pandira:

Art.4, Sec.2

 "A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."

The State has jurisdiction.

 Which State? There were 4 planes hijacked that day. The third plowed into the Pentagon within the confines of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the fourth went down in rural Pennsylvania. Chances are that "rock/paper/scissors" was not used in the decision as to where the tent for the upcoming 5 ring circus will be pitched.  A conspiracy theorist might believe that the federal court choice is a bone thrown to the far left fringe which is upset that Club Gitmo has not been shut down as promised and also wishes to see Bush/Cheney taken away in leg irons. Perhaps some enterprising journalists will find this an interesting subject, more challenging than paraphrasing copy off of the AP wire. Bets?

Nick

Frederick Fuller:

Clonnie Yearout:

I think you're correct in saying that men like war, and I would further argue that man just likes conflict, and war is the ultimate conflict.  Even here on the panel we thrive on conflict, and the most interesting weeks are those in which we argue the most sharply divisive topics.  The root cause of conflict is selfishness, and man is born to selfishness as sure as the sparks fly upward.  My selfishness requires that my will prevail, and unless my will prevails there will be conflict.  If the stakes are minor, argument will result; If the stakes are major, gird yourself for war. 

Good post, Clonnie. I do remember Patton and Scott's monologue. I suppose conflict of human kind may have sprung from our tribal need to preserve and defend our tribe and its way of life. We are still very tribal creatures, and maybe we will never be free of conflict and war. Like a wise person said, "Old men make war, young men fight it." My heart breaks that young people die in war. I sometimes think the old men who start wars should be sent to fight them. The loss, I think, would be lessened.

That's the primary reason I favor a draft, as unpopular as that position tends to be.  If wars are to be fought, then the entire country needs to bear the cost.  Right now, those who benefit the most are totally immune from the pain, but are perfectly positioned to receive the gain.  That's just wrong.

Nick Prout:

pandira:

Art.4, Sec.2

 "A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."

The State has jurisdiction.

Which State? There were 4 planes hijacked that day. The third plowed into the Pentagon within the confines of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the fourth went down in rural Pennsylvania. Chances are that "rock/paper/scissors" was not used in the decision as to where the tent for the upcoming 5 ring circus will be pitched.  A conspiracy theorist might believe that the federal court choice is a bone thrown to the far left fringe which is upset that Club Gitmo has not been shut down as promised and also wishes to see Bush/Cheney taken away in leg irons. Perhaps some enterprising journalists will find this an interesting subject, more challenging than paraphrasing copy off of the AP wire. Bets?

Nick

FWIW, I'd lean on Article III sections 1 and 2.  This is a Federal crime as far as I can see.  No nation attacked us, but crimes were certainly committed.  Giving these clowns a military trial merely elevates their over inflated position in the world.  Why would anyone want to do that?

So, dragging Cheney away in leg irons may be warranted, but it has noting to do with trying the Gitmo detainees in Federal Court.  Let's get on with it.  This has taken far too long already!

Clonnie Yearout:

Films like "Patton," "Braveheart," and "The Patriot"  are my favorite type of movies, and maybe that says something dark about my innermost being, but it seems to me that man is never more alive than when he risks his most valuable asset (his life) for a cause that he considers bigger than himself.  Some may argue that there is no higher cause than the preservation of human life, but most of the people who make that argument weaken their position by supporting other life-cheapening practices such as abortion.  I think you're correct in saying that men like war, and I would further argue that man just likes conflict, and war is the ultimate conflict.  Even here on the panel we thrive on conflict, and the most interesting weeks are those in which we argue the most sharply divisive topics.  The root cause of conflict is selfishness, and man is born to selfishness as sure as the sparks fly upward.  My selfishness requires that my will prevail, and unless my will prevails there will be conflict.  If the stakes are minor, argument will result; If the stakes are major, gird yourself for war.

I used to have a cadaver dog, and I never considered the work to be entertaining.  I would describe it as heart-wrenching.  Maybe you thrive on conflict and danger.  My hunch is that when you rush to a serious accident on an emergency call and find dead bodies, you find it sad, not fun.  I enjoy intellectual competition to exercise my brain.  I do not argue just for the sake of arguing.  I am not girding myself for war, even when you take a gratuitous swipe at abortion in such an unlikely context.  Unnecessary war cheapens life.  Unnecessary abortion also does.  The similarity ends there.  The obstetricians I know deliver thousands of healthy babies and sometimes dead or dying ones.  They share the joy and sorrow of the mother in either case.  When medical circumstances require it, obstetricians do their job, as they should.  In some cases that includes abortion.  We had a long back-and-forth discussion of abortion many months ago.  Do you really want to revisit that topic?

