Question:
I just found this alt.activism conference for the first time today, so I don’t know history of your exchange on conscientious objection. Nevertheless, thought you might be interested in this note re selective c.o. status: In Israel, soldiers who object to a given military campaign are considered more credible if they have participated in previeous wars without complaining, or if they say other future wars might not be objectionable to them. That is, selective conscientious objection is (slightly) more acceptable & (slightly) liable to lead to a shorter jail sentence for the c.o. Apparently this is so because selective c.o.’s are perceived as patriots who have taken a role in defending their country and therefore their judgments about the immorality of a given war cannot be so readily dismissed. "Perception" is what counts here, because legally all conscientious objection is forbidden except to members of ultra-orthodox group. That’s my bit on this topic for now. As a post-script I’d like to ask: Why is a snotty tone of discourse de rigeur for these alt.usenet systems? All theories accepted. Bye!
Response:
I just found this alt.activism conference for the first time today, so I don’t know history of your exchange on conscientious objection. Nevertheless, thought you might be interested in this note re selective c.o. status: In Israel, soldiers who object to a given military campaign are considered more credible if they have participated in previeous wars without complaining, or if they say other future wars might not be objectionable to them. That is, selective conscientious objection is (slightly) more acceptable & (slightly) liable to lead to a shorter jail sentence for the c.o.
It’s interesting that you bring up the situation in Occupied Palestine, because as a South African, we’ve had the Israelis repeatedly presented as a great example. When it comes (came?) to C.O. the situation was somewhat difficult. Apparently this is so because selective c.o.’s are perceived as patriots who have taken a role in defending their country and therefore their judgments about the immorality of a given war cannot be so readily dismissed. "Perception" is what counts here, because legally all conscientious objection is forbidden except to members of ultra-orthodox group.
C.O.’s here are seen as godless communists and a threat to the state, civilisation and christian norms and standards. Even hardened war veterans who saw the light and refused to fight anymore were classed as this sort of thing. On the occasions that Christians refused to fight they were dismissed as having been twisted by the radicals or gay. Fortunately the times they are a-changing. Since conscription was used to maintain white supremacy, and white supremacy has been legally abolished, (This is far from the reality, but it’s what de Klerk would like everybody to believe) there’s no law defining the white conscripts as "white". So it is looking as though the SOuth African C.O.’s may have got off on a legal technicality. That’s my bit on this topic for now. As a post-script I’d like to ask: Why is a snotty tone of discourse de rigeur for these alt.usenet systems? All theories accepted. Bye!
Because computer use is a pretty middle class practise and the middle class are a pretty snotty bunch (and I should know). Cheers Henk Henk Coetzee | To regard our knowledge as ignorance, P.O. Box 26305 | This is a noble insight. Arcadia | To regard our ignorance as knowledge, Pretoria 0007 | This is mental sickness. South Africa | -Lao Tzu
Response:
Perhaps you have not noticed, but there is no draft, has not been a draft, and there are no (zero) draftees. Nice of you to imagine a horror story, but your imagination is all it is.
James is right; selective service registration is just another way govenment uses to keep tabs on us; it doesn’t mean the draft will be reinstated; however, it does make it easier to do so (and therefore forcibly revoke the civil rights of the draftee). As to the the staus of concientios-objectorship (ism? 
, you can write it above the line in the middle of your selective service registration, which is then notorized (:-) prior to being filed away by the post office. — "I have an 8 user poetic license" – me
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Excuse me, dennis, but you don’t get to pick and choose in the military. I’m sorry but it’s not like choosing whether to flip burgers at BK or McDonalds You must follow the orders of those that have a higher rank or holding a billet over you. If you don’t then you are subject to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I’m sorry to inform you of that little fact but you don’t tell your superiors to kiss off in the military. It just doesn’t fly. While this may not apply to the case that started this thread (as the individual in question presumably enlisted), the problem with the reasoning outlined (above) is that the "no s.c.o." policy applies to DRAFTEES, as well. In other words, either you’re a c.o. (and assigned to non-military or non-combat service) or you’re a killer. Period. This flys in the face of the Church’s position. Thus, a potential draftee is forced to decide: disobey the teachings of my Church, or go to jail.
Either you’re a c.o. or your not. That seems about right. A *real* c.o. is opposed to taking another humans life no matter what the reason. With that in mind there is no such things as a *selective* c.o. Sorry but to paraphrase yourself either you are or you aren’t. Being a s.c.o. is kind of like being sort of pregnant. The Selective Service does not even make provisions for recording beliefs ahead of time, but DOES require substantiation of a c.o. claim when it is made—and will NOT entertain a selective c.o. claim.
