Wingnut Blogger Equates Rangel's Draft Proposal with "Slavery"

[BurtWorm]

Hey! Some DUers and this wingnut have found some common ground!

:patriot:

<see original for hysterical and generous application of bold text>

http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2006/11/charles_rangel_.html

Charles Rangel Thinks He Owns You

...


Democrat Charles Rangel thinks he owns you. He feels perfectly entitled to demand that you drop whatever you are doing anywhere in America -- studying for college, learning a trade, launching a small business, starting a family -- so you can instead devote two full years of your life to promote Charles Rangel's political agenda.

Rangel doesn't care what plans anyone may have made for their own life as an adult in the land of the free. His message is: "Welcome to adulthood. Now do whatever the government tells you to."

Of course he's trying to make it sound positive. You'll be "serving" this "great republic!"

Mind you, telling grown men and women what kind of work they will or will not be permitted to do -- and for what compensation, if any -- is not what made this republic great.

But you'll be "serving" in "hospitals!" or maybe "seaports!" or maybe "airports!"

Maybe you'll even be allowed to "serve" in the Congress of this great republic and polish Charlie Rangel's shoes!

See, central planners in the government know better than you do what are good uses of your time.

[tk2kewl]

1. did anyone explian to the asshat that "freedom isn't free"

[Dems Will Win]

40. Don't listen to the wingnuts or Media. Listen to Dems Will Win:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2767636

TOP 5 DRAFT MYTHS DEBUNKED!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. You are right, that common ground should be quite uncomfortable

so did Mr. Wingnut also tell us that freedom isn't free? It is time to shup up or put up for right wing nuttery

[Warpy]

13. Um

Even stopped clocks are right twice a day.

[KingFlorez]

3. Say what??!!

These nuts supported this war, now they are saying that it's slavery to serve? This is the type of reaction I expected.

[EdwardM]

17. What would be worse, being a slave or being drafted into Iraq?

I can't answer that. But at least with slavery, you get to keep a clean conscience.

[Phredicles]

4. I personally agree that conscription bears to close a resemblace to

slavery for my comfort: "The state owns your ass; now get it over to the front lines of the war we created".

Just because a wingnut says the sky is blue, that doesn't make it green...

[northernsoul]

5. I believe that a military draft does violate the 13th Amendment

as it is a form of involuntary servitude. Wingnut hypocrisy above notwithstanding, I would hope that my fellow liberals would agree with me that human beings should not be government property.

[BlooInBloo]

8. Wow! What a discovery! An amendment that contradicts the Constitution!

With neither being let go.

Genius.

[northernsoul]

25. How does the 13th Amendment violate the constitution?

I don't understand your point. Sometimes I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Please explain.

[BurtWorm]

12. Your spin doesn't make it fact.

[northernsoul]

24. With all due respect

My position is not mere spin. I've thought long and hard about this, I've found other constitutional cases supporting my position (this was several years ago, I don't have them at hand right now) that the government cannot compel specific and personal services without prior judgment. My position has not been recognized by the Supreme Court yet - so in that sense it is not "fact."
Would you have been so dismissive of someone who held the position that racial segregation was unconstitutional before Brown v. Board of Education? That people had a right to decisional autonomy regarding their reproductive conduct before Roe v. Wade? To my knowledge, the court has never addressed whether a military draft is violative of the 13th Amendment prohibition on involuntary servitude. If it has, please let me know.

I can't understand why so many liberals are so eager to see theirs' and others' kids become cannon fodder for PNAC's failed fantasies of unending warfare.

[BurtWorm]

30. You start by claiming you're just looking at the the law objectively

then end up tossing in the usual argument from emotion to confuse the issue. Of course liberals--even those who think the draft may be a good idea--don't want to see "kids become cannon fodder" for PNAC or anyone else.

We're talking at cross-purposes, though, because you start with the assumption that the draft is about stealing poor bodies to fight rich men's wars (which is certainly always a danger), but I start with the assumption that in a democracy, the people ought to have a stake in any decision to go to war. Politicians ought not to take for granted that the army is "volunteer," and, therefore, they can throw whatever war they want. They ought to have to deal with the possible wrath of the people if they try to send their sons and daughters to war for no good reason, as they had to face during the Vietnam war. The whole reason the military became volunteer is precisely so politicians had that barrier between themselves and the general electorate on matters of war. But look at what this policy hath wrought: a class of soldiers who are easily manipulated by the right wing, and war after war after war thrown just so the executive can flex muscle in time for the next election.

I hasten to add what I've said above: there should be no draft installed while the war in Iraq is on.

[northernsoul]

38. Ok, one last point and then let's get on with our lives

What is my argument from emotion? The only point I was trying to make is that we accept that the constitution imbues people with certain rights, and that sometimes it takes a while before the USSC writes a decision that makes that clear. I think that Plessy v. Ferguson was wrongly decided (by a truly "activist" court), and that when the court finally got it right in Brown v. Board, it wasn't creating a new 14th amendment right, but rather was articulating a right that had been there all along.