David Horn:

That's the primary reason I favor a draft, as unpopular as that position tends to be. 

David,

That position is not unpopular with me.  I have long advocated that all young people (male and female) be required to serve two years of service to their country in the military, peace corps or some equivalent type of service.  I advocate this, not because the country necessarily needs two years of their lives, but because of the good it does them in advancing their maturity and teaching them to exercise discipline in their lives.

Of course I realize the screams that we would hear if anyone in authority proposed this, and I know it will never happen.

Ah, the draft has been raised. Let me ask for an opinion.

What percent of our national population should we have serving in our military? If you know how many we have that's not the question.

Marvin Foster:

David Horn:

That's the primary reason I favor a draft, as unpopular as that position tends to be. 

David, That position is not unpopular with me.  I have long advocated that all young people (male and female) be required to serve two years of service to their country in the military, peace corps or some equivalent type of service.  I advocate this, not because the country necessarily needs two years of their lives, but because of the good it does them in advancing their maturity and teaching them to exercise discipline in their lives. Of course I realize the screams that we would hear if anyone in authority proposed this, and I know it will never happen.

I think the Joint Chiefs prefer an all-volunteer, professional army.  So does the Secretary of Defense.  They understand the immense logistical and morale problems associated with a draft.  But I think David Horn is correct: the American public and their representatives in Congress are all for sending troops off to war, unless it is themselves and their loved ones.  Then they have second-thoughts.  Second-thoughts are good when the subject is war.  Unlike Clonnie, I regard war as serious, deadly, destructive, costly, horrible, and often unnecessary, not a glorious adventure or manly sport.

Dave Hanson:

We had a long back-and-forth discussion of abortion many months ago.  Do you really want to revisit that topic?

I'm having a hard time addressing our new topic.  I zipped off about a hundred introductory words, but when I tried to answer the personal question of whether I will be spending more or less this year, I hit a brick wall.  The fact is that I never spend anything -- at least not directly.  Mrs Yearout handles the gift buying and does so quite capably.  I am more than content to let her buy everything for everybody, and most of the time I am just as surprised as the recipient who opens our gifts.    Don't let this get out, but I am not the miserly penny pincher I sometimes portray here -- at least not where my children and grandchildren are concerned.  I experience no greater pleasure than seeing them happy.  Some of the other trappings of the season make me less happy.  I gripe about having to help Mrs Yearout decorate and I would be willing to invest in a tree that we could fold up, fully decorated, and store in a box somewhere in a convenient closet until the next year.  Bah, humbug, and all that.... 

It occurs to me that I am discussing next week's topic in last week's space, so perhaps I'd better get back to trying to finish my official post.  Tomorrow is my last day of work, so I also need to see if I can find a picture of a rocking chair to place in my profile.

Clonnie Yearout:

Tomorrow is my last day of work, so I also need to see if I can find a picture of a rocking chair to place in my profile.

Dave Hanson:

Marvin Foster:

David Horn:

That's the primary reason I favor a draft, as unpopular as that position tends to be. 

David, That position is not unpopular with me.  I have long advocated that all young people (male and female) be required to serve two years of service to their country in the military, peace corps or some equivalent type of service.  I advocate this, not because the country necessarily needs two years of their lives, but because of the good it does them in advancing their maturity and teaching them to exercise discipline in their lives. Of course I realize the screams that we would hear if anyone in authority proposed this, and I know it will never happen.

Frankly, I would rather discuss this than my plans for Christmas shopping this year.  Maybe I will get to Luanne's new homework assignment later.  I agree with you, Marvin.  One or two years of public service--in the armed forces, in a clinic, in a national park, in a school, at a food bank, at a community recreational center, the possibilities are endless--would do much good for the individuals and for our country

I absolutely agree with this.  A mandatory 2 yr service to country is an excellent idea on so many levels.  Mandatory for all. regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or any of the other divisive categories we have come up with.  Tie it in some way to ability to get financial aid for college or job training.  Make it so you have to actually apply if you desire to do the military route. 

BTW, its nice to see David Horn back.  My sincere condolences to Joe.  I can't even imagine the loss.