I honestly don’t remember what went on the Selective Service card but I do know that when you are inducted they do find out what your spiritual beliefs are (read denomination/religion). It goes on your ‘dog tags’.
Response:
Either you’re a c.o. or your not. That seems about right. A *real* c.o. is opposed to taking another humans life no matter what the reason. With that in mind there is no such things as a *selective* c.o.
Unless, for example, you’re Roman Catholic. If you buy into the teachings of the Church, then you follow the Church’s Just War Doctrine, which was developed to protect small Christian communities on the MIddle Ages from bands of roving thieves and raiders. The JWD gives VERY SPECIFIC instances where participation in a war is deemed "just," and gives conscience authority in guidance (I’ll refer you to the American Catholic Bishops’ Pastoral on the subject, if you need a reference. Ask your local R.C. clergy).* I honestly don’t remember what went on the Selective Service card but I do know that when you are inducted they do find out what your spiritual beliefs are (read denomination/religion). It goes on your ‘dog tags’.
This misses the point. By that point, under current regs., you’re IN. PERIOD. Bound to follow orders of superiors. Besides, I somehow doubt that an encoding of an individual’s entire belief system will fit on a `dog tag.’ And, yes, it would require the ENTIRE belief system, as c.o. status is NOT a function of membership in an organized religious group (this was decided by the Supreme Court back in the VietNam era—the case name escapes me at the moment). JMJ * BTW: A great many modern theologians now believe that, given the complexities of modern warfare, there can NEVER be such a thing as a "just war."
Response:
}Excuse me, dennis, but you don’t get to pick and choose in the military. I’m }sorry but it’s not like choosing whether to flip burgers at BK or McDonalds }You must follow the orders of those that have a higher rank or holding }a billet over you. If you don’t then you are subject to punishment under the }Uniform Code of Military Justice. I’m sorry to inform you of that little fact }but you don’t tell your superiors to kiss off in the military. It just doesn’t }fly. } }While this may not apply to the case that started this thread (as the }individual in question presumably enlisted),
Since 100% of the people in the military are there by choice, this is a safe bet. }the problem with the reasoning }outlined (above) is that the "no s.c.o." policy applies to DRAFTEES, as }well. In other words, either you’re a c.o. (and assigned to non-military }or non-combat service) or you’re a killer. Period. This flys in the }face of the Church’s position. Thus, a potential draftee is forced to }decide: disobey the teachings of my Church, or go to jail. } }The Selective Service does not even make provisions for recording }beliefs ahead of time, but DOES require substantiation of a c.o. claim }when it is made—and will NOT entertain a selective c.o. claim.
Perhaps you have not noticed, but there is no draft, has not been a draft, and there are no (zero) draftees. Nice of you to imagine a horror story, but your imagination is all it is. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those opinions of this or any other organization. The facts, however, simply are and do not "belong" to anyone.
Response:
Perhaps you have not noticed, but there is no draft, has not been a draft, and there are no (zero) draftees. Nice of you to imagine a horror story, but your imagination is all it is.
Perhaps you have not noticed, but there IS draft REGISTRATION. Unless either 1) you’re not male (I infer you are from the name "James") 2) you’re not eighteen yet or are over twenty-five (is it?) 3) you’re currently ACTIVE in the armed forces or 4) you’re violating the law YOU had to take a trip down to the post office to sign a little card for the Selective Service administration. You may or may not have noticed that NOWHERE on the card is there a space to record matters of consicence. While there may be no draft now (nor was one required for the Gulf conflict) the fact that we still have registration means that there MAY be one in the future. In fact, things were a bit "hairy" at the start of the Gulf war—no-one really wanted to wager on whether or not we would initiate a draft (in fact, the Assoc. Provost for Student Affairs at the institution I was at last year told me he pulled his draft folder from the archives). While it may be true that specific draft policy is decided at the time of its institution, it has traditionally been policy that individuals claiming c.o. status had to substantiate the claim. Further, it has traditionally been policy to summarily REJECT all selective c.o. requests. In other words, my "horror story" is based NOT ONLY what could very well be at some point in the not-too-distant-future, but on WHAT HAS BEEN in the past. JMJ P.S. I DID qualify my statements about there not currently being a draft in my original posting.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.