[Kelly Rupert]

20. It doesn't matter what you believe.

There is monumental precedent for conscription, starting with 1918's Supreme Court decision in Arver v. United States.

[northernsoul]

23. Arver never addressed 13th Amendment arguments

There was massive support for "seperate but equal" under Plessy v. Ferguson as well - doesn't mean that the court can't get it right later on, i.e. Brown v. Board of Education. Not that I'm holding out a whole lot of hope for the current court.

[TahitiNut]

37. Butler v. Perry

:shrug:

[northernsoul]

39. Cite?

I'll look it up right now.

[TahitiNut]

41. 240 U.S. 328 (1916)

[northernsoul]

43. Ok, got it

For those of you following along at home, it's 240 U.S. 328 (1916).
Here's the money-quote:
"Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term ‘involuntary servitude’ was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 69, 71, 72, 21 L. ed. 394, 406, 407; Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 542, 41 L. ed. 256, 257, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1138; Rebertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 282, 41 L. ed. 715, 717, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326; Clyatt v. United States, 197 U. S. 207, 49 L. ed. 726, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 429; Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219, 55 L. ed. 191, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 145."

Well, what can I say? This case was wrongly decided by the activist, right-wing Lachner-era court. It is worthwhile to note that many of the cases the decision cites have since been overturned (e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson). This is the same court that endorsed the force sterilization of "undesirables" and upheld Jim Crow law. The court has arbitrarily narrowed the construction of involuntary servitude through its own ipse dixit assertions in order to reach a pre-ordained conclusion. This is the law as it stands, and I think that it should be challenged, just racial segregation and the criminilization of abortion were.

[BurtWorm]

10. Conscription is a kind of tax, if you think about it.

It's the price a citizen might have to pay for the benefits of citizenship. Which is not to say that you pay for it with your blood or life or limb. The understanding should be that you don't risk any of those unwillingly, but that if you choose not to risk them, you must offer some other sacrificial service to the nation instead.

It's slavery if you get nothing in return for it, and if you have no choice in the matter.

[northernsoul]

26. Key distinctions between taxation and involuntary servitude

Taxes are paid in fungible assets (dollars), involuntary servitude in the form of military conscription takes away something unique and personal (life, limb, years, sanity).

Taxes may be avoided through generating little or no income. Involuntary servitude can only by avoided by ceasing to have body.

"It's slavery if you get nothing in return for it, and if you have no choice in the matter."

Well, under America's slavery system, most slaves did receive (shabby) food and shelter from their purported owners. In Roman times, slaves frequently received cash stipends or even regular salaries. Some Roman slaves even owned other slaves! Since all of these people got something better than nothing for their servitude, were they not slaves at all?

How much better to conscripted draftees receive? A sub-poverty military wage and access to a medieval-quality VA healt care system? Do you think it's an accident that so many of America's homeless are conscripted Vietnam veterans? These people were made government property against their will, those that survived got jackshit in return... but that's no different that filling out a 1040 and writing a check, apparently.

[BurtWorm]

42. VA health care happens to be among the best in the nation.

Because it's socialized. It's not perfect, but if you're a vet, you're entitled to it, and they have to give it to you.

Homelessness and poverty among veterans are problems, no doubt about it. They will continue to be problems, even for members of the volunteer army who wind up with severe PTSD because of their combat experience.

But why, I wonder, is it any better for this country to use "volunteers" for cannon fodder than draftees? Do you really believe that everyone in the current military really wants to be in it? Do you care if they live or die? Talk about violation of equal protection under the law! Why is this one class of person being asked to bear all the burden of the nation's wars? Isn't that something that should be shared equally or not at all?

[BlooInBloo]

6. Then Clinton should be called a "freedom fighter" instead of a "draft dodger", no?

[xchrom]

7. and here's the conundrum: 9-11 was used as an excuse for a wider war

in which no one really had to sacrifice aside from the national guard{and it could be argued they sacrificed the most}.

there's no ''collective'' payment -- whether you were for or against the war.

those for the war could do so safely -- and we'll never know the true ranks of those sceptically and against the war because of the lack of collective service.

[BurtWorm]

21. I think the draft ought to be off the table for this war for that reason.

The government should not be scraping up soldiers to fight a war the people didn't want in the first place. I can totally understand resistance to a draft to fight Bush's war while he gets to go off to peaceful retirment in Paraguay.

But to ensure that there are no more Iraqs or Vietnams, I think a draft may be in order some day down the road, to give the people real ownership of the government's foreign policy.

[bowens43]

9. He's right. A draft would be equal to slavery.

What is there about taking people against their will and forcing them to do things that don't want to do that doesn't equate to slavery? Once service becomes mandatory the the country is no longer and no longer worth saving. Thankfully, most Democrats and nearly all republicans see this stupid , ridiculous fucking idea of Rangels as the idiocy that it is.

I can't believe that so many on DU support the idea of allowing the government to steal our children in order to teach them how to murder others.

It disgusts me. Anyone who advocates slavery is not a liberal or a progressive and sure as hell shouldn't be a Democrat.

