for the draft. Believe me, the country is better off if I stay away from our wars anyway, I am far too ignorant to add anything but randomness to the outcome. Even if I were uncaring enough to register for the draft, I wouldn’t know how to register without exposing myself to unnecessary risk, when you factor in the odds of being hit by a stray bullet while standing in line at the post office, registering seems downright reckless. My cat needs me alive, despite any outward signs to the contrary, such as dragging me into the litter box and covering me with sand.

I'm not even sure I want to register my car through the post office right now, I’m afraid they’ll throw my registration application in the wrong bag and I’ll end up in the military. The next thing I know, I’m a Navy SEAL. I’m fairly certain I would be killed by my own squad in order to put an end to my incessant seal puns.

[Lazarus Long]

While your likelihood of surviving being a SEAL has more to do with your ability to catch on than blubber being one who has been threatened for making excessive puns is something I do understand, and as for seal jokes well my real name says it all.

BTW, I thought you wanted this thread where it is but if you feel it should be moved then I can do so. And the reason it is called a draft as opposed to voluntary service is that most rational people have better things to do with their lives. But this is that fine line that describes the bottom up and top down distinctions between social and individual responsibility. I can actually see more reason for the draft in order to maintain a free society (now that is a paradox ) ) than taxation.

People think their state owes them something and they owe nothing in the bargain, conversely the state feels we owe it whatever it needs and it denies its own liability and obligation in the matter claiming such things as "eminent domain".

Such concepts as the draft make the relationship quickly more personal and as Don astutely points out, people are vastly more willing to engage in imperial action by proxy than when it might be themselves and/or their own children immediately threatened. This is the area of complex socio-psychology that also relates to a profound and ancient concept that is out of vogue but whose lack is shown in the weakening character of the young, "a rite of passage."

As a species part of what defines the transition to adulthood was a rite of passage involving a practical demonstration of social responsibility and the affirmation of "basic survival skills". What we have substituted for this (petty religious and social rituals) has not done well to preserve the ethical integrity of most people today and there has only been one full generation to really grow to maturity assuming general social responsibility.

A society like ours that maintains an all volunteer army of the character that is developing will inevitably develop a professional military class and this idea is anathema to the long term internal stability of a free society. Sooner or later as that class of military industrialists becomes ever more powerful both strategically and economically while concentrated within its own social milieu as a subculture of a dominant more liberal society. It will move inevitably to cross the Rubicon and assert a domesticate agenda.

Counter-intuitive to what most understand this is more likely without the draft than with it. Democracy cannot long endure cohabiting the same state as a professional army that is why the founders argued the vital importance of the maintenance of a militia that would be representative of the local interests and less likely to shoot upon their own neighbors when called to put down domestic social unrest. More and more the battle tactics of the modern military will be designed with suppressive social ends; who do any of you think you are that you will stop this from the outside?

Build the Imperial Guard and do not occupy its ranks and sooner or later there will be none that can stop its push for power from the outside. History is rife with vastly more examples of this happening than any exceptions to the threat I suggest. I know that some of you here might think you can maintain a leash strong enough on this war dog but you cannot from the outside, only from the inside and this is the inspiration left to us by Washington.

Genocide has always been the fall-back mode of the military mindset. Are you trained warriors, urban guerrillas with the Art of War on your palm pilots? Most of you have no idea of the scope of real military power except what you see from Hollywood and games. Neutron bombs can make very sudden and decisive weapons for urban renewal.

You think you can stop that with demonstrations?

They just make convenient targets of opportunity.

As I said I was against the draft in my youth but I was against the war I was being drafted for. It was this very idea that made stopping the Vietnam war possible as we did and conversely not having a draft made our blithe unilateral entry into Iraq possible. In the long run the advantages of the draft outweigh the risks for having it in a democratic society.

[thefirstimmortal]

=Lazarus Long

BTW, I thought you wanted this thread where it is but if you feel it should be moved then I can do so. 

I thought it should stay, but if people are offended by the words employed here, it might be wise to move it before someone starts finding that infamous delete button. I'll leave the matter of moving this thread up to all of you to decide.

My comment "We do have such a forum, and this thread should be moved there (God damit') " was one of those incessant puns .

Like I said, I didn't expect to please a lot of folks or win many people over to my point of view.

You raise some very valid issues for the draft. If every Congressmans child was subject to go after all, maybe they would think twice about war.

[Lazarus Long]

BTW, to be clear I do not think gender should provide an exemption from the draft, and educational and parental status should at best be a deferment till a later date.

