AJC.com > Opinion > Opinion Talk > Archives > 2007 > October > 30 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USMandatory national service for teens?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Should Americans be required to perform two years of national service? That’s the latest topic in our series “We the People,” which springs from a new book about how to reform the Constitution.
In the book, “A More Perfect Constitution,” University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato suggests that with their Bill of Rights, Americans also need a Bill or Responsibilities — a constitutional amendment requiring all able-bodied Americans between 18 and 26 to serve for two years. The service could be either civilian or military.
What do you think? Would Americans be well-served by this idea?
(For more information, see Sunday’s article.)
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By cubalibre
October 31, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this
I think if there were a way to make national service uniformly enforced (meaning no deferments for the children of wealthy or otherwise connected families), it could go a long way toward reversing some of the current culture of instant gratification we’re experiencing. It might also help instill a sense of responsibility and concern for others in kids whose parents seem clueless on how to do so themselves. What’s so wrong with requiring young adults to give a little something in return to the country that will be sheltering and providing for them, as a citizens, for the rest of their lives?
By Terry A. Tennyson
October 31, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
This is an excellent policy to teach our overly pampered youth civic and moral responsibility to a nation that has provided them with the opportunity of liberty.
By RJ
November 1, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this
Only if the pampered rich brats can’t get out of it. You know, like George W. Bush and Saxby Chambliss.
By V for Vendetta
November 2, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this
Seems to me that the words “required” and “freedom” are mutually exclusive. But that’s just me. This is an asinine idea, at best.
By Jerry
November 3, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this
Never liked the idea of an army of non-conscripts. Takes the people and their wishes out of the equation. The Vietnam war was stopped because the conscripts revolted. I think it’s a good idea, assuming the path to war and out of war is very carefully considered. With a bought and paid for army, I think, the president/congress takes the path to war too easily. At least this president does.
By NeoCons are Criminals
November 4, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this
The neocons can teach waterboarding, at least until the next administration, after which the neocons will all be in prision. Consider this: After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan’s military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
In this case from the tribunal’s records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:
A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.
The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen’s. Consider this account from a
By Jeff
November 5, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this
While I’m not sure that I would go the Starship Troopers route where only those who have served in the military are elegible for citizenship, and I wouldn’t even go the Israeli route where all citizens must serve time in the military, I think this is a good idea.
My only caveat is that there needs to be a choice between civilian and military options.
I, for one, am NOT in favor of a conscript military. It isn’t as effective in general, and can be downright disastrous. The reason our military right now is the strongest in the world can be found in the words of Jimmy Doolittle: “There’s nothing stronger than the heart of a volunteer.”
By Anonymous
November 5, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this
Yes, I’m sold on this. Involuntary servitude is EXACTLY what the Constituion is supposed to enforce, and it’ll teach those spoiled youngsters what freedom is all about, i.e., “Freedom is doing what the government tells you.”
By John C. Snider
November 6, 2007 7:56 AM | Link to this
Absolutely horrible idea. Mandatory service is tantamount to slavery. Didn’t we amend the Constitution to prohibit “involuntary servitude”? I’d like to think that those who approve of this stupid idea were just giving their kneejerk responses. Do we really want the government seizing even more of our time and money???
www.americanfreethought.com