Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Draft evasion

2014-07-31T18:47:34Z

24.236.174.20: /* General Comment About the Entire Article */ new topic. Ed Chilton.

{{Skip to talk}}
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Anti-war |class=start |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Vietnam|class=Start|auto=inherit|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Canada|class=start|importance=mid}}
}}

==The term==
:"Canada also later chose to accept deserters..." According to the resources I can find, a deserter who came to Canada could have been extradited to the US, as desertion (unlike draft dodging) is a crime in Canada. Did many deserters come to Canada?
:Also, I understood "draft dodger" to include not only those who went to other countries, but also those who stayed put and attempted to evade the draft while remaining in the US. Clarification? - [[User:Montrealais|Montréalais]] 17:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::Actually the opening of the article is inaccurate. "Draft Dodger" as a term goes back at least to WWI and possibily earlier.

::"Draft dodger" was a sort of umbrella term for anyone who wanted to avoid the draft, though it was most used for the most visible--those who went to Canada or (earlier) Sweden. More specifically, you had '''draft evaders''', those who stayed in the US and tried techniques from pretending to be sick to doing things to keep off the 1-A list (college, marriage, quietly attemtping to refuse--Clinton was effectively a draft evader." Then you had '''draft resisters''', not a large number, who paid public shows of resistance, tried not to register, some did not show up for induction or wouldn't take the oath. Finally '''draft refusers''', who stood up and refused (the only really honest ones, IMO) which included conscientious objectors. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] | [[User talk:Cecropia|''explains it all'' ®]] 19:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term "deserter" is problematic. I have a letter which my commanding officer sent my father saying I had been "dropped from the rolls as a deserter" after being AWOL (absent without leave) for only 7 days. I believe at the time (1966) the army did not turn one's case over to the FBI until one had been AWOL for a month. But still, one was not a deserter until a court martial said so. If captured and charged, there were many defences against the charge of desertion, even if one had been absent for considerable periods. Referring to people such as myself, who went AWOL and remain at large, as deserters, is incorrect. Alleged deserters, perhaps, or absconders, but not deserters until they are convicted as such. To answer a question above, yes, absconders as well as evaders went to Canada, but Toronto was only a stopover for me. I went on to my country of birth, Great Britain. Yes, foreign citizens were drafted too. [[User:TheNameWithNoMan|TheNameWithNoMan]] ([[User talk:TheNameWithNoMan|talk]]) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference this passage: “Those who practice draft evasion are sometimes pejoratively referred to as "draft dodgers," a term which was made popular during the Vietnam War.”

It seems to me if the article is going to reference the Vietnam era, it should use the best definition of the term at the time. My Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1968) simply defines Draft Dodger as: “One who avoids military service.” The dictionary does not distinguish among Avoidance, Evasion or Resistance. As an aside, when I was in Vietnam, we considered anyone that “got out of serving” regardless how they did it, as a Draft Dodger.

I would recommend this sentence be changed to the following to conform to what was the commonly accepted definition at the time:

“Term "draft dodger" was made popular during the Vietnam War and at the time was pejoratively used to refer to anyone who avoided military service.”
[[User:The-Expose-inator|The-Expose-inator]] ([[User talk:The-Expose-inator|talk]]) 14:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

::Now that someone has simply moved the whole article to a new term, without discussion and without regard to previous discussions/outcomes, I don't see any point in continuing to quibble about it. It seems to me that the term "draft dodger" exists, and needs an article about it (and not about something else which someone might think was a nicer way of putting it), but I no longer care about the Orwellian redefinition of the universe that Wikipedia has become. Struggle amongst yourselves for dominance. [[User:TheNameWithNoMan|TheNameWithNoMan]] ([[User talk:TheNameWithNoMan|talk]]) 07:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

== Soldiers as refugees ==

Soldiers were allowed into Canada as refugees.
The WWI draft dodgers were able to easily evade the draft, as no one expected such an action to be taken among so many. Rules and regulations were created, making it exceedingly difficult, such as in the Vietnam War, to Draft Dodge once again.

==== 1000 Deserters to Canada in total ??? ====
I do not believe US soldiers nor draft dodgers
were ever given refugee status in Canada.
However, a person's previous involvement in military organizations
had no bearing on immigration to Canada.

I have seen estimates of up to 50000 particularly after 1968.
In any case, 1000 is too low. By 1970, when I entered Canada,
the Toronto Anti-draft program people were estimating a
deserter to dodger ratio of 4:1.

Also, the term draft dodger was used by my father to describe
his cousin who worked on the Alaska highway rather than join the
military durng WW 2. It did not originate with Vietnam. —''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:47.248.0.43|47.248.0.43]] ([[User talk:47.248.0.43|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/47.248.0.43|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.

: I believe "draft dodgers" were treated very differently from deserters (i.e. actual soldiers) by Canada during the Vietnam War. [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]] cites a figure of 40000-60000 [http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/08/deserter-hinzman060208.html here] in an article about [[Jeremy Hinzman]]. --[[User:Saforrest|Saforrest]] 14:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, lad. I am one of those vietnam era draft dodgers who still lives in Canada. I personally knew at least 15 to 20 deserters quite well. They were treated exactly the same as a dodger. The only requirement to stay in Canada was to legally immigrate as a "landed immigrant". Once that was done, there were no strings beyond the normal restrictions on any other immigrant.
One of my deserter acquaintances once made the observation the "the only real difference between a draft dodger and a deserter was foresight."
And, as far as I'm concerned, 1000 total deserters during Vietnam is far too low.
Sounds like someone has an agenda to discredit desertion here.

Furthermore the following weblink maintained by Joesph Jones at the University of British Columbia Library,
makes the following statement:
"What upper bound on numbers is indicated by U.S. statistics?
An official U.S. review of the data cites 209,517 cases of accused draft offenders and 100,000 less-than-honorable military discharges for absence offenses – a total that exceeds 300,000. By the 1977 Carter pardon the same source estimates a total of 11,000 American offenders at large, the “overwhelming majority” in exile. In the early 1970s the United States made liberal use of administrative measures to reduce embarrassing numbers."
http://www.library.ubc.ca/jones/hstrnt.html

Someone needs to double check the figures listed, because right now the article says 30,000 evaded the draft by going to Canada, and the next paragraph it says 50,000 ended up remaining in Canada after the amnesty. That don't make sense. [[Special:Contributions/209.237.85.251|209.237.85.251]] ([[User talk:209.237.85.251|talk]]) 17:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

== removed clean-up tag ==

The article seems of pretty average cleanliness to me at this point. If anyone disagrees feel free to replace it. [[User:DKalkin|Kalkin]]

== "...or otherwise broke any laws" ==

In the section on US politicans and "draft dodging" charges, the phrase "or otherwise broke any laws" was added to the claim that none of the US candidates accused of draft dodging actually refused conscription and/or fled the country.

I'm not sure about that. Some politicians have been accused of rather dubious (and possibly illegal) activites regarding military service, such as having strings pulled in order to receive preferential treatment from military officials, in order to secure safe postings like Guard assignments. Ignoring the question of whether or not the public officials so accused actually ''did'' this--the question remains:

* Would it be illegal? Or is it a permissible use of military judgment for a National Guard commander to save a spot for the son of a friendly politician?
* If such activities occured, then who is the lawbreaker? The young man who receives the preferential treatment? His father, uncle, or whoever who arranged for it to occur? The military official which cooperated with this?

I don't know the answers. Pulling such strings to avoid military service certainly strikes me as unethical (especially if the individual in question is pro-war, but doesn't want his own ass in the combat zone), and is not a desirable trait to have in a public official--but I don't know if it is actually ''illegal'' or not.