Also I do not think all forms of service to be filled by draftees should be necessarily military in nature, but they should reflect areas of skill the person has in relation to the general needs of society.

Being the scions of political and economic family interests should definitely not be a deferment but instead a contributory validation of merit and a reason for added media scrutiny with a 'fairness standard' measured by the publics' right to know.

Also Libertarians be warned here and now, for this issue you are entering a mine field. You expect the State to provide for the defense of the Nation, as one of the few legitimate roles it is suffered to exist for. So now explain how to do so.

I began by saying I prefer the concept of the militia but as we are developing a professional military class the idea of a militia is impossible to balance against this.

Again; if the State owes you protection then you owe the State participation in the form of service.

[DJS]

Nice Avatar Don 

Thank you. Seeing all of the new avatars on this site motivated me to make an upgrade.

Laz, the very nature of what you call the "professinal military class" is changing, as I'm sure you're aware. Already, many aspects of recon and intel gathering are being done remotely via global hawk. And let's not forget the offense oriented Predator. Soon most tanks and artillery will have the option of a remote feed as well. Combine that with new nanomaterials which promise to make nearly indestructable foot soldiers and I think the very concept of a draft becomes infeasible. The numbers generated would (are?) no longer be necessary and the skills required to operate such advanced technologies would probably be beyond that of the typical draftee. Do I sound too much like a DOD spokesman? [lol]

Still, your logic is valid, although I fail to see a realistic possibility of it's implimentation.


Just a thought... How many years before being drafted means having to commit eight hours a day to a VR consol?

DonS

[Lazarus Long]

Just a thought... How many years before being drafted means having to commit eight hours a day to a VR consol?

This is definitely a probable outcome along with all the remote tech being used domestically as well as on foreign soil. In fact it is already happening and the legislation is proceeding to legalize the results.

The numbers required increases the risks as wealth and real military power concomitantly combine in the hands of fewer and fewer members of this subclass of society. Eventually those dependent on defense by proxy have to either revolt to defend their interests or conform. Their ability to successfully revolt is minimized by their inadequacy of general involvement in the military or understanding of the basic tenets of warfare.

This is the case of who watches the watchers?

Remember those few juggernaut soldiers will be in possession of weapons of mass destruction unchallenged by the populace as well as many less lethal but highly potent mechanisms for mass manipulation. A draft ensures there are more citizen watchdogs in the ranks of those closest to the triggers.

During the Vietnam War Jim Morrison acclaimed to the world " You've got the guns but we've got the numbers. We want the world and we want it now".

WMD's alter that relationship to Frank Zappa's cynical lament
It can't happen here...

Do you think for one minute if the SS in WWII had been in possession of a neutron bomb they would have fought in the Warsaw ghetto, Stalingrad, or Leningrad?

They are not yet behaviorally the same but structurally the similarities between the modern military and the "Death's Head Divisions" are too close to ignore since they are not an accident. Our Special Forces are intentionally designed on the German military force of the same mission developed in WWII.

Also let me be frank I am proud of our military and I am not accusing that class of being inherently fascist but time is the issue and politics is the game, sooner or later a generation will be born that will abuse the power this subclass will inevitably possess more and more, to its advantage.

Also the "Professional military" is being now divided into internal subclasses that do not serve the general interests of society except as a socio-economic ladder for the poorest element of our country But these less educated folks are relegated to disposable assets status being manipulated by a lifer higher educated class of NCO's, Warrants, and Officers. This is too much like what transpired in Rome to be ignored. The use of migrants and the expanded military roles into multiple foreign theaters directly guarantees this behavioral isolation of class and can be analyzed as related to the history of empire.

You are noting the tech again but as our previous debate outlined and the facts on the ground have since established the tech has its limits and grunts do the dirty work. We are building a garrison outpost (hill-fort) occupation and we are going to have to occupy more and more territory to defend our supply chain. As we have begun alienating our allies the supply chain will be less defended by parallel interests and under greater attack from sophisticated opponents we are turning former allies into. This obviously is going to require simultaneous proxy armies as well a significant investment in our own force.

Or a significant change in policy by an electorate capable of a major reality check.

You are correct in assuming I am not holding my breath on that one.

[thefirstimmortal]

=Lazarus Long
Also Libertarians be warned here and now, for this issue you are entering a mine field.  You expect the State to provide for the defense of the Nation, as one of the few legitimate roles it is suffered to exist for.  So now explain how to do so.