[BurtWorm]

11. It's an insult to the memory of enslaved people to call this triviality slavery.

People ought to be ashamed of themselves for comparing the horrors of unending slavery to the banality of conscription.

[BlooInBloo]

14. I'm shocked (shocked!) that a certain sort of American would do that! SHOCKED!

[Warpy]

15. Let's see

You're snatched away from your family against your will, verbally and physically abused, given no voice in your destiny, and worked incredibly hard for bare subsistence.

Yeah, there are no parallels with slavery at all there.

[BurtWorm]

16. Ludicrous!

Whiny and ludicrous. And shameful.

[Warpy]

27. Bye

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Ludicrous?

The word I'm thinking of is "pwn3d."

[northernsoul]

31. "worked inrcedibly hard?"

That's if you're lucky! Try "getting killed, maimed, driven insane" on for size as some possible outcomes.

Being thrown into a warzone isn't exactly the same as clearing some trails at the nature preserve.

[Warpy]

46. Nor is it the same as 14 hours in a field

The truth is that there are parallels to slavery, just like there are differences.

The draft is more like involuntary indentured servitude since there's a time limit on it unless there's a war.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Also an insult to the millions of brave conscripted soldiers

who served well and honorably throughout our history.

It's called national SERVICE, not slavery. It is to be used only in extremisis, as in the world wars, not for propping up corporate adventures, whether in central america or the middle-east. But there is nothing inherently dishonorable about it.

[northernsoul]

28. "banality"

Ask a homeless Vietnam vet how "banal" his conscription experience was.

[BurtWorm]

33. Compared to slavery?

Compared to being treated like an animal while being considered three-fifths of a person for demographic purposes? Not just for two years or four years, but for life?

There is no comparison between slavery and conscription. It would be a laughable comparison if it weren't so sickening.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. "Not just for two years or four years, but for life?"

I suppose if you're lucky not to get killed in two or four years of combat.

:eyes:

[BurtWorm]

44. Which odds are better? That you'll survive a war as a conscript

or that you'll become free as a slave? If you were dropped into those roles--a conscript in Vietnam ca. 1966 and a slave in Mississippi ca. 1830--which odds do you like better?

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. I inherited dad's folded flag, purple heart and bronze star. It's not "a banality"

I am insulted. I suspect that few people with any personal connection to the matter would not be.

[elocs]

18. So the wingnut and some DUers have common ground concerning the draft?

Gee, what exactly are you trying to imply? Wouldn't it have been great if we had a draft 6 years ago, then Bush would have had 400,000 or more troops available to him for his military misadventures? Is it an impossibility that there will never, never be another president like Bush in the future? I don't think the American people want a draft and they just might want to punish the party responsible for reinstating one. Be careful of what you ask for because you might get it. But as far as a military draft goes, that dog don't hunt.

[BurtWorm]

22. Some DUers (see this very thread) have equated the draft with slavery.

There's an ugly racial subtext to the wingnut's post. Really ugly. Aside from that, the analogy is way off base.

If we'd have had the draft 6 years ago, there might not have been war in Iraq in the first place. And people would probably still be in the streets in massive numbers against it if they tried it.

[northernsoul]

36. For the record, "involuntary servitude" encompasses more than slavery

As a pragmatic matter, I sincerely doubt that the draft and any purported street protests could have prevented this gang of psychopaths from leading our country into this debacle.

You and I obviously have a serious difference of opinion on this issue, but I hope that you can see that I have different basis for my position that whoever this freeper is that you have cited. For the record, I don't think that you are pro-slavery, and I hope that you don't ascribe a racial subtext to my position. I'm pretty well finished with this topic now, I wish you well.

[BurtWorm]

45. It's impossible to know what effect a draft in place would have had.

I suspect it may have put a brake on Congress's willingness to toss the reigns over to the executive. But it's easy to make a hypothetical retrodiction, I know.


I also suspect that the American people were much more easily manipulated into accepting the war after it began, despite their being clearly opposed to it all the way up to the first bomb dropping, because most believed they had very little stake in it. Now that they see what a hotbed our government has created there, it's finally coming back home. I think it would have hit home much sooner if we felt we had a personal stake in it from the start.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. Actually, I think if they'd asked for a draft on 9/12. they'd have

gotten it - you remember the mood at the time. But, as you say, there would have been a closer look at the shift from Afghanistan to Iraq. Who knows? But today, we aren't getting a draft unless there is another Pearl Harbor (or 9/11). The public isn't used to the idea, as it was during Vietnam. It wasn't the draft that killed the enthusiasm for the war, back then (tho it helped). It was the conduct of the war, and the lies for the reasons for war. It was Tet, and My Lai, and children being napalmed. It was a wrong war, just like this one. Given the right (or wrong) circumstances, the arguments against the draft could be reduced to a whisper.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. I agree.

Furthermore, I believe that calling for a draft while not enlisting yourself is just another form of chickenhawkery.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

34. Charlie does own you!

Get your ass to Iraq or flee to Canada, scardey freeper!!!!!

Amazing how these flag-waving zealots are making the guy's point.

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. Wingnut blogger says that shooting yourself in the foot is dumb...

crazy wingnutters.