Depending on the answers to the above, it might be better if the claim were reversed. I'm leaving it for now, but let's discuss.--[[User:EngineerScotty|EngineerScotty]] 06:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:This whole National Guard business is greatly overblown because of the current Iraq situation. Being in the Guard or Reserves was considered a perfectly honorable way (at least in the broader society) of trying to avoid the risks of Vietnam It was not guaranteed and I personally know of at least one person who was in the Guard and did end up in Vietnam (involuntarily). Please remember that as late as 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton, a person who actually refused service, was twice elected President. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] 06:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
::Clinton refused service? When and where? He had a legal student deferment early in the war (and one that he, as an excellent student and a [[Rhodes scholar]] certainly deserved). When student deferment ended, Clinton was subject to the draft--but had a high lottery number and was never called. The only way that Clinton "refused" service is that he didn't run down to the local recruitment office and enlist voluntarily. At no point was he ever conscripted.
::At any rate, thousands of young men tried to enlist in the Guard, the Navy, the Coast Guard, ROTC, or numerous other places where the chance of them getting shot at by the Viet Cong would be considerably lower. Unlike today (where the Guard is getting a significant share of duty in Iraq), the National Guard was generally a safe place to be during Vietnam. There were many more people who wanted in than there were slots available; to many, seeing the children of the rich and powerful getting to go to the front of the line seems unseemly (and may, in fact, constitute an abuse of power). --[[User:EngineerScotty|EngineerScotty]] 07:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Why do you think it was the children of the rich and powerful that got into the Guard and Reserves? I could have gotten in and I'm about as unrich and unpowerful as you get. The children of the rich and powerful mostly got out of the service altogether. As to avoiding service, first he used William Fulbright's office to land a position in the ROTC at his university in order to avoid the draft, then requested a year deferment of his obligation to begin basic training in order to attend Oxford. Later, when he was to be called to fulfill his commitment (he didn't serve in the military, did he?) he told the Colonel (I think it was) that he didn't want to fulfill his commitment. Seems like refusal to me. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:::: If you're thinking of the letter to Colonel Holmes, that was written after Clinton received a high lottery number (and was thus safe from the draft). Prior to the lottery, the draft board had sent out two induction notices, but withdrew them for various reasons. Many have alleged undue influence in the process, in the case of the second withdrawl the decision was up to a (different) colonel.
:::: Of course, much of went on was part of the ''duty'' of pre-lottery draft boards--to decide who, among the eligible young men of the local community, was to become cannon fodder, and who wasn't. Not every man of age got drafted. Many thought the whole process unfair (and I agree with this), which was why--in large part--the lottery was instituted and the various deferments abolished. At any rate, Clinton is certainly entitled to plead his case to his local draft board, that's how draft boards operated (and how millions of young men sought to avoid service). At any rate, I fail to see how the accusations against Clinton in this regard are any more serious than those against Bush or other politicians. Both political parties have demonstrated hypocrisy on the issue. --[[User:EngineerScotty|EngineerScotty]] 08:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
::::: Clinton sought Fulbright's help to get the ROTC spot in the first place, and this got him a 1-D draft status, which was reserved for people who were slated for the Guard or Reserves. He still had this status in October of 1969, when Nixon announced that the October eligibles would fill the slots for October, November and December. IOW, if you weren't drafted in the October pool, you were safe for 1969. On December 1, Clinton learned he had the very high draft number of 311, freeing him from jeopardy in 1970. On December 2 he applied to Yale, abandoning the University where he would have served in the ROTC, and on December 3, he wrote to Colonel Holmes. Is this so terrible? Not in my estimation, but if Bush was in little jeopardy by being in the Air National Guard, he was in more jeopardy and served more than Clinton ever did, and it was the height of hypocisy, after two terms of Clinton, to try sink Bush's presidency on the bogus Air Guard issue. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] 08:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:I'll add a point about the National Guard. It wasn't all that hard to get into the National Guard and Reserves in most states, if you made your mind to do it before the Selective Service was breathing down your neck. This was because most people who hoped to avoid service hoped to avoid it altogether. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] 06:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
::IIRC, slots filled up ''very'' quickly, a lot depending on when you came of age. Older young men often could get guard slots, but those who turned 18 in the late 60s or early 70s were generally screwed. By that time, the war was already unpopular, resistance of many forms was high, and most of the Guard slots had already been filled. --[[User:EngineerScotty|EngineerScotty]] 07:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:::"Older young men" got into the Guard? I'd really like to know where you got that impression? I don't think you're old enough to have experienced it yourself. You did not enlist in the Guard or Reserves through Selective Service, you went to a recruiter. If you were older, it almost always meant that you had had deferments of one or another kind, and SSS went after you first. At that point, the Guard or Reserves may not have helped you, even if they wanted you. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] 07:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
::::What I meant by that was, men who became draft-eligible earlier in the war had a better chance of securing a "safe" spot, fulfilling their commitment, and thus immune to being drafted for duty in Vietnam; not that getting a deferment woule make you less likely to be drafted when your deferment ran out. You're right in that I'm '''way''' too young; what I know I know from reading lots of material, and from my own father who ''was'' of draft age at that time. He managed to get a Guard spot (without benefit of any political influence or illegal maneuvers), and didn't have to go to Vietnam. (He has some interesting stories about this...) Of course, he's never run for office so nobody cares whether he went to Vietnam or not.--[[User:EngineerScotty|EngineerScotty]] 08:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well, you see your dad and I could both get in the Guard (but I didn't want to) without illegality or political influence. That should count for at least something in addition to your readings. ;-) -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] 08:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

== Other uses of the term ==

I can't think of how to possibly modify it, but I'm rather bothered by the "other uses." It is just too broad. I mean, a draft dodger is someone who actively pursues a course of avoidance. A draft resister challenges the system up front. Minor means of avoidance, such as claiming the ever popular "trick knee" or seeking a student deferment are attempts to "play the system" which is not the same as dodging--i.e., at least in the context of Vietnam there was no shame at all attached to it, at least among peers. Enlisting in the National Guard or Reserve does not rise to the level of draft dodging--in fact, until Vietnam the U.S. Government used to run ads telling you that you could avoid active duty by enlisting in the reserves (in order to fill the ranks of reservists). It is also not right to include sincere COs. CO was not easy to get, you could still be drafted for an noncombatant, and COs during WWII actually went to jail. Including medics is frankly outrageous. Medics were, by the nature of their job, in some of the most dangerous situations in any war. COs who were medics did it to avoid having to carry a weapon in war, not to avoid danger. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

== Present ramifications ==

Although the US has deserters from Iraqi and Afghanistan, aren't they all volunteers? It doesn't appear to make sense to grant asylum to someone who willing joined the army. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:24.108.71.91|24.108.71.91]] ([[User talk:24.108.71.91|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/24.108.71.91|contribs]]) 2 March 2006.

::Canada is apparently willing to grant asylum to soldiers who claim they have been forced to take part in improper activities, even though their joining the service was voluntary.

::This section has a sentence about "fragging" which is a repetition of a sentence in the first section. I see that someone has added "citation needed" to this second instance, but surely one or the other is redundant and should be removed. [[User:TheNameWithNoMan|TheNameWithNoMan]] ([[User talk:TheNameWithNoMan|talk]]) 08:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

::Why the lengthy description of Quayle’s National Guard Service and so very little about Cheney or Biden's draft dodging -- both of whom did everything short of maiming themselves to avoid Military service (neither had the guts to do it – I guess it’s a prerequisite for VP). By contrast here Biden and Cheney make "W" look like a war hero! (For the record, Bush flying antique Air National Guard Convair F-102s was probably in more danger than I was during an extended CIB-earning tour in Vietnam!). Finally, the explanation of President Clinton’s Draft history is incorrect. For the truth I would refer you to the Wikipedia Bill Clinton entry and click on footnote 22. ^ "frontline: the clinton years: bill clinton's draft letter". PBS. 1991-11-23. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html. Retrieved 2009-08-06. You can see it in his own words how he lied to his draft board to avoid the draft. This is actually a violation of Federal Law for which he was never prosecuted. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:The-Expose-inator|The-Expose-inator]] ([[User talk:The-Expose-inator|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/The-Expose-inator|contribs]]) 19:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC) 

== Can we move this to a more neutral title? ==
This article lumps together three things:
* "Draft evader", a legal category, people who illegally avoid conscription
* "Draft resister", a political category, a subset of war resisters who specifically resist conscription, either through draft evasion or through willingly facing prison sentences rather than be conscripted
* "Draft dodger", a pejorative that may refer to either of the above, or to conscientious objectors and others who avoid being drafted (or merely avoid being placed in combat roles) by legal means that the speaker deems unethical. (This is reasonably well discussed.)

Right now, the title is the vaguest and most pejorative of those terms, and that is also the emphasis of the article. I would suggest that a more appropriate title would be [[Draft evasion and resistance]] (with everything relevant redirecting there). The first paragraph should distinguish the three terms, more or less as I just did.

At a quick read, I think all of the material here belongs, but the article calls for massive expansion: as it stands, the article is terribly U.S.-centric and presentist. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 21:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

:Agreed. Lets hope someone has time. [[User:DKalkin|Kalkin]] 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

::I'm for a more neutral title, though "draft dodger" should redirect to the new home, and the term explained. Like it or not, it's part of the political discourse (especially in the US), and an exploration of the term is certainly warranted. Agreed that the article needs more content, especially relevant to parts of the world besides the US. How does [[Draft avoidance]] sound? It includes both evasion, resistance, and other quasi-legal means of not getting conscripted, as mentioned in the article. --[[User:EngineerScotty|EngineerScotty]] 00:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:::On the redirect: of course.
:::"Draft avoidance" (I assume by analogy to "tax avoidance"?) is neutral, but not at all common. I wouldn't object, but I'll admit I like my own suggestion above better. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Personally I prefer to use the most common term, draft dodger, even if it is somewhat pejorative. In the Canadian context I would also say that dodger isn't considered in any way negative, it is overwhelmingly the term these people use to self identify themselves. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 23:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: That's because the ones who ran off to Canada were evaders/dodgers. But the term is considered insulting by those who chose to stand their ground and risk prison sentences. Most of them believe that by accepting the consequences of their actions, they weren't "dodging" anything. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 02:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:Agreed. "Draft resistance" should be the main namespace, because it incorporates the activity of "draft evasion" and is the neutral term for the much of the activity referenced by the pejorative "draft dodging" -- even though the insult "draft dodging" may go '''outside''' draft resistance to include [[conscientious objection]], which "draft resistance" does not. "Draft dodging" is so perjorative that it (IMHO) violates Wiki's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV]]. Using it as the article name suggests Wiki endorses the denigration of draft resistors. Re using "draft avoidance" (697 Google hits at this moment) -- would that be close to coining a new label for this activity? "Draft resistance" is already in common use (79,400 Google hits at this moment). I think ease of use supports "draft resistance" v. "draft avoidance." Thanks to '''Jmabel''' for raising the issue and outlining it so well. -- [[User:Lisasmall|Lisasmall]] 22:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::I'd be perfectly happy with "[[draft resistance]]". Let's give it a couple of days to see if anyone objects. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
:I support leaving it as is, per SimonP. BTW I think the request for a move is premature. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 13:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
::I also maintain my objections. Active draft resistance is a very different concept from draft dodging, and the best solution would be to have a separate article on each term. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 14:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