Again; if the State owes you protection then you owe the State participation in the form of service.

I know I've waffled like a politician on this issue in the past. I've posted that the State does not owe us protection, and I have also said that it is one of the few legitimate roles of Government.

[DJS]

The question that I am surprised you are not asking Lazarus is, "What exactly is the State protecting us from?" All of your dialogue with me regarding group competition, the root causes of war and beginning a process of deescalating violent interaction...does this have nothing to do with the matter at hand? Isn't this the very grounds that draft dodgers during the Vietnam War used to justify their actions?

[Lazarus Long]

Ultimately they will claim they may be protecting us from ourselves and that is all the pretext they seek Don.

Mr. Bill O'Rights and everyone let's have a peek at the Second Amendment for a moment and compare it to the principle elements of the body of the Constitution:

Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution begins with a series of clauses that;

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

To borrow Money ...

Regulate Commerce...

Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization and Law...

Coin money and regulate the value there of...

and numerous more clauses found here:
United States Constitution

But the lead above continues in the same section to these clauses that are the true beginning of the issue before us.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

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;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

Article 2, Section 2 reads:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

As this is the order and precise wording of the Constitution let us be clear the question of scientific development was a principle order of the constitution and defines a measure of defense.

The Document however is amended, beginning with the Amendment after the First that Bill O'Rights is so fond of and that the left hates and the right loves. It is the Second Amendment that suddenly everyone is going to do an about face on because exactly how this is interpreted is not how most people take it to mean.

In fact lets look at the 2,3, and 4 Amendments as they relate to the establishment of the principle of "Security" as defined by the architects of the United States Constitution.

AMENDMENT II

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.

AMENDMENT III

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 IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So I ask you all to consider: How does the responsible exercise of the citizens' Constitutional responsibility of participation within a militia get enacted by a general proscription of firearms and the end of the draft that determines general participation within the only duly structured militia allowed under the social compact we have come to?

You see the first part is in place and the building of the military industrial complex can be traced directly to Constitutional mandate as "Science and the useful Arts as the providers (not Private Enterprise, nor the Marketplace of Industry) but the balance of power was presumed to reside in the community and endowed in a division of power defined by the body and text of this same document for the actual participatory right and responsibility of self determination of the collective and individual defense. The very "concept" of the Right of Self Defense emanates from this central idea presented here.

The logic of these articles assumes the existence of the draft but does not state it as such and for that reason does not provide for disarmament of the electorate, which is why the right is correct the left has a right to arm itself too. Is that the next logical step?

In fact it shouldn't be as the draft ensures a random selection of the general populace as you can still volunteer but a certain percentage of the active service should be required to be maintained as draftees. In addition to being applied to a variety of governmental tasks involving service in the defense of the nation. Some of that should be in academic fields because the military is not the only are in need of defense for public security and the protection of the house and home as well as the general welfare are included as part of the language that combines these concepts int a coherent logic. That is why I am showing how the framers use the words security in other aspects of the document before us.

Basically the draft is a given under some circumstance but what was more important and stated was that the draftee should arrive armed and pay for much of their own billeting. Ironically that was why Jessica Lynch had hospital bills for her own food. Why you buy your own uniforms etc.

This is important because we have been sliding away from the central principle of ensured citizenry participation in the ranks of the military and the limits of the military were such that it was consider to exist under close scrutiny and suffrage of the citizens at close quarters.

Of course it has changed but these aspects are encrypted into the manner and order they are for a reason, to prevent the very idea that the army should ever be granted the authority to be a dictatorial force over the people.

I am more convinced than ever of the importance of this issue, as I read and listened at great length this afternoon to the Neo-Cons come out vociferously against the draft that I am correct on the fundamental importance of this concern and will respond to your question Don.

"What exactly is the State protecting us against?"

What nonchalance Don, I am surprised, do you have the faith of a devout Christian as to believe the Lion of the Military is about to lay with the Lamb of Citizenry.?

So an all volunteer professional military is the wave of the future?

If nothing else appeared to be citing scripture as a description of a miracle this one is.

If the sheep expect to herd the wolf then water shall flow uphill.

Have you got any water to turn to wine too?.

Let us do as the founders for a moment and close with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:


AMENDMENT IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be con-strued to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So how does an unarmed populace intend to defend itself against the defenders?

Now we get to litigate not merely for domestic consumption but in the court of world opinion before a global jury of our peers the difference between a rule of Law and the Jungle.