Dave Hanson:

I regard war as serious, deadly, destructive, costly, horrible, and often unnecessary, not a glorious adventure or manly sport.

Was the American Revolutionary War really necessary?   Could we not have continued to exist as colonies under the English crown, or, for that matter, as colonies of the various countries who colonized this land?  Was anything gained by resisting the English monarchy?  Other colonies of the British Empire around the world bent their wills and submitted to the authority they found themselves under.  Perhaps we would be just as well off today had we never adopted the Declaration of Independence.  Were the "Intolerable Acts" really all that intolerable?  England had invested quite a bit in blood and treasure to establish us.  Did they not deserve to share in the riches of this land?  They asked far less in taxes than our government requires from us today.  Maybe the Revolutionary War was a mistake.  Maybe it was unnecessary.

And the American Civil War:  America is a big land -- would two separate countries really have been so horrible?  I'm sure we would have eventually become friends and trading partners again.  The slave question?  Who's to say that wouldn't have eventually worked itself out also?  The industrial age and the development of advanced farm machinery would have taken care of that within a few years.  Was a slightly earlier freedom for slaves worth the cost of all those American lives and treasure?

How about World War Two?  We were never truly and completely neutral.  Couldn't we have honestly stayed out of it and then negotiated a mutually beneficial peace with Hitler?  Aren't we friends with Germany today?  Didn't our entrance into the war ultimately extend its duration and thereby result in multiplied thousands more lives lost?  So what if Japan attacked our forces at Pearl Harbor -- Did we give a measured response?  Could we not have negotiated a truce whereby we agreed to stay out of their affairs in return for them not attacking our interests?  How would southeast Asia have been the worse for being under the control of the Japanese?  Would a single ruling authority for all Orientals have been so terrible?  Was it worth the loss of all those lives to stop it?

Yes, war is hell.  And horrible.  And it's definitely unnecessary if our only objective is lack of conflict.  But if we hold to the higher ideals of individual freedom and the kind of real peace that comes from strength rather than capitulation, war is going to be necessary from time to time.  It's just the way of the world.  Always has been, always will be -- unless someone finds a way to alter human nature. 

Marvin Foster:

I have long advocated that all young people (male and female) be required to serve two years of service to their country in the military, peace corps or some equivalent type of service.  I advocate this, not because the country necessarily needs two years of their lives, but because of the good it does them in advancing their maturity and teaching them to exercise discipline in their lives.

I'm afraid that's how I feel about mandatory government service, Marvin:  I don't like it -- I don't like it a darned bit!  Oh, I'm fine with requiring young people to serve a short period -- just long enough to learn military discipline and weapons training.  Anything more than that I can't go along with.  My paranoia antenna has lightning bolts shooting off it in all directions.  I see government indoctrination and communification applied in mega-doses to young skulls full of mush.  They already get  at least 18 years of it.  Two more years will turn them into zombies.  Imagine the result from all those young adults returning to the general population programmed to destroy all things capitalistic.  It'll be the night of the living dead multiplied to the nth power and focused at the traditional American way of life. 

Today's military service isn't like you and I remember it, Marvin.  They actually have rights today in the military.  They don't even have to pull KP duty!  They sleep til noon, and they don't follow orders -- they follow requests.  If they feel like it.  No.  No mandatory service.  Let them get a job -- if there's any left -- and if not, then let them live with Mommy and Daddy.  Only mischief can come from serving the kind of government we have today, Marvin.  Okay -- have I convinced you? 

My goodness -- don't I have anything to do?

Clonnie Yearout:

Yes, war is hell.  And horrible.  And it's definitely unnecessary if our only objective is lack of conflict.  But if we hold to the higher ideals of individual freedom and the kind of real peace that comes from strength rather than capitulation, war is going to be necessary from time to time.  It's just the way of the world.  Always has been, always will be -- unless someone finds a way to alter human nature.

The American Revolution was not necessary.  It's hard to argue that it was stupid because it had a happy ending.  Had rebellious Americans lost the war to loyalist Americans and the British, which was a distinct possibily, it would have been written in the history books as a stupid gamble.  The same could be said for the South's war for independence in 1861.  The real question there is not whether or not war was necessary, once the shootin' started at Fort Sumter, but whether or not secession was necessary.  After that fateful step, it was just a matter of Lincoln doing his job, or not (like Buchanan).  

