Summing up:
1.) Selective Service is signing yourself up to be in a list (with all other men aged 18-25) in case the draft is reinstated.
2.) The draft hasn't been used in over 40 years and if it ever was reinstated, there would be such an uprising that it would take over 7 years of red tape before a decision is ever made.
3.) Even IF you are drafted, there are many ways and opportunities to get out of it.

So, yeah... not a scary thing, really.

"First of all, how is it logical to register, without objection, to something that you later intend to object to."

What logic? It's the law. You've got to register, and in the event that there is a draft then you can say you object and get a non-combat role or totally get out of it. But you have to register for Selective Service. It's the law.

@jbalcorn, "With the economic crisis, suddenly all branches of the military have exceeded their recruiting goals." - yes, the four horsemen (Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death) of the apocalypse do work together. ...and it has been long agreed among capitalist economists that some level of unemployment is "good" for the economy (i.e. keeps wages low)... of course, what is good for the economy is always calculated in regards to the wealthy... same reason that war is usually considered good for the economy... same reason that prominent economists have claimed that the slave-holding pre-civil war south was a healthy, prosperous economy... (it apparently goes without saying in such analyses that you ignore 4 million slaves out of a total of 31 million population in your calculation).

"First of all, how is it logical to register, without objection, to something that you later intend to object to."

It's perfectly logical. You don't seem to have thought this through at all. For the initial Selective Service registration, everyone registers. It's quick and easy. If and when a draft occurs, then objections can be lodged, but, of course, not everyone is going to be "called up" so to speak. If CO's made their objections ab initio, Selective Service would have a bunch of cases to deal with, a lot of paperwork, and some hearings to schedule. This would be burdensome. Instead, by moving objections to when an actual draft occurs, Selective Service reduces the administrative costs, because a CO's case need be dealt with only if that person has been drafted. Instead of dealing with every potential CO, the system deals only with those who've actually been selected. Given that we currently have no draft, that means we have to deal with 0 objections. What you think is logical is having to deal with countless objections that, because we have no draft, will likely be irrelevant.

"It's akin to signing a contract and later objecting to the provisions of the contract."

No, it is not.

"The very fact that you refer to the SSS website for guidance on the issue argues my point"

No, it does not.

"once you sign up, you are subject to *their* rules and their whims"

You are subject to their rules because those rules are the law. You are subject to them in the same way you are subject to IRS regulations, to the federal criminal statutes, and so on. Failure to register does not absolve a person of the requirement to obey the law. The only way to avoid the operation of US law is to travel beyond its jurisdictional reach.

As far as "whims":

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/study_aids/adlaw/706.htm

"To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall...(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be...(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law"

You're arguing law with an attorney, just fyi.

It's like fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

"It's the law" - Invictus.
Somehow I don't see "It's the law" as the final word. Would you follow *any* law?... simply because "it's the law"? Are all laws just? Is "following orders" an excuse for your actions? Is "following the law" a reason to violate your own conscience? Granted that "it's the law" is persuasive... none of us like the idea of spending time in jail... but it is not the last word - not by itself. At least not for me.

The law requires you to register; it does not require you to perform military or indeed any other kind of service, as a person can object later. Quick, show me a conscientious reason not to fill out a form! Gogo!

<jbalcorn said>
"With the economic crisis, suddenly all branches of the military have exceeded their recruiting goals. "

<stratagos said>
"People (usually) don't join the military for the cash, although some of the benefits can be pretty decent."

I find these statements slightly contradictory ;)

We don't usually have an economic crisis, Perry :teach:

idealist, if you dont know whether or not you are required to sign up for selective service, you might as well wait. there are no immediate repercussions and they will let you know if you need to register. about six months after my 18th birthday, the government sent me a letter threatening loss of tuition funds, jail time, etc if i did not register by my 19th birthday. they give you the address for online registration. its all very easy. good luck.

@Acosmist, Yes - a lawyer. That makes you right. Cause god knows that lawyers never disagree with each other. ...and god knows "the law" is never wrong. ...oh, and what kind of attorney are you, by the way? Are you involved directly in these kinds of cases? If not, then your not much better than another educated layman. oooo... he used the "battle of wits with an unarmed man" line. Now I have lost.

The government already has a much better way of tracking where its people (and its potential draftees) are... it's the IRS. You report your address yearly to them... and more often than that to your employer (which the IRS is also in contact with). Selective Service is simply a mechanism to intimidate and gain compliance in the event of a draft.

@Perry6006 - They aren't contradictory at all. They are from different people and are opinions. they may be conflicting opinions on some level, but conflicting opinions are not contradicitons because opinions are not fact and, in this case, the opinions are from different people.

Next, look to the context. You out of context excerpt about poeple not usually joining fro the cash was in reference to the amount of cash made and had no frame of reference with regards to the present economic times. You need to take into account the Y-factor of the economic times which will surely show a direct correlation between people signing up for military service (for the cash) and how high unemployment is, especially in the unskilled labor sector.