*IMO, ''Draft Dodger'' is the only title that makes sense. Certainly the most commonly used term, and the one most widely recognized, "draft dodger" has entered the vernacular has the legitimate term to describe the action. Certainly if necessary a section can be included in the article discussing alternative names for the practice, but far from being PoV, "Draft Dodger" is the commonly accepted word in this instance. -- [[User:Pm shef|pm_shef]] 15:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
*I don't think it really matters what legal terms there are for it, Draft Dodger is the most common term, and the ''only'' one I've ever heard used. I hear it on the news all the time. I'm talking about all news stations in Canada (Global, CTV, CBC) too. People who came to Canada instead of Vietnam call themselves draft dodgers. There is also a WWII song by Canadians called "We are the D-Day Dodgers", which refered to the 1st Canadaian Arm that was in Italy at the time of D-Day. Dodgers is common, and nobody is arguing about the word "draft". As for using it only in a negative connitation, that is an American POV. Canadians don't consider the term derogitory. It is just a term, like the brain drain, or immagrant. It just means they "immigrated" to Canada to avoid the draft. It's just Americans that go "Oh my God! Draft Dodger! Court-martial and put in jail!" -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]][[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]][[User:Royalguard11/Desk|My Desk]] 17:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
** Have you ever bothered listening to the lyrics of ""We are the D-Day Dodgers"? It is a bitter reply to Lady Astor who referred to the soldiers by that expression. It is to some degree a reappropriation of the term, but for the most part it is a protest against having a pejorative applied to them. "Now Lady Astor, get a load of this. / Don't stand up on a platform and talk a load of piss. / You're the nation's sweetheart, the nation's pride / But your bloody big mouth is far too wide." - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 08:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So are you folks saying that this article should stay at this title, and that it should not include draft resistance that is ''not'' draft dodging?? If that's the case, we need a different article on draft resistance. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 08:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

**Draft avoidance. It's neutral but sufficiently broad. [[User:Trekphiler|Trekphiler]] 11:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

==Requested move==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the {{{type|proposal}}}. '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

{{{result|The result of the debate was}}} '''no move''' [[User:Patstuart|Patstuart]][[User_talk:Patstuart|(talk)]][[Special:contributions/Patstuart|(contribs)]] 12:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Per discussion above: "[[draft resistance]]"? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 03:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Draft dodger is a well established term. Resister is less specific. I.e., one might oppose the concept of the draft without ever being drafted. But this article is about the dodgers, not other resisters. It's more POV to call them anything else because it would give them the benefit of the doubt that they probably have an altruistic motive for their actions (rather than cowardice). Also, ''dodger'' is not a really really negative term, as far as names go. [[User:Deetdeet|Deet]] 02:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. In addition to Deet's comment, it's not really pejoritive, and often self-applied. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 16:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Repeating my vote from the previous section. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 17:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per my comment above. This is the most well known term. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]][[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]][[User:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]] 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. [[User:Bubba ditto|Bubba ditto]] 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Draft dodger is the known and used term. That said, if there's enough content for an article on opposition to the draft that doesn't necessarily involve dodging it, go ahead and make that article. The [[conscription]] article implies that [[Antimilitarism]] would be the current place to put that, though (it has the "main article" header for draft resistance). [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. They are basically the same topic. [[User:Watersoftheoasis|Watersoftheoasis]] 17:16 29 October 2006
Since you've all repeated your remarks, I'll repeat my question: are you folks then saying that this article should exclude draft resistance that is ''not'' draft dodging? If that's the case, we need a different article on draft resistance. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 06:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, I think that would be the best solution. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 11:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:No, it's not necessary since it's dealt with already in the article with ''"The term draft dodger is sometimes used more loosely, and often inappropriately, to describe those who avoid military service by any number of means..."'' - [[User talk:AjaxSmack|''' AjaxSmack ''']] 05:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:: It is ''mentioned'' but it is not discussed. Draft resistance has at many times in many countries been a significant political phenomenon. A sentence or two by no means covers the matter.
:: It is one thing that this article with what I feel to be a POV title is to be kept. I won't fight that. It is another thing to say that a large and significant topic either will not be covered, or must be wedged under this disparaging title. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 17:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>

== Vandalism on the page ==

I have been coming across random messages, such as the one that reads keesha wolfe is fugly (which is situated in the paragraph describing consciencios objectors). Could someone please put a lock on this page or something. Its getting to be annoying. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:204.38.99.7|204.38.99.7]] ([[User talk:204.38.99.7|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/204.38.99.7|contribs]]) 15 November 2006.
: Not nearly the level for protection. Easily reverted, not actually an article that gets a lot of vandalism. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 05:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

== Additional countries that attracted US draft dodgers ==
I've read that [[Switzerland]] also accepted US draft dodgers, in addition to Canada and Sweden. Can anyone verify this? —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:71.160.148.169|71.160.148.169]] ([[User talk:71.160.148.169|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/71.160.148.169|contribs]]){{#if:07:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)| 07:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)|}}.
:Uninformed answer: certainly where Sylvester Stallone sat out the war. But I suspect that if you took up longterm residency in Switzerland, you had to be willing to serve in the Swiss Army; at least at that time they had universal service. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

==Artless dodger==
IMHO, this whole page is POV. It's entirely focused on the American experience & Vietnam. Where are Canadian (''[[Quebecois]]'') evaders? Americans in Civil War, WWI, WW2? (For instance, Garrison's ''Civil War Trivia Fact Book'' has 1250 deserters a week, with "run money" {as USN called it}, paid for returning them, starting at $5, rising to $30 by the end of the war.) And where are Brits, French, Germans, Japanese, Russians? This is ''supposed'' to be an international project, not ''Encyclopedia Uncle Sam''. [[User:Trekphiler|Trekphiler]] 11:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:Complain or contribute? [[User:Ymous|Ymous]] 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I woule agree with Trekphiler that the article is US centric (and concentrates on the Vietnam era) Draft dodging still takes place today in Poland, Turkey and many other countries. Nevertheless it is an interesting article. What about renaming it "Draft dodging (United States)" and start a new article from an International perspective.[[User:80.229.222.48|80.229.222.48]] 22:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Go for it. Also it would be interesting to track it at different times, of course. [[Joseph René Vilatte]] apparently dodged the draft in Napoleonic France by moving to Belgium so he didn't have to be in the army for 7 years. [[User:Tempshill|Tempshill]] ([[User talk:Tempshill|talk]]) 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

==Problems==
Just speaking as perhaps one of the few people reading this who was actually drafted, the entire article has many problems. I tried to slip into the Guard, but had no connections and didn't know the right people. Because my father was a WW II veteran and he wanted me to serve or avoid service properly, I entered law school and was a 4.0 student there. Nevertheless, I had a rural draft board and they needed a warm body and so off to Vietnam I went in 1968.

It is necessary, in any discussion of draft-dodging, to cite the many politicians who dodged it. It isn't partisan to do so because plenty of Democrats and Republicans dodged the draft. It is relevant to point out politicians who dodged because of the hypocrisy angle. It is hypocritical to say you seek public service when the job has safety and prestige, but to not have sought public service when the job was very dangerous.

It was also silly to say Clinton's primary reason to avoid the draft was to avoid any break in his career. Heck, everybody's primary motive was to avoid being killed. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.44.145.230|70.44.145.230]] ([[User talk:70.44.145.230|talk]]) 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 

== Political examples ==

The use of so many politicians as examples smacks of agenda-pushing. Granted, it serves to taint a variety of them, from both major US parties, but that's still an agenda. As much as I like to see hipocrites like ___ and ___ and especially ___ exposed for what they are, this isn't the place for it, so I propose these examples all be removed. If examples of each kind of draft-dodging are needed, the article should use hypotheticals. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 21:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
==Canada==
I was thinking of adding [[:Category:History of Canada]] here, or even [[:Category:Ethnic groups in Canada]]; maybe a subarticle [[American draft dodgers in Canada]] might be worthwhile because of the special impact on Canada and Canadian society this migration had, and also the high profile many of these same individuals attatined in Canadian society. I'll read the article overleaf to see what is andisn't in it, just fielding this suggestion, and wondering about including a Canadian category. I'll definitely add the WPCan template if it's not already here though...[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk:Skookum1|talk]]) 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Cumulative Effects of Exemptions on African-Americans? ==

This header, "Cumulative Effects of Exemptions on African-Americans", seems to have been inserted into the middle of a more general section. It's awkward and untidy. The text does touch on this issue both before and after the header, but then returns to the more general subject. If it is felt necessary to give this aspect of the issue a header, the relevant subject matter ought to be separated out and placed in its own section. [[User:TheNameWithNoMan|TheNameWithNoMan]] ([[User talk:TheNameWithNoMan|talk]]) 08:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

An addition (quoted below) by an un-named editor has just been removed by Louis Waweru for the entirely correct reason that "The article shouldn't be in a debate with itself". However, the addition cites a statistical source that refutes an un-cited contention in the article ( that "a large proportion of the ground troops in Vietnam were African-Americans"). It seems to me that the correct material should be incorporated in the article, in a way that does not seem like a debate.