You've gone from war being men acting out their primal instincts to a moral choice between defeatist pacifism or staunch self-defense.  That's progress, I guess.  I was referring more broadly to the history of world civilization, and I think it's fair to say that most wars over the past 3,000 years were unnecessary and waged for power and wealth.  Unless there is a coin-toss to see who is on offense rather than defense, there is almost always an aggressor. 

You're like the student who makes the teacher do all the work.  I have two stacks of tests to grade.  Here is your homework assignment.  Which of the following American wars was a good idea, or not, and why?  The War of 1812.  The Mexican War.  The Civil War.  The Spanish-American War.  The First World War.  (The Second World War was necessary; Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and declared war on the U.S., followed by Germany also declaring war on the U.S.  That was not something that could have been patched up with diplomacy.)  The Korean War.  The Vietnam War.  The Gulf War.  The Afghanistan War.  The Iraq War.  That should keep you busy for a while, you pesky varmint!

You wrote that "war is going to be necessary from time to time.  It's just the way of the world.  Always has been, always will be -- unless someone finds a way to alter human nature."  You began that bit of philosophical musing with a reference to "peace that comes from strength rather than capitulation."  Then you immediately abandoned it for your dark view of human nature (back to men acting out their primal instincts).  From 1945 to 2001 it seemed that the overwhelming, unrivaled strength of the United States had given us security and perpetual peace.  The problem was that we fooled ourselves into thinking that nuclear weapons and high-tech intelligence made our country invulnerable.  A few men with box cutters broke that delusion.  We had forgotten that peace also comes from more than strength.  We were not attacked on 9/11 because we were weak.  There was a lesson there that day, Clonnie, and I wonder if we learned it.

Clonnie Yearout:

My paranoia antenna has lightning bolts shooting off it in all directions.  I see government indoctrination and communification applied in mega-doses to young skulls full of mush.  They already get  at least 18 years of it.  Two more years will turn them into zombies.  Imagine the result from all those young adults returning to the general population programmed to destroy all things capitalistic.  It'll be the night of the living dead multiplied to the nth power and focused at the traditional American way of life.

P.S. Communification?  Did you get that from Glen Beck or Michele Bachmann?  Btw, that was Hawkeye and Trapper ("What's-his-name").

Clonnie Yearout:

My goodness -- don't I have anything to do?

David Horn:

Frederick Fuller:

Like a wise person said, "Old men make war, young men fight it." My heart breaks that young people die in war. I sometimes think the old men who start wars should be sent to fight them. The loss, I think, would be lessened.

That's the primary reason I favor a draft, as unpopular as that position tends to be.  If wars are to be fought, then the entire country needs to bear the cost.  Right now, those who benefit the most are totally immune from the pain, but are perfectly positioned to receive the gain.  That's just wrong.

Since, I've been quiet for a while, I guess I'm due for some stream of consciousness running of my mouth.

Looks as if we are back to the Israeli situation discussed on pages 7,8,9. As I understand it, everyone there (except for the extreme orthodox religious students) serves a tour of duty in the armed forces, and after the active duty are on reserve until too old to serve. There, it is a necessity because of the always volatile conditions in the area. While it can be argued that they have gone overboard and often been the aggressor rather than just playing defense, the program has served them well in readiness against the much larger forces potentially arrayed against them. And, especially with their flat command structure, it has served as a social leveler. Every one is part of the unified country, except that there is resentment among some about the religious cop-out. (I frankly don't know how the Israeli Arab citizens fit into this picture.)

I was a draftee in the WW2 adventure. I did get thrown in with people that I would never encountered in my home environment, so I guess I got some social broadening.  Most of my assignments involved positive social experiences, but not always. Overall, I felt that, except for the combat part, it was a growth experience. But, I must admit that even though I knew we had been attacked and had to fight back, as a young wet behind the ears stupid kid, before I actually was sent overseas I internally resented the fact that I was being forced to risk my life to fight a war that the older generation had gotten us into. So, if my teen-age feelings can be scored as typical, Fred's quote noted above seems to be pretty perceptive. 

But, I'm not sure if a compulsory two year service stint would be a good idea for the US. There are lots of pros and cons. Other than the ones already discussed by others, one big pro would be a physical conditioning attack on the obesity issue, but one big con would be the very major cost. (Although, it would considerably relieve the unemployment situation.) However, realistically, it ain't gonna happen.