So stratagos statement is true in a booming economy, but ceases to remain true when the economy tanks - which is what jbalcorn's point was all along. when taken in context and understoof to be two separate opinions of two different people, there is absolutely no contradiction.

And yes, I saw the wink...

You can just see it when/if a draft ever is instated:

"If you had an objection, you should have raised it before you registered. You should have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a lawsuit when you were 18 if you had a problem with the system. You gave implied consent to the system and the possibility of being drafted when you registered. Get back in line!"

"a lawyer. That makes you right."

Protip: we are talking about the law.

"Cause god knows that lawyers never disagree with each other"

Red herring.

"and god knows 'the law' is never wrong."

We are not having a philosophical discussion about the law. We are talking about aspects of the law that you don't know, and why your continuing discussion of them makes you look stupid. Happy to help.

"oh, and what kind of attorney are you, by the way?"

An attorney who knows the basics of administrative law; i.e., an attorney who knows more than you.

"Are you involved directly in these kinds of cases?"

Are...you?

"If not, then your not much better than another educated layman."

All the educated laymen will disagree with you, though, so I am not sure what you hoped for here.

"he used the 'battle of wits with an unarmed man' line. Now I have lost."

You're saying stupid things. You don't have to keep doing that. You can stop.

"The government already has a much better way of tracking where its people (and its potential draftees) are... it's the IRS."

Your objection is that the Selective Service and the IRS have not merged into a single agency. Oh no!

"You report your address yearly to them... and more often than that to your employer (which the IRS is also in contact with)."

The IRS does not have the statutory authority to do what you want of it, just fyi, but that's another thing that I guess I don't know any better than an educated layman.

"Selective Service is simply a mechanism to intimidate and gain compliance in the event of a draft."

No, it is not.

You're wrong. Stop posting.

""If you had an objection, you should have raised it before you registered. You should have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a lawsuit when you were 18 if you had a problem with the system. You gave implied consent to the system and the possibility of being drafted when you registered. Get back in line!""

Please do not go the dexter rout

"Route" I accidentally clicked "post reply" before I typed the "e" :////////

I also meant to remove those quotes, OH WELL

@dexter - anyone who doesn't have a job and lives in the backhills of Kentucky or West Virginia (or Tenessee or a half dozen other states) can get away with not sending their info to the IRS yearly as no "revenuers" are going to come calling at Ma and Pa Kettle's without risking another Waco fiasco and it isn't worth it. But better yet is to use Social Security as even the backwater folks want their SS benefits. That being said, the ACLU and other privacy advocates have made certain that agencies can't share information within the US government, so Selective Service is on it's own to collect the info.

@Acosmist, By the way, are you actually an "acosmist"? Do you think that maybe a belief that the universe is not real might actually work against you as far as those who are in the universe taking you seriously? Quack.

Draugnar said: "Many are reservists who already served their time and were called *back* to active duty while others are reservists or national guardsmen (and women) who never intended to serve on active duty but were activated as full time soldiers primarily for Iraq."

I just wanted to point out that those reservists and guardsmen "who never intended to serve on active duty" did sign up to be available should the need arise and took a monthly paycheck to be available as well as to be trained.

Regarding "the law", "the law" is the rules of our society that we as a society have agreed upon. If you choose to live outside the rules then you should not get the benefits of our society. Personally I think we are way too soft on criminals that are caught red handed.

"@Acosmist, By the way, are you actually an 'acosmist'?"

No. We had this discussion: http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=531705 Names can be something other than a reflection of reality.

Stop deflecting.

"Do you think that maybe a belief that the universe is not real might actually work against you as far as those who are in the universe taking you seriously?"

Stop assuming things about me.

"Quack."

You're bad at this.

by the way... I'm not giving legal advice... and I realize that the Selective Service is the law as it is currently written. Funny - I kind of thought we were having a philosophical discussion... you know, like do ethics trump law? (Cliff Notes version: I say "yes, ethics do trump law - but you may have to do time in jail for your ethics if you feel strongly about them". Acosmist says: "no, nothing trumps the law because I say so because I'm a lawyer and you're an idiot - neener, neener")

and because you say it is so, it makes it so. Your personal low opinion of me does not make a very strong argument. I do not dispute your assertion about how the law is written... indeed I specifically acknowledge it. The fact that I am stating a philosophical point about the potential conflict between ethics and the law and the fact that you do not want to talk ethics does not make me wrong. I do not need to be a lawyer to discuss ethics.

what am I deflecting? What is your central argument?

@Alderian - I agree. Likewise, the post service reservists who were called back up knew that was part of the deal. However, on both sides, the Stop Loss movement is a failure if it extends your active tour beyond what you originally signed up for both in active and reserve service. If you have 2 years left of reserve time after serving 4 years active duty and they call you back up and make you serve 6 years, then you have, in effect, been held hostage or taken prisoner by the US government under penalty of potential life in military prison for dereliction of duty if you walk away when your agreed to time is up. That is the travesty of how the US Government treats it's soldiers in this pair of wars. and had we not invaded Iraq (under false pretenses), we wouldn't have an issue of a stop loss program.