:"Read the rest of this section to hear the myth generated by the anti-war movement and even persists to this day that blacks served and died in disproportionate numbers in Vietnam. Here are the facts. Of all the service members who served in Vietnam, 10.6% were black, 88.4% were Caucasian (including Hispanics) and 1% other. At that time, Blacks represented 12.5% of the total U.S. population so they were significantly under represented in the war zone. The other persistent myth is that Blacks were grossly over represented in combat. This is not supported by the casualty data which shows 86.8% of those killed in action were Caucasian, while 12.1% were Black. Although slightly higher than the proportion serving in combat, it is less than the Black percentage of the general population at that time. Source: Combat Area Casualty File of 11/93 (CACF1193), and The Adjutant General's Center (TAGCEN) file of 1981. Data confirmed by the World History Center (http://history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm)." [[User:TheNameWithNoMan|TheNameWithNoMan]] ([[User talk:TheNameWithNoMan|talk]]) 11:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

==Copyvio==

'''This''' "Less sober texts on draft "avoidance" (as opposed to "resistance" as described below) included "One Hundred and One Ways to Avoid the Draft" by musician Tuli Kupferberg, a member of The Fugs. Methods he espoused included arriving at the draft board in diapers or feigning homosexuality. Another text popular with men subject to the draft was a 1950s cartoon novella by Jules Feiffer, Munro, in which a four year old boy is drafted by mistake. Some men, taking an idea from the book, said they might ask the sergeant at the draft examination to "button me, Mister", but usually these schemes came to naught in an era where homophobia was normed, and only partly deconstructed by the antics of the counterculture." '''is also here''' (http://www.allergymedicine.us/Draft_dodger/encyclopedia.htm), but it isn't clear to me which is copied from which. (It also isn't clear in either source what the phrase, "Button me, Mister" means.) [[User:DOR (HK)|DOR (HK)]] ([[User talk:DOR (HK)|talk]]) 01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

== Not 'Conscription Avoidance' ==

rm

{{tl|globalize/USA}}

because "Draft Dodger" is a US-specific term. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.150.44|72.228.150.44]] ([[User talk:72.228.150.44|talk]]) 17:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Actually, not. See [[D-Day Dodgers]], which claims (accurately) that ''dodgers'' is generic English. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:: OK English-Speaking then (giving benefit of the doubt) but definitely not global. A simple title change and then redirecting "Draft dodger" to the globalized title would then justify the tag. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.150.44|72.228.150.44]] ([[User talk:72.228.150.44|talk]]) 14:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't see the distinction. The article is written in English. "Conscription Avoidance" or any other English language term could also be characterised as "English-speaking but not global" (as if English were only spoken in some small part of the globe, like French). The concept is a global one, writing an article about it in English would naturally employ the accepted English terminology, not some made up English term, and an article in another language would use that language's own terminology for the concept. There is no global term and you cannot invent one. [[User:TheNameWithNoMan|TheNameWithNoMan]] ([[User talk:TheNameWithNoMan|talk]]) 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::It's also prejudicial to claim that "draft dodgers" is a "US-specific term"....it's not as if Canada were part of hte US, you know....we got the bulk of US exiles in the '60s, and they're an important social/historical fact up here, especially in certain areas and in certain professions.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk:Skookum1|talk]]) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::"Conscription avoidance" strikes me as being both a neologism and a [[euhemerism]], and is nowhere near the most widely-used term.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk:Skookum1|talk]]) 16:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Don't see how it could be a euhermerism with no association with a [[person]]. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.150.44|72.228.150.44]] ([[User talk:72.228.150.44|talk]]) 18:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Neither is a noun phrase a neologism. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.150.44|72.228.150.44]] ([[User talk:72.228.150.44|talk]]) 18:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
[undent]Quit picking hairs, this isn't about semantics, it's about usage. Only a lawyer or an academic would come up with a term like "conscription avoidance" - ''plain English'' and ''most common usage'' are standard guidelines, whether in Wikipedia or not (and most common usage is the arbiter of stuff like this). Euhemerism, euphemism, eucharism, the word doesn't matter - it's like calling a janitor a "sanitary engineer" or a toilet a "lavitation device". Conscription is also a decidedly British/imperial-English term, and btw I don't think it's quite the same as "the draft"; different selection methods and legalities. In Canada, we call 'em draft dodgers; a term we tend to use even for deserters and others, not just those who fled the draft ''per se''. Ask someone what a draft dodger is or was, they'll know. Ask them if them know what "Conscription avoidance" is and they'll look at you like you've been reading too many dictionaries. And it's not a term for a person; you're suggesting a change from an article about a type of person to what it is that defines them (according to you).[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk:Skookum1|talk]]) 04:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I think you mean "splitting hairs". Oops! [[User:TheNameWithNoMan|TheNameWithNoMan]] ([[User talk:TheNameWithNoMan|talk]]) 07:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::"splitting hairs" + "nitpicking" = "picking hairs". "Creative semantic aphasia" is kinda becoming my thing....[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk:Skookum1|talk]]) 12:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== US Bias ==

I came here looking specifically for information on draft dodging in countries other than the US, but this article, while it has a neutral title and acknowledges other contries, is pretty much focused on US draft dodging. Also, I think something should be said about what the punishment for draft dodging is. [[Special:Contributions/209.176.79.34|209.176.79.34]] ([[User talk:209.176.79.34|talk]]) 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:There is a header pointing out the US centricity of the article. It's because mostly US (or ex-US) writers have contributed, and most of them left over from the Vietnam era. One supposes there are fewer contributors available from other backgrounds. If you have another country's take on the subject, why not write it up? I only know (more than I want to really) about the US draft, and they don't even have one anymore. [[User:TheNameWithNoMan|TheNameWithNoMan]] ([[User talk:TheNameWithNoMan|talk]]) 18:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

== new debate on article name ==

It has been over two years since the last discussion regarding the name of this article. I am bringing the issue up again for debate. The name of this article needs to be something with less POV than draft dodger. Draft resistance is the least POV choice. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] ([[User talk:Kingturtle|talk]]) 13:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
:I'll respond the same way I did two years ago, as I still think that draft dodger is best name. It is the most common term, and in the Canadian context at least isn't at all pejorative. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] ([[User talk:SimonP|talk]]) 15:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
::But ''draft dodger'' does not describe the activity. Draft dodger implies someone is sneaking around, trying to find away to avoid the draft. [[Muhammad Ali]] was not dodging the draft. He was quite public about his stance, his action and his act of defiance. Indeed, he was a ''draft resister''. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] ([[User talk:Kingturtle|talk]]) 15:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

:::So "draft dodger" may not accurately describe the activity of Muhammad Ali specifically, but it certainly describes AN activity, and a common, well understood one. This article is about THAT activity. If you think Ali should not be in the article, that is another matter. We can't pretend there was no draft dodging on the basis that Muhammad Ali did something else. "Draft resister" means something different from "draft dodger", so needs a separate article, not a renaming of this one, which is about what it is about, and not something else. [[User:TheNameWithNoMan|TheNameWithNoMan]] ([[User talk:TheNameWithNoMan|talk]]) 16:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

