Military Conscription is Unjust.

After reading the many reasons Pro stated to show military conscription as unjust, I still maintain the Con position. The resolution is unconditional. Pro asserts military conscription is unjust, not some of the time, but all of the time. I need only give one example where military conscription is just to maintain my position. Rebuttals to Contentions (part 1): Democracies do indeed value the rights of an individual; however, those rights must be protected. The government of the people, for the people, and by the people is not completely separated from the people. Our government consists of citizens, and when we suggest the government protect certain rights we must understand that citizens are the protectors. The government does not fight a war, soldiers do. Pro agrees the government must protect unalieble rights, but when those rights are put in jeopardy by an enemy the citizen government must take all necessary action to preserve those rights for future generations. For the citizen government to allow a foreign power to take control of our country thereby eliminating unalienable rights permanently is unjust. If the draft can prevent such actions then it is not only just, but essential to liberty. Pro contends the draft would cause the U. S. to become a totalitarian state, but history does not support this contention. The U. S. used a draft in several wars . http://en.wikipedia.org... and has done so since the Civil War. We have managed to maintain our republic and individual rights have grown substantially since the first use of the draft. I see no evidence suggesting military conscription leads to totalitarianism. Slavery is indeed illegal, but is not analogous to military conscription. Using the criteria pro offered, jury duty (a very necessary obligation in a free society) is also slavery. When one is drafted, the individual is paid the same as a volunteer at the same rank, is given pay for hazardous duty just like a volunteer, and is given the same rights, privileges, and incentives as any other member of the military. Their families will receive medical care and all privileges too. I see nothing in the history of slavery allowing for so much. Pro contends conscription steals from the citizens, but conscription can ensure we have citizens at all. If we do not have the standing army to repeal attacks from enemies then we will lose the very nation built to protect unalienable rights. When one abstains from defending our freedoms, she steals the protection from those who are unable to stand in defense i. e. children, the handicapped, the elderly, etc. Government and Morality (section 2) I agree the government does not engage in war for the right reasons all the time, but Pro's position applies when the government does go to war for the right reasons; therefore, this point is outside the scope of our debate; 9/11 "truffers" notwithstanding. We do have corrupt officials, but the government cannot just go to war for any reason. And war powers are not unconstitutional as the Constitution grants the Government war powers. See Art. 1 Sec. 8. No where does the Constitution state the majority of the citizens must agree with the war. As for having a say so in the matter, we do. Instituting a draft would be political suicide in today's U. S. and, yes, votes do count. Ask Senator Franken. Pro is correct that conscription has a history of bias, but Pro's position is that conscription is unjust all the time. Even if the bias of the draft could be avoided, Pro would still maintain the draft unjust so this point is not relevant to this debate. Effectiveness (section 3) Pro insists many could not handle military duty and she is absolutely correct which is why all draftees, like volunteers, must undergo rigorous testing to serve in military combat. Many volunteers are turned away due to medical problems, psychological issues, and criminal backgrounds; the same would apply to draftees. Our soldiers today do not stand shoulder to shoulder and fire when told. The training is highly sophisticated and those unqualified, drafted or not, do not serve in this area. As for the Time article, if the subject is on today's military then draftees are not included as one soldier in the military today is a draftee. . http://www.time.com... I see no evidence presented suggesting draftees would be more prone to PTSD than a volunteer or that their performance would be sub par; our performance in WWII with millions of draftees contradicts the latter point as well. As for the inner turmoil, one does not wear a sign saying "draftee" and the platoon would be none the wiser unless the draftee said something. Cost (section 4) Cost is a non issue if the fate of the nation is in the balance. Spare no expense in this situation. Pro has not shown conscription to be ineffective and even if effective, Pro's position does not change. Necessity (section 5) I agree we do not need conscription now, but we must examine this subject in totality. Pro's position is that conscription is always unjust, even when needed. I agree the option, due to the changing military technology, is less viable than during the Civil War, but all the equipment and incentives in the world do not help a dead man fight. Conscription, if used to fill in decreasing ranks during times of war, will provide the necessary man power for our national security. Pro's position can stand only if she can show conscription is never necessary. I submit that if an attack resulting in the loss of 30-40 % of our military should occur then conscription would be needed to protect our Nation. Pro mentions the surge of volunteers during WWII, but neglects to mention that the draft was in full effect also. Millions were drafted. . http://www.sss.gov... And, yes, they were needed. Social Impact (section 6) Pro gives some fine examples of the results of an unnecessary draft by focusing on the turmoil in the 1960's, but I can not find this level of opposition to the draft during WWII, although protests did occur. Pro has only alluded to the social impact of unnecessary military conscription, not conscription itself. I submit that the social impact of the destruction of the United States on citizens would outweigh the negative impact of a necessary draft. Responsibility (section 7) The "love it or leave it" position is fallacious and I have no interest in using it here. If the U. S. cannot fill the ranks in a time of war, a time when our nation is under attack then the problem will be ours as we would be living during the resulting take over. I need not show conscription to be democratic, only necessary to preserve our country. I submit that WWII was a time when the draft was needed, and the hypothetical I presented above would satisfy the necessity argument also. Conclusion If an event took place resulting in substantial casualties in the U. S. Military, then conscription is a viable answer to an impending invasion. Our unalienable rights are not granted by the U. S. but they are protected and mandatory service, in a time of war, is a price we pay for this somewhat limited freedom. Pro contends that forcing one to serve means our individual rights by way of natural law do not exist. To some degree this is correct, as humans have developed societies and we don't get to opt out. One is welcome to say natural rights of the individual are more valuable than the society meant to protect them, but when that protection breaks down how is one to defend against an army wishing to take them away? A government of citizen soldiers to fight back sounds like a good answer, and considering our success rate, I agree. Conscription, under limited circumstances, is just so long as it is a last line of defense.