And regarding "the law". Your basic premise is flawed. I did not agree to live by a law written before I was born any more than a Chinese citizen agreed to live under a repressive regime that was in power before he or she was born. Even new laws, written every day by government agencies with little or no oversite (read the IRS) have not been presented to me as a citizen of this nation and I haven't agreed to be held accountable to them.

No matter where you go, there will be "laws" that you didn't agree to either because they predate you or you had no say in their passage. You just have to find the best place with the fewest disagreeable laws that you can afford to move to.

"by the way... I'm not giving legal advice"

That's good! That would be the unlicensed practice of law. I'm not sure you will believe me when I say that, though, as the unlicensed practice of law is not my practice area ;_;

"and I realize that the Selective Service is the law as it is currently written"

o ok

"Funny - I kind of thought we were having a philosophical discussion... you know, like do ethics trump law?"

If we were, then you were doing it an in imprecise way. How can we have a discussion about whether a legal regime is ethical if you don't understand what that legal regime is? Say I believed that, in the United States, trial by ordeal were legally permitted (those of you keeping up on the news will know why that came so quickly to my mind). Do you really think it would be irrelevant to correct my misunderstanding of the nature of law in the United States in a discussion about the ethics of law in the United States? The substance of the law, which you grossly misunderstood, is directly relevant to whether that law is ethically objectionable.

"Acosmist says: 'no, nothing trumps the law because I say so because I'm a lawyer and you're an idiot - neener, neener'"

False. Stop misrepresenting me. If you don't want to discuss this, then drop it. Don't reply to me, and it'll be fine. No one will lose sleep over it. If you want to have a discussion, then bring your brain to the table. You haven't been, so far.

"Trial by ordeal" like requiring a lie detector which is, in and of itself, a flawed device reading false positives on a regular basis due to the nerves of the test subject and the repressive and intimidating environment and conditions in which he or she has been placed while the test is conducted? The reason people can't fool the lie detector is because even the most innocent accused person gets nervous and scared when forced into a sterile white room and interrogated with these electrodes strapped to their body about a crime they are accused of committing.

"what am I deflecting? What is your central argument?"

My argument is that you are wrong about the law; I have been citing it, and you haven't been very good about understanding that. Instead, you've been representing my arguments as straw men ("Acosmist says: 'no, nothing trumps the law because I say so because I'm a lawyer and you're an idiot - neener, neener'"), suggesting that argumentum ad hominem is a valid way of attacking my positions ("Do you think that maybe a belief that the universe is not real might actually work against you as far as those who are in the universe taking you seriously?"), and turning the argument from the substance of the law to the ethics of a law you don't even understand.

Here's the central problem - respond to it without being an ignorant, sarcastic twit. Try. Conscientious objectors are not required to perform military service. Those who anticipate objecting to being drafted on that ground do, however, have to register with Selective Service. Show why the act of registering with Selective Service is objectionable even when a process for objecting to military service itself exists.

Your failures so far:

-not recognizing the administrative costs of having objections lodged at the time of registration

-confusing objection to military service and objection to registration; granted that it is morally requisite to give bona fide COs a means of avoiding military service, it does not follow that it is morally requisite to give them a means of avoiding Selective Service registration

-registration for Selective Service does not bring a person within the ambit of Selective Service regulation, as one is required to obey the law whether registered or not

-Selective Service regulations that reflect the "whims" of the agency are arbitrary and capricious, and void under the Administrative Procedure Act

-the IRS does not have the statutory authority to register men for the Selective Service; administrative agencies act only within the scope of delegation provided for by the statutes creating and tasking those agencies

"It's the law"

We all have a choice as to whether to follow the law or not. Each choice has consequences. If we choose not to follow the law about registering with the Selective Service, the consequences are:

[ from http://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm ]
- No student financial aid
- No citizenship for immigrants between the ages of 18 and 26
- No federal jobs training
- No job with the federal government
- Other consequences via state law
- possible prosecution, although unlikely.
"Selective Service wants young men to register. It does not want them to be prosecuted or denied benefits. If a draft is ever needed, it must be as fair as possible, and that fairness depends on having as many eligible men as possible registered. In the event of a draft, for every man who fails to register, another man would be required to take his place in service to his country."

So no, you don't have to follow the law. The law isn't an absolute guide for behavior. However, you must be prepared to face the consequences, whether jail, fines, loss of opportunity or flight to another jurisdiction.

I think it is our patriotic duty to form a global diplomacy corp. I think we would all be a great asset when the chips are down and people will need people to lie to one another and make promise sthey have no intention of keeping.

As the Diplomatic Corp is just a figment of my imagination at this moment in time, I'm pretty sure that you will never be required to lay down your lives in anger. I promise that should you be willing to sign you name below I will do all that I can to get my good buddy TGM to add 100 diplomacy points to your accounts.

Sign below please - you know it makes sense.

Maniac