::::Not a bad idea. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] ([[User talk:Kingturtle|talk]]) 16:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::I agree with this. Cases like Ali's don't belong in this article. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] ([[User talk:SimonP|talk]]) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
:::* NoMan is mistaken. "Draft dodger" is a term of abuse suitable for two purposes:
::::# Talking among people in a particular state, about certain other people:
::::#: about more or less the people whose identity NoMan imagines to be well defined bcz he thinks their defining behavior is "a ... well understood one";  among those who are pretty much just bullshitting and therefore need to achieve clarity about what they are feeling, but not about what/who it is they're feeling it about, since [[cognitive dissonance]] could result from too much clarity.
::::# Building social cohesion for the view that even the least hesitation about serving is dishonorable, and usually seeking to intimidate those lacking full enthusiasm for serving.
:::: (I'm not sure which of those purposes led to [[draft resistance]] being a Rdr to the accompanying article.)  "Draft dodger" could be suitable to a discussion of such indiscriminate use of the term in public discourse -- just as we have an article [[Nigger]], which is not about black people nor about their characteristics.  Draft resistance is clearly different in theory (and such theory is worthy of discussion in terms of who advocates it) but it's sometimes, perhaps often, impossible to nail down who is practicing it and who is dodging the draft using draft resistance as a pretext. That distinction is not clearly the same as the one, among those illegally avoiding being drafted, between those
::::# a) using fraud or b) becoming a fugitive, or
::::# either a) going about their normal life on the day ordered to report for their induction, or b) showing up but not moving when ordered to step forward after the oath of induction is read to their group.
:::: It gets muddier still when the logic stated (sincerely or not) is considered. [[Daniel Seeger]] said he qualified as a conscientious objector under the law, but his draft board disagreed, arguing his objection was philosophical rather than religious in nature; when he failed to step forward, his case was referred for prosecution, and he was convicted. But his board was wrong: the Supreme Court said he ''was'' religious (tho not conventionally so), voided his conviction, and essentially said he was a good guy who persevered in establishing what the freedom of religion of Americans includes. Not only was he in group 2.b above (which meant he got a day in court on the principles, not just on whether he stepped forward or not), while the guys in groups 1.a and 1.b, if they got caught, and 2.a, if the US Attorney's priorities permitted, could only claim at trial that that was someone else's induction order that they ignored, or that their failure to show up was a result of their being kidnapped or insane. And of course, if neither the trial court nor a higher court decides that the draft board misjudged, you can be in group 2.b, and otherwise apparently indistinguishable from Seeger, but it then turns out that -- tho you thot you were helping the law sort itself out -- you fought the law and the law won.  Of course, in each of those four groups, there can be people who don't claim a [[conscientious objection]] to all war, based on religious training and belief. Tho i seem to recall that a [[Jehovah's Witness]] can plan on warring only at [[Armageddon]], and still be ruled a "C.O.", the rule of thumb is you either meet those criteria, or step forward, or you're a criminal. But there are still worthy distinctions among the criminals. Some will say they were just looking out for themselves, that everyone has a ''right'' to look out for themselves, or that everyone has an ''obligation'' to look out for themselves, or that they have an obligation or a right or an commitment to look out for their class or race or ethnicity or to the species, or they are deciding on the basis of the nature of the current government or its motivations in the current or the next likely war, or simply that defying the current government at the present time is a good strategy for bringing it down. It would be self-indulgent for me to continue enumerating distinctions.  I'm not saying we can or should do justice to all the real variations (let along the imaginable ones), but "draft dodger" is the bluntest possible instrument, and the discussion should be aimed for now at figuring out what the next sharper tool would be. (I'm far more committed to that much than to the hope that my opinion on the next sharper is correct. But FWIW, the distinction between trying to ignore the draft, and trying to confront it is a major one: [[Daniel Berrigan]], apparently not Philip, said (about trashing draft-board offices) "Don't just do something; stand there." (And explain why you did it, instead of disappearing.) --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 09:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 
:::::At least in the Canadian context you are really quite mistaken. It is a word regularly used by everybody, very much unlike the pejorative you compare it to. A quick media search finds "draft dodger" has appeared thousands of times in Canadian newspapers even over the last few years, and almost always in benign contexts. Other terms like "draft evader" and "war resister" have hardly ever appeared. Here are a few examples of the word being used in recent newspaper articles that show it is a common and non-pejorative term:
:::::*"Between songs, [ [[Carole James]] ] reminisced about growing up in a politically active home. Her parents opened it as a safe house for draft dodgers during the Vietnam War and were active in the civil-rights movement." - "James pledges to cut park fees;" Les Leyne. ''Times - Colonist. Victoria,'' B.C.: May 2, 2009. pg. B.2
:::::*"By some measures, the Canadian people have been consistently supportive of U.S. draft dodgers and deserters in their midst. Canadians "have not changed," said Lee Zaslofsky, a Vietnam-era deserter and spokesman for the War Resisters Support Campaign, a Toronto group that aids deserters." - "Canada a safe haven no more." Michael Matza. ''Edmonton Journal.'' Edmonton, Alta.: Mar 22, 2009. pg. E.1
:::::*"Though they both grew up on a Canadian farm, in the tender though not always skilled care of their draft dodger-turned-hairdresser father, Lou, Peachy and Beth have vastly different lives." "A complex tale of sibling rivalry." Robert Wiersema. ''Times - Colonist.'' Victoria, B.C.: Feb 22, 2009. pg. B.8
:::::*"Along the way, he met Richard "Cheech" Marin, a Vietnam draft dodger who originally landed in Canada in Bragg Creek, just outside of Calgary." - "Pull out the bong for Chong; Edmonton-born half of stoner duo sings praises of Canadian 'hipness'" Francois Marchand. ''Edmonton Journal.'' Edmonton, Alta.: Feb 11, 2009. pg. D.1
:::::*"She felt more in her element in Nelson, where they moved two years later, with the artistically inclined residents, including draft dodgers and hippies living in communes. " - "Artistically inclined; Christine Carpenter captured essence of people and places in her illustrious life." Susan Lazaruk. ''Times - Colonist''. Victoria, B.C.: Jan 23, 2009. pg. C.11
::::: - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] ([[User talk:SimonP|talk]]) 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

== Numbers do not support biased wording ==

This is in the first paragraph under Vietnam War, North America.

<blockquote>
Of all the service members who served in Vietnam, 10.6% were black, 88.4% were Caucasian (including Hispanics) and 1% other. At the time, Blacks represented 12.5% of the total U.S. population and 13.5% of the military age cohort, so they were significantly under represented in the war zone. Casualty data shows 86.8% of those killed in action were Caucasian, while 12.1% were Black. Although slightly higher than the proportion serving in combat, it was significantly below the Black military age cohort in the general population at the time.
</blockquote>

The numbers show Black casualties to be proportionally 1.5% higher than enlisted and 1.4% below the military age cohort. Yet the former is described as "slight" and the latter "significant".

[[Special:Contributions/66.183.245.10|66.183.245.10]] ([[User talk:66.183.245.10|talk]]) 03:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Under World War I: "However, because Canada has always had a '''brain drain''' with respect to the US since 1830—sorting out those avoiding conscription from the ongoing stream of economic or social migrants is difficult." This can't be right. [[Special:Contributions/76.102.141.16|76.102.141.16]] ([[User talk:76.102.141.16|talk]]) 05:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== Telling the truth is avoidance? ==

:Claiming to be homosexual, when the military in question excludes homosexuals - this would be considered evasion if the claim was false, and ''avoidance if the claim is true''.
This is uncited and questionable. Why would telling the truth about who you are always be considered avoidance? Even more so nowadays since many gay men in those developed countries like the US which maintain such policies may be already [[out of the closet]] so are effectively being forced to go back in otherwise are allegedly 'avoiding the draft'. It's not their fault that their military refuses to let them serve because of who they are. In fact, considering they could potentially be at risk of harassment or worse, it would seem logical that they would want to know they are protected, which is questionable if they are unable to honestly tell people who they are. You may be able to argue this is true in some cases, i.e. when the person mentions it with the sole purpose of avoiding the draft, but not in all cases as this IMHO implies.

(And we're not even discussing the fact evidence suggests if they only semi-hide who they are, everyone is fine with them in wartime but not so fine during more peaceful times. Or extreme examples like someone who tried to voluntarily enlist at 18 with numerous request, attempts etc but was continually rejected because he was unwilling to hide the fact he was gay; then a war happens, the draft occurs and suddenly he's avoiding the draft. )

[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 20:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

== African American military figures in Vietnam War ==

{{User|The-Expose-inator}} keeps on adding the following text to the article. I have been removing it.

''Of all the service members who served in Vietnam, 10.6% were black, 88.4% were Caucasian (including Hispanics) and 1% other. At the time, Blacks represented 12.5% of the total U.S. population and 13.5% of the military age cohort, so they were significantly under represented in the war zone. Casualty data shows 86.8% of those killed in action were Caucasian, while 12.1% were Black. Although higher than the proportion serving in combat, it was significantly below the Black military age cohort in the general population at the time. (Source: Combat Area Casualty File of 11/93 (CACF1193), and The Adjutant General's Center (TAGCEN) file of 1981.''

My reasons for removal are:

* The reason why it is should be included in an article about Draft dodging is unclear
* It needs better sourcing to [[wp:v|verify]]
* It seems to be using [[wp:syn|synthesis]] to advocate a point.

If {{User|The-Expose-inator}} insists on adding this, then I will bring a [[wp:30|third opinion]]. Thank you --[[User:CutOffTies|CutOffTies]] ([[User talk:CutOffTies|talk]]) 16:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
::Note that The-Expose-inator added his opinion on the matter on my talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CutOffTies&diff=prev&oldid=441765038]. --[[User:CutOffTies|CutOffTies]] ([[User talk:CutOffTies|talk]]) 22:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

{|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;"
|[[Image:Searchtool-80%.png|15px]] '''Response to [[WP:3O|third opinion request]] ( {{User|The-Expose-inator}} regarding addition of information that seems to be unrelated to article subject, contains [[wp:SYN]] and questionable sourcing. There are a few noticeboards that this possibly could go (3rr/OR), but I rather start here. Thank you --[[User:CutOffTies|CutOffTies]] ([[User talk:CutOffTies|talk]]) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC))''':
|-
|style="padding-left:0.6cm"|First let me say that the statement left on the 3O project page is not written in a neutral way, with editor names being used in the summary. That being said, although there is difference of opinion as to the quality of the reference, it is cited. On this part the reference should be taken to [[WP:RSN]] to see what that community thinks of the quality of the source. The content in question, IMHO, belongs more on an article about causalities during the Vietnam/Second-Indochina Conflict/War, rather than in this article. If it is to be kept in this article it should be summarized and rewritten in a way that makes it relevant to African American draft dodging.—[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 23:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
|}
::Thank you, I am sorry if I offended anyone's reputation by including the names of the editors. Thank you also for pointing out that it is cited. Regardless of the quality of the source, my main concern is that the content seems out of place in this article (which you addressed and agree with) and the use of [[wp:syn|synthesis]] to advocate a point (which you didn't address). Therefore, I again removed it. If it is reverted again I suppose the [[wp:ORN|original research noticeboard]] is a good place to bring up my concerns about the synthesis. Thank you --[[User:CutOffTies|CutOffTies]] ([[User talk:CutOffTies|talk]]) 14:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Given the third opinion given above, and the comments on the original research noticeboard here [[Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Synthesis_on_Draft_dodger]] regarding both the use of original research and the content not being appropriate for an article on draft dodger, I removed the disputed content again. I still have not received any talk from the editor regarding this specific content- only reversions. Among many issues is that this content simply does not pertain to the article. Thank you --[[User:CutOffTies|CutOffTies]] ([[User talk:CutOffTies|talk]]) 20:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

==General Comment About the Entire Article==
Several passages in this article at totally undocumented statements that are totally opinion and possibly false yet remain unchallenged. I can only suspect that because the facts don’t conform to the general anti-war bias of the article, they are allowed to remain. Here are some of the numerous undocumented passages in this article and comments/facts refuting each:

-- This was the source of considerable resentment among poor and working class young men including African-Americans - who could not afford college.[citation needed]

How many exactly is “Considerable?” Also, “including African-Americans” is this two or were there more? This statement adds nothing, is completely unsourced and is opinior with no basis in fact.

