Bernie Sanders Applied for 'Conscientious Objector' Status During Vietnam, Campaign C

No, there were two different categories of CO during the Vietnam War. In one case the CO served in a non-military capacity, such as being an unarmed medic, in the US military while in the other case they were excluded from military service. Two different CO status categories.

We can also note that Sanders was a pacifist when young but is no longer a pacifist. For example he voted for the authorization to invade Afghanistan so his record clearly establishes that he's no longer a pacifist. What a person may or may not have believed when they might have been naive and/or uninformed has little relevance to what they currently believe. As I previously noted I was very naive and uninformed when I was drafted but have since acquired considerable knowledge and adopted the "non-aggressing principle" that I wasn't really aware of when I was 19 years old.

Bernie Sanders is fully qualified for the Office of the Presidency today and that's what's important. In fact Sanders the most qualified of any of the candidates of any party. I'll probably be voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson (again) but even I'd admit the Bernie Sanders is more qualified than Gary Johnson. I'm making my choice based upon political ideology and not based upon a sliding scale of qualification for office.

 

I believe that being a conscientious objector can be specific to the conflict. As noted morally I'm committed to the "Non-Aggression Principle" (NAP) so morally I'm highly opposed to wars of aggression where the United States has not been attacked or invaded by another country. Based upon the same NAP I'd be fully supportive of a war of self-defense where the United States has been attacked by another nation. From a moral standpoint there's a huge difference between acts of aggression and acts of self-defense. Today I'm a "conscientious objector" when it comes to wars of aggression by the United States so it is specific to certain conflicts.

Of note Sanders is no longer a conscientious objector like he was in his youth and has a documented history of voting for war against the government of Afghanistan (that didn't attack or invade the United States) and that's all that's important. Personally I wouldn't vote for Sanders because he supported the war of aggression against the people of Afghanistan.

Agreed but unfortunately that's unlikely to happen in the United States.

What is ironic is that anyone could have avoided the draft by merely stating they were gay at the time but virtually no one did this because being gay was socially condemned. In the vast majority of cases they would have been lying but the draft board and the US military didn't really care because Americans were so homophobic at the time.

Once agian though we need to judge people based upon what they believe today and not what they might have believed or even possibly done 40 or more years ago.

 

I believe joining a State only militia should be a recognized, patriotic option for political dissent to foreign policy by the Establishment through our general government.

 

True... two of my uncles were conscientious objectors in WW2 and both served as medics.

 

There were also conscientious objectors in WW II that weren't required to serve at all.

More importantly a person's moral beliefs change over time, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse, and we need to address a person's current morality and not that which they might have expressed 40 or 50 years ago. I'm not, for example, going to condemn a politican for opposing same-sex marriage in the 1990's even though their opposition was both morally and Constitutionally wrong at the time. Hopefully they've learned since then that they were morally wrong and that the prohibitions violated the US Constitution. If they still hold those opinions today then they should be condemned but not for their past beliefs and opinions.

 

Already responded, that makes no a twit of difference. He applied for CO status, a CO has NO moral standing to order men to go and kill our enemies if they are not prepared to do so them selfs. Do not ask to lead this country into war when you refuse to fight in it because of you conscientious objections, you have no moral standing to do so.

Let's hope someone in the press, presses him, excuse the pun, so that he gives a complete explanation and convince every one he no longer holds those views.

 

Well no one had a problem examining in the most minute detail Bush43's military record and make assertions he was a coward and should not lead the country. Why is Sanders past off limits? They went after Reagan and they went after Cheney. Here is a man who stated EXPLICITLY that he would not fight when it was his turn to be called because he had conscientious moral objections to fighting in a war, PERIOD. Where does he get the moral authority now to order other men to go and fight the war and do the killing and be killed themsleves?

 

An important point which seems to be overlooked here is that there was no "Vietnam War" in the first place. War was never declared. Congress didn't even have the balls to put their names on a piece of paper, yet they expected kids barely out of high school to sacrifice their lives. And the NSA deliberately distorted intelligence reports to push American kids into that meat grinder. Any government that acts with so little honor has no right to ASK, let alone demand, that anyone fight for them.

 

We could have won that war in a week if we wanted to. Or we should have never gone in there at all. But the choice they made (to fight the war half-assed) was immoral.

 

If he was a CO who served as a Medic I may have a better view of him. he didn't I don't.

 

To be honest nor has it ever stopped a Republican.

 

I knew a couple of guys who applied for a CO exemption during the Vietnam War on moral grounds of not being able to kill. They were both drafted and served on the battlefield saving lives as combat medics.

 

Yep !!!

- - - Updated - - -

Then those two were honorable CO's and they have much more honor than chicken hawks who in my opinion are basically scum turds.

 

Being a CO means that you are against serving in any combat capacity. Being opposed to a specific war means that you are opposed to a specific war but not that you are opposed to all wars.

 

What someone believed over 40 years ago has virtually no bearing or meaning related to what they believe today. Hopefully we all become wiser with age.

Of course when it comes to authorizing war Sanders has already demostrated that his beliefs have changed because he voted for the invasion of Afghanistan (that I opposed). We don't require additional scutiny by the press because Bernie Sanders voting record in Congress provides everything we need to know about Sanders' current beliefs related to war. Sanders is no longer a pacifist and his voting record establishes that fact.