-- Large groups of draft eligible men publicly burned draft cards.[citation needed]

Again, “Large groups” – I would agree “some” publically burned draft cards but because it was illegal and punishable (by being drafted), proportionally it was not many that did it. The newspapers and TV publicizing those that did might have made it seem like “large groups” but it was a tiny piece of the draft cohort that actually risked it.

--Since the National Guard was slated only for domestic security, service in the National Guard guaranteed protection from deploying to Vietnam. Vocations to the ministry and the rabbinate soared, as divinity students were exempt from the draft.[citation needed] Doctors and draft board members found themselves being pressured by relatives or family friends to exempt potential draftees.

Is there some proof of any of this? I would point out that a few National Guard units were activated and sent to Vietnam including the California National Guard (didn’t go as units but individual replacements) but more famously, the Kentucky National Guard’s 2nd Battalion, 138th Field Artillery which served in 1968-69 in support of the regular 101st Airborne Division. The Battalion's C Battery out of Bardstown lost 9 men killed and thirty-two wounded when North Vietnamese troops overran Fire Base Tomahawk on June 19, 1969. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States ) . This is history so this statement is obviously false.

-- in at least one case, a man who went to the movies, at the Biograph Theater in Chicago, every night on the week before the draft to eat buttered popcorn.[citation needed]

Talk about questionable and un-documentable passages. Was he trying to OD on popcorn? This statement is so ridiculous it needs no counter yet no one has challenged it?

-- During the Vietnam War, about 100,000 draft dodgers, in total, went abroad; others hid in the United States.[citation needed] An estimated 50,000 to 90,000 of these moved to Canada…

According to the definitive book on the subject, “Chance and Circumstance” (page 169) the total number of accused draft Evaders (Dodgers) was 210,000 with only 30,000 leaving the country. The TOTAL number of Deserters and Evaders total that went to Canada was about 30,000. Now that is sourced and this passage is patently false and greatly exagerated.

I would finally point out that in the 1972 Presidential election, Nixon ran on a platform continuing our involvement in Vietnam and won the election in a landslide with 60.7% of the popular vote and the fourth largest margin of victory in the popular vote (23.2%) in presidential election history. He received almost 18 million more popular votes than McGovern—the widest margin of any U.S. presidential election. McGovern, who would have had us out of Vietnam before the end of his Inaugural Speech, only won the electoral votes of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. This would certainly indicate that a “silent majority” didn’t want to abandon South Vietnam. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972 )

::In response to this, I agree that the sourcing is terrible in the entire article. As with any article, this editor encourages removal of unsourced information and the addition of on-topic, [[wp:npov|npov]] information backed by [[wp:rs|reliable sources]] --[[User:CutOffTies|CutOffTies]] ([[User talk:CutOffTies|talk]]) 20:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

:::For what it's worth, I'd like to second (third?) your thoughts. I just created a fully sourced paragraph for this article - the one beside the draft-counseling photo in the last sub-section - and was amazed to discover that my one paragraph is now responsible for one-third of the citations in the entire article. People, cite your sources, please! - [[User:Babel41|Babel41]] ([[User talk:Babel41|talk]]) 07:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

::::'''Update''': I have just made all the References in the entire article as consistent as possible, using a clear, straightforward format that even inexperienced contributors should be able to adapt to. Hopefully that will make it easier for us to add citations {"References") when we're contributing facts and ideas to this article. - [[User:Babel41|Babel41]] ([[User talk:Babel41|talk]]) 06:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

==Amex==
During its entire existance, the Amex phone lines were bugged by intelligence services. Phone calls were answered by a recorded warning message not to speak any information that could idenitfy the caller. I had 3 or 4 occasions to call that number. They also issued a monthly newsletter.

Draft evasion

2014-07-31T18:40:07Z

24.236.174.20: /* Emigration during the Vietnam War */ I called the AMEX phone number quite a few times. Ed Chilton.

[[File:Student Vietnam War protesters.JPG|thumb|right|250px|U.S. anti-Vietnam War protesters at the [[University of Wisconsin–Madison]]. A placard to the right reads "Use your head - not your draft card"]]

'''Draft evasion''' is an intentional decision not to comply with the military [[conscription]] policies of one's nation. Such practices that do not involve law breaking or which are based on [[conscientious objector|conscientious objection]] are sometimes referred to as "draft avoidance." Refusing to submit to the draft is considered a criminal offense in most countries where conscription is in effect.

Those who practice draft evasion are sometimes pejoratively referred to as "draft dodgers," a term which was made popular during the [[Vietnam War]].

Draft evasion is distinct from [[desertion]] in that only an active member of a military service can become a deserter by absenting himself or herself from the army without receiving a valid leave of absence or discharge and without any intention of returning to the army.

==Avoidance, evasion, resistance and desertion compared==
It is possible to draw a contrast between ''draft evasion'' and ''draft avoidance.'' Just as ''[[tax avoidance]]'' is defined as reducing or eliminating one's tax liability through legal means, ''draft avoidance'' is the elimination or mitigation of a potential conscript's military service obligation through some lawful procedure. The Vietnam era version of ''Webster's Unabridged Dictionary'' (1968) simply defined ''draft dodger'' as "one who avoids military service" regardless how it was done.<ref>"Draft Dodger". ''Webster's Unabridged Dictionary''. 1968.</ref> Some means of draft avoidance:

* Being a [[conscientious objector]], whether one's anti-war sentiment is religious or otherwise. [[Peace churches]], such as [[Jehovah's Witnesses]], [[Mennonites]], [[Amish]], [[Church of the Brethren|Brethren]], [[Christian anarchists]], [[Rastafari]] and [[Quakers]], oppose any kind of military service for their members, even in [[non-combatant]] fields, but are not opposed to alternative non-uniformed civilian service. Note that many people{{Who|date=June 2008}} who support conscription will distinguish between "[[bona fide]]" ''conscientious objection'' and ''draft dodging'', which they view as evasion of military service ''without'' a valid excuse. Conscientious objection would be considered ''evasion'' if the sentiment was not genuine.
* Seeking excusal from military service due to health reasons - this would be considered ''evasion'' if the purported health issue was feigned or overstated.
* Marrying and/or fathering children, if the military in question will grant deferments to spouses and/or parents.{{Citation needed|date=March 2008}}
* Claiming to be [[homosexual]], when the military in question excludes homosexuals—this would be considered ''evasion'' if the claim was false, but if the potential conscript is in fact a homosexual, it would be the rules of the military body that prevent him from enlisting, even if he wished to do so.
* Seeking and receiving a student deferment. This would be considered ''evasion'' if false or misleading academic credentials were used. some notable US figures avoided the draft as students: such as [[Bill Clinton]], [[Joe Biden]], [[Dick Cheney]], and [[Ted Nugent]].
* Being employed in or applying for a job in an "essential" civilian occupation and seeking deferment on those grounds—often this required a letter from the potential draftee's employer to be accepted. After receiving deferment as a student, [[2008 U.S. Presidential election|2008 U.S. Presidential candidate]] [[Rudolph Giuliani]] received further deferment after his occupation as a [[law clerk]] was deemed "essential" by the Selective Service.
* Non-pacifist churches have at times deferred [[missionary|missionaries]] as "divinity students". During the Vietnam War [[the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] became embroiled in controversy for deferring large numbers of its young members.<ref name="real-lds-draft">Kranish, Michael; Hellman, Scott (2012). ''The Real Romney''. New York: HarperCollins, pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-0-06-212327-5.</ref> The LDS church eventually agreed to cap the number of missionary deferments it sought for members in any one state; however, this generally did not stop LDS missionaries who lived outside [[Utah]]<ref name="real-lds-draft"/> (such as 2008 and 2012 presidential candidate [[Mitt Romney]]) from receiving deferments with relative ease.<ref>Conason, Joe (20 July 2007). "[http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/07/20/rudy_and_romney Rudy and Romney: Artful Dodgers]". Salon.com. Retrieved 14 August 2012.</ref><ref name="Globe">Kranish, Michael (24 June 2007). "[http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/articles/part1_side_2/?page=1 Mormon Church Obtained Vietnam Draft Deferrals for Romney, Other Missionaries]". ''The Boston Globe''. Retrieved 12 July 2009.</ref>
* Rock musician [[Ted Nugent]] described a more elaborate way of "dodging" the draft which involved a lapse in personal hygiene, later proven false when he produced his student deferment. His record obtained through a FOIA request shows a 2-S classification, which was granted when he enrolled at [[Oakland Community College]].
* Simply declining to enlist, if the potential conscript appears likely to avoid the draft through sheer "luck of the draw." During the Vietnam War, not all eligible young men were drafted; many who had a high [[Draft lottery (1969)|lottery number]] simply took no action, knowing that they were unlikely to ever be drafted. Declining to enlist is not ''evasion'', however some{{who?|date=June 2014}} hold the view that young persons (or young men) of combat age have an affirmative duty to enlist in the military during wartime, even if not drafted.
* Paying a [[stand-in]] to take one's place if drafted. In most countries this is no longer legally sanctioned, but it was a lawful and very common practice in the U.S. [[American Civil War|Civil War]]. [[Grover Cleveland]], who later became the Twenty-Second and Twenty-Fourth [[President of the United States]], paid a substitute during the [[American Civil War|U.S. Civil War]], an act for which he was criticized when he ran for President.
* In some countries it is often possible to evade military service by [[bribery|bribing]] corrupt draft officers, or by finding a doctor who will certify one as medically unfit.
* Deliberately making oneself medically unfit for duty. This could include consuming large quantities of drugs and alcohol for some time before the medical examination in order to appear addicted, or in more extreme cases, amputating a body part that is critical for service such as trigger fingers or even an entire limb. This could also include self-starvation, as in [[Abstinence (conscription)]] practiced by some Jewish conscripts in the Russian Empire.
* Moving out of the country (which, depending on the laws in question, may or may not exempt a citizen from the draft)

The term ''draft resister'' specifically refers to someone who explicitly refuses military service—simply attempting to flee the draft is draft evasion.

==By country==

===Australia===
{{unreferenced section|date=May 2011}}
Draft dodging was also common in [[Australia]] during the Vietnam War, though locally it was known as Draft Resistance or active non-compliance, see [[conscription in Australia]]. There was a film made about a draft dodger in Australia during the later stages of the Vietnam War that is often shown as part of Australia's film heritage at Screen Sound Canberra.

===Canada===

Canada employed a military draft during World Wars I and II, and some Canadians chose to evade it.

====World War I====

[[File:Anti-conscription parade at Victoria Square.jpg|thumb |right |alt=Masses of people on big-city street. |Anti-conscription march in Montreal, Canada, May 1917.]]

{{see also|Conscription Crisis of 1917}}

During the First World War, Canadians who did not want to be conscripted left for the US. The number of Canadians avoiding conscription via going to the US was in relative population terms less than the equivalent numbers of Americans fleeing to Canada during the Vietnam War. {{Citation needed|date=August 2009}}

====World War II====

{{see also|Conscription Crisis of 1944}}

Canada introduced conscription in 1940 via the [[National Resources Mobilization Act]].<ref name="Francis">{{cite book|title=Journeys: A History of Canada|first1=R D |last1=Francis |first2=Richard |last2=Jones|first3= Donald B |last3=Smith|url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=GbbZRIOKclsC&lpg=PA428&dq=Conscription%20Crisis%20of%201944%20vs%201917&pg=PA428#v=onepage&q&f=true|publisher=Nelson Education|year=2009|page=428|isbn=978-0-17-644244-6|accessdate=2010-09-28}}</ref> While the move was not inherently unpopular outside of French Canada, the true controversy lay in the fact that conscripts were not compelled to serve outside of Canada (i.e. in combat zones). This changed in 1943 when the 13th Canadian Brigade of the [[6th Canadian Infantry Division]] was embarked for combat employment against the Japanese in the [[Aleutian Islands]]. Several men deserted rather than embark; in the end, the brigade did not meet the enemy, which had fled. The fact that the Aleutians were technically North American soil had permitted the employment of the draftees, who were still not permitted to serve abroad by the conditions of their employment.

N.R.M.A. men were derisively known as "Zombies" by "G.S. Men" (those who had volunteered for General Service, or in other words, consented to serve in combat zones). Conscription had been a dividing force in Canadian politics in the First World War (precipitating a [[Conscription Crisis of 1917|political crisis]]) and Prime Minister [[William Lyon Mackenzie King|Mackenzie King]] vowed in the Second to introduce "conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription."<ref name="Francis" /> In November 1944, following costly fighting in [[Italian campaign (World War II)|Italy]], [[Operation Overlord|Normandy]] and [[Battle of the Scheldt|the Scheldt]], approximately 16,000 N.R.M.A. men were sent to Northwest Europe on the heels of a second [[Conscription Crisis of 1944|crisis]].

The number of men who actively sought to evade the draft in Canada is not known. Because of the delay in deploying them overseas, historians do not consider their number significant.

===New Zealand===
{{unreferenced section|date=May 2011}}

Although New Zealand did have a system of compulsory conscription commonly known as [[national service]], it sent only "full time all volunteer professional soldiers" to Vietnam. Nevertheless, many New Zealand men refused to register for national service and lost their right to vote and were denied or removed from government employment. The government never acted on its threats of lengthy jail time for refusal. National Service, including its registration process, was abolished in December 1972.

===United States===
[[File:Resistance to Confederate conscription.jpg|thumb|right|Unionists throughout the [[Confederate States]] resisted the imposition of conscription in 1862]]
The United States has employed conscription (mandatory military service, also called "the draft") several times, usually during war but also during the [[Cold War]]. It discontinued the draft in 1973, moving to an [[all-volunteer force]]. However, males aged 18–26 are required to register with the [[Selective Service System]], which remains as a contemporary plan in the event that a draft is needed. Knowing and willful refusal to present oneself for and submit to registration as ordered is punishable by a maximum penalty of up to five years in Federal prison and/or a fine of [[United States Dollar|US$]]250,000, although there have been no prosecutions of draft registration resisters since 1987.<ref>Hasbrouck, Edward (no date). "[http://www.resisters.info/prosecutions.html Prosecutions of Draft Registration Resisters]". Resisters.info. Retrieved 14 August 2012.</ref>

====World War I====

The [[Selective Service Act of 1917]] was carefully drawn to remedy the defects in the Civil War system by allowing exemptions for dependency, essential occupations, and religious scruples and by prohibiting all forms of bounties, substitutions, or purchase of exemptions. In 1917 and 1918 some 24 million men were registered and nearly 3 million inducted into the military services, with little of the overt resistance that characterized the Civil War.<ref>Chambers, John Whiteclay II (1987). ''To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America.'' New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-0-02-905820-6.</ref>

In the United States during [[World War I]], the word "[[slacker]]" was commonly used to describe someone who was not participating in the war effort, especially someone who avoided military service, an equivalent of the later term "draft dodger." Attempts to track down such evaders were called "slacker raids."<ref>Author unknown (10 September 1918). "[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9401E6D81439E13ABC4852DFBF668383609EDE Take Slackers into Army]". ''The New York Times''. Retrieved 14 August 2012.</ref><ref>Capozzola, Christopher (2008). ''Uncle Sam Wants You: World War I and the Making of the Modern American Citizen''. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 43-53. ISBN 978-0-19-533549-1.</ref>

====Vietnam War====


There was some opposition to the draft even before the major U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The large cohort of [[Baby Boom Generation|Baby Boomers]] who became eligible for military service during the Vietnam War also meant a steep increase in the number of exemptions and deferments, especially for college and graduate students. VA statistics show that U.S. troops in Vietnam represented a much broader cross section of America than is commonly believed and only 25% of troops deployed to the combat zone were draftees (compared to 66% during World War II).<ref name=inside>Author unknown (24 August 1983). "Inside: The Veterans Administration". ''The Washington Post'', p. ?.</ref> A total of 8.615 million men served during the Vietnam era and of them 2.15 million actually served in the Combat Zone so around 540,000 draftees served in the Combat Zone in Vietnam{{Citation needed|date=January 2013}}. Three-fourths of those deployed were from working families and poor youths were twice as likely to serve there than their more affluent cohorts although the vast majority of them were volunteers.<ref name=chance>Baskir, Lawrence M.; Strauss, William A. (1987). ''Chance and Circumstance: The Draft, the War, and the Vietnam Generation.'' New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-394-41275-7.</ref> Some draft eligible men publicly burned their draft cards, which was illegal, but the Justice Department brought charges against only 50, of whom 40 were convicted.<ref name=chance />

As U.S. troop strength in Vietnam increased, more young men sought to avoid the draft. Enlisting in the Coast Guard, though it had more stringent standards for enlistment, was one alternative. 15,000 National Guardsmen were activated and sent to Vietnam.<ref name=chance /> Vocations to the ministry and the rabbinate soared, because divinity students were exempt from the draft.{{Citation needed|date=September 2007}} Doctors and draft board members found themselves being pressured by relatives or family friends to exempt potential draftees.