 

As I've also noted a CO can be opposed to specific types of war such as wars of aggression while not opposing wars of self-defense. There's a huge moral difference between committing an act of premeditated murder and of incidentally killing someone while defending yourself from their attack.

 

We should note that many times criticism is unjustified and is morally wrong as well.

I can't condemn anyone for opposing the Vietnam War or for how they managed to escape becoming a participant in it. Having grown up during the Vietnam War and actually having served in Vietnam I know much about the protesters and opponents to the war. Many such as former President Bush, former President Clinton, and former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney all managed to avoid becoming involved in the Vietnam War by different means. I will not condemn any of them and avoiding involvement never implied cowardice.

Of course for the person that believes the criticism of Bush was unjustified and morally wrong then they would have to also accept that criticising Sanders (that has demonstrated by his voting record he's not opposed to all wars) might also be unjustified and morally wrong as well. Just because a few "Democrats" were slimbags when it came to addressing former President Bush's military service is that a justification for any of us to be slimebags when it comes to Sanders?

Sorry but I just don't see being a slimebag as being justifiable under any circumstances and a primary reason for me opposing Hillary Clinton is because she's a slimebag. I think the fact that she's a slimebag is far more important in opposing Hillary Clinton than any of her political positions.

So do any of you really want to resort to being slimebags in addressing what Sanders may have stated over 40 years ago when his record in Congress is far different?

 

Not under the law. Again a CO has no moral authority to order others to engage in combat killing others and getting killed themselves.

 

None of the REFUSED to fight even if drafted. And Bush did not "avoid" serving in Viet Nam, the unit for which he volunteered was doing active duty in Viet Nam when he volunteered, they were not there two years after he had completed his active duty and entered the reserves, can't blame him for that can you. YET he was called a coward and unworthy of serving as CnC.

No they wouldn't at all. Bush volunteered to serve and if ordered to go out and shot down an enemy plane that was entering our air space and refuse to turn around would have done it. AND as above his TANG unit was serving in Viet Nam when he volunteered for service in it. Sandes stated he refused to fight, he has no moral ground to send others to do that fighting.

Oh PLEZZZZZ don't try to marginalize. Dan Rather lost his top job on the top news show trying to smear Bush. It was worse than the Obama "birther" thing. And let's not forget Reagan and Cheney.

This is about opposing Sanders.

 

More importantly, his economic "plans" strike me as a little far-fetched. Sanders’ plans have “evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.”

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/sanders-campaign-has-crossed-neverland

 

Yes, there were two different categories of CO under the laws of the time. In one case the person was eligible for service as a non-combatant and in the other case they were exempted from service completely. In neither case could the legitimate CO be called a coward. One problem with the law was that in practice it only allowed the exemption based upon religious grounds and not on secular grounds. Simply believing in the Non-Aggression Principle (NPT) which is a secular belief was not grounds for a CO exemption nor could it be used because it doesn't oppose participating in a war of self-defense for the nation, such as WW II, but did apply to Vietnam because the Vietnamese had never attacked the United States. We were the aggressor nation in the Vietnam War and not the North Vietnamese that were fighing a war of self-defense by the Vietnamese people agianst the US occupation of South Vietnam.

So in a very real sense our laws governing CO status really sucked because they were based upon religious belief and did not address the secular belief in the NAP related to the Vietnam War. Being a legitimate CO had nothing to do with bravery or cowardice but instead related to the personal beliefs of the person that was opposed to war either in general or specifically related to the Vietnam conflict.

Of course there were also those that simply didn't want the inconvenience of being sent off to war and there were also some cowards that weren't legitimate CO's but we can't judge the legitimate CO based upon the exceptions.

On a final note I did serve in the Vietnam War but knowing what I do today, and based upon my beliefs that have matured over time, I would not submit to being drafted for that war again. I'm by no means a coward but have since adopted the NAP as one of my most deeply held beliefs. I wouldn't have qualified for CO status in 1968 when I was drafted so, if there were "do-overs" in life, I would have joined David Harris in prison as opposed to submitting to the draft.

 

We have a Commerce Clause, not any form of War on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, or Terror clauses.

 

And would not fight and therefore has no moral grounds to orders other to do so or right to be CnC. IOW you should never be elected to be the CnC.

That would be a political objection, not CO.

Easy to say now.

 

Well your knowledge of the Vietnam War seems to be limited or more likely you were exposed to cultural-marxism revisionist history.

First I want to make it clear, we should haven't got involved in a shooting war in the RVN. That the JFK administration should have stuck to President Eisnehower's policies when it came to South East Asia and JFK should have listened to President Eisenhowers warnings not to get involved with the Diem regime.

Lets put it this way, there was a civil war or insurrection taking place in South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese commies, People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) better known as the Viet Cong (VC) The first NVA troops crossed over into South Vietnam in 1965, it was North Vietnam who invaded South Vietnam.

 

I subscribed to The Weekly Standard for a year over 20 years ago. In one of the issues was a handwritten note from JFK where he stated that he was considering pulling out the "advisers" there due to his concern of escalation. Within months, he was assassinated. LBJ and McNamara deserve the blame for the war.