Other means included finding, exaggerating, or causing physical and psychological reasons for deferment, whether in the temporary "1-Y" classification, or the permanent "[[4F (military conscription)|4-F]]" deferment. Physical reasons such as high blood pressure could get a man exempted. Antiwar psychiatrists could often find dormant mental conditions to be serious enough to warrant exemptions. Draft counselors, and the Selective Service System itself, emphasized that there was no such thing as an "exemption" from the draft, only a "deferment". Even the coveted status of 4-F (which by the late 1960s had lost its shameful connotation) was technically a deferment, implying that even 4-Fs might have to serve if America were invaded, as a home guard.

"[[Draft Dodger Rag]]", a 1965 [[anti-war]] song by [[Phil Ochs]], circumvented laws against counseling evasion by employing satire to provide a how-to list of available [[Selective Service System#Classifications|deferments]]: [[ruptured spleen]], [[homosexuality]], poor [[visual acuity|eyesight]], [[flat feet]], [[asthma]], [[caregiver]] for invalid relative, college enrollment, [[Reserved occupation|war industry worker]], [[spinal injuries]], [[epilepsy]], flower and bug [[allergies]], multiple [[Substance use disorder|drug addictions]], and lack of [[physical fitness]]. Folksinger [[Arlo Guthrie]] lampooned the paradox of seeking a deferment by acting crazy in his song "[[Alice's Restaurant]]": "I said, 'I wanna kill! Kill! Eat dead burnt bodies!' and the Sergeant said, 'You're our boy'!"<ref>Guthrie, Arlo (1966). "[http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/alices.shtml Alice's Restaurant]". Arlo.net. Retrieved 14 August 2012.</ref> "1001 Ways to Beat the Draft" was a text on draft evasion by the late musician [[Tuli Kupferberg]], a member of [[The Fugs]]. Methods he espoused included arriving at the draft board in diapers or feigning homosexuality. Another text popular with men subject to the draft was a 1950s cartoon novella by [[Jules Feiffer]], Munro, in which a four-year-old boy is drafted by mistake. Some men, taking an idea from the book, said they might ask the sergeant at the draft examination to "button me, Mister."

The better educated and economically advantaged were in a better position to obtain deferments through loopholes or technicalities.<ref name=fallows>Fallows, James (November–December 2009). "[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0911.fallows.html James Fallows on the Draft]". ''The Washington Monthly'' (Washington DC). Excerpt from article d. October 1975. Retrieved 14 August 2012.</ref><ref name="lottery">Selective Service System (rev. 18 June 2009). "[http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm The Vietnam Lotteries]". Sss.gov. Retrieved 14 August 2012.</ref> They had greater access to expert advice, counseling, psychiatric professionals and attorneys.

Many lawyers worked during the Vietnam war [[pro bono publico|"pro bono"]] as draft counselors for the [[American Friends Service Committee]] and other antiwar groups to counsel men on their options.{{Citation needed|date=April 2010}} They were aware that laws, on the books since World War I, forbade Americans to counsel draft evasion. Therefore the AFSC was careful to present the potential inductee with his choices in neutral and factual terms.

During the Vietnam War, an active movement of draft resistance also occurred, spearheaded by the Resistance organization, headed by [[David Harris (protester)|David Harris]]. The insignia of the organization was the Greek letter [[omega]], Ω, the symbol for ohms—the unit of [[electrical resistance]]. Members of the Resistance movement publicly burned their draft cards or refused to register for the draft. Other members deposited their cards into boxes on selected dates and then mailed them to the government. They were then drafted, refused to be inducted, and fought their cases in the federal courts. These draft resisters hoped that their public civil disobedience would help to bring the war and the draft to an end. Many young men went to federal prison as part of this movement.{{Citation needed|date=November 2012}}

In 1969, in response to criticism of the draft's inequities, the U.S. government adopted a lottery system to determine who was called to serve. At the same time it implemented new standards that greatly restricted the availability of deferments.<ref name="lottery"/> They were ended for graduate students and limited for undergraduates.

Conscription ended in 1973. The end came after a series of lawsuits challenged the draft upon its re-enactment and renewed conscription in 1972 without regard to the 90-day waiting period required in the original [[Korean War]] era draft law (section 20 of the Act) that remained in the 1972 Act (which U.S. Attorneys defending conscription argued was as a result of a legislative drafting error). A series of challenges to the draft under section 20 in 1971 and 1972 lead by Justice [[William O. Douglas]] to issue an injunction against induction that covered the states in the jurisdiction of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]]. It became so difficult for the Selective Service System to unwind the mess the Section 20 cases caused (and to draft men according to the priorities required by law—the "order of call" named after the "order of call" defense), that the draft was quietly ended—just in time for the wind down of the Vietnam War.

Among the prominent political figures whose opponents have accused them of improperly avoiding the Vietnam-era draft were [[Dick Cheney#Early life and education|Dick Cheney]], and [[Bill Clinton#College and law school years|Bill Clinton]].<ref>Dionne, E. J. (17 January 2006). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600913.html Murtha and the Mudslingers]". ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved 14 August 2012.</ref>

====Emigration during the Vietnam War====
During the Vietnam War, 30,000 of the 210,000 Americans accused of dodging the draft left the country. Those deserters and draft evaders combined went to Canada.<ref name=chance /> Though their presence there was initially controversial, the Canadian government eventually chose to welcome them. Draft evasion was not a criminal offense under Canadian law.<ref>
During the two [[World Wars]] when conscription was enacted in Canada, military officials pursued those who evaded the draft illegally, forced them into the [[Canadian Army|Army]] and then [[court martial]]ed them if they refused to obey an officer.
</ref>
The issue of deserters was more complex. [[Desertion]] from the U.S. military was not on the list of crimes for which a person could be extradited under the extradition treaty between Canada and the U.S.;<ref>Satin, Mark, ed. (1968). ''Manual for Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada''. Toronto: House of Anansi Press, 2nd ed., pp. 83–84. No [[International Standard Book Number|ISBN]], but see [[Online Computer Library Center|OCLC]] [http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_bks&q=467238&fq=dt%3Abks 467238]. OCLC retrieved 14 August 2012.</ref>
however, desertion was a crime in Canada, and the Canadian military strongly opposed condoning it. In the end, the Canadian government maintained the right to prosecute these deserters, but in practice left them alone and instructed border guards not to ask questions relating to the issue.<ref name="cool">Keung, Nicholas (20 August 2010). "[http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/850824--daring-to-object-iraq-war-resisters-though-often-veterans-themselves-have-been-met-with-a-cool-reception-much-different-from-the-draft-dodgers-of-the-1960s Iraq War Resisters Meet Cool Reception in Canada]." ''Toronto Star.'' Retrieved 14 August 2012.</ref> Eventually, tens of thousands of deserters were among those who found safe refuge in Canada, as well as in Sweden, France, and the United Kingdom.

[[File:Draft dodgers being counseled 1967.jpg|thumb |left |alt=Five young people sitting and talking intently |[[Mark Satin]] (left), director of the Toronto Anti-Draft Programme,<ref>Burns, John (11 October 197). "Deaf to the Draft". ''The Globe and Mail'' (Toronto), pp. 1–2.</ref> counseling American draft resisters, 1967.]]

In Canada, many American Vietnam War evaders received pre-emigration counseling and post-emigration assistance from locally based groups.<ref>Clausen, Oliver (21 May 1967). "Boys Without a Country". ''The New York Times Magazine'', pp. 25 and 94–105.</ref> Typically these consisted of American emigrants and Canadian supporters. The largest were the Montreal Committee to Aid War Objectors, the Toronto Anti-Draft Programme, and the Vancouver Committee to Aid American War Objectors.<ref>Williams, Roger N. (1971). ''The New Exiles: American War Resisters in Canada''. New York: Liveright Publishers, pp. 56–62. ISBN 978-0-87140-533-3.</ref> Journalists often noted their effectiveness.<ref>Cowan, Edward (11 February 1968). "Expatriate Draft Evaders Prepare Manual on How to Immigrate to Canada". ''The New York Times'', p. 7.</ref><ref>Dunford, Gary (3 February 1968). "Toronto's Anti-Draft Office Jammed". ''Toronto Star'', p. 25.</ref><ref>Wakefield, Dan (March 1968). "Supernation at Peace and War". ''The Atlantic'' (Boston), pp. 42–45.</ref> The ''Manual for Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada,'' published jointly by the Toronto Anti-Draft Programme and the [[House of Anansi Press]], sold nearly 100,000 copies,<ref>Adams, James (20 October 2007). "'The Big Guys Keep Being Surprised by Us.'" ''The Globe and Mail'' (Toronto), p. R6.</ref>
and was read by over half of all American Vietnam War emigrants to Canada.<ref>Hagan, John (2001). ''Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada.'' Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 77–78. ISBN 978-0-674-00471-9.</ref> In addition to the counseling groups (and at least formally separate from them) was a Toronto-based political organization, the Union of American Exiles, better known as "Amex."<ref>Hagan, John (2001), pp. 80–81.</ref><ref>Williams, Roger N. (1971), pp. 79–83.</ref> It sought to speak for American draft evaders and deserters in Canada. For example, it lobbied and campaigned for universal, unconditional amnesty, and hosted an international conference in 1974 opposing anything short of that.<ref>Hagan John (2001), pp. 81 and 161–62. A phone call to AMEX resulted in a recorded message warning that the line was bugged by both U.S. and Canadian intelligence services, and it was best to conceal information that could reveal the caller's identity.
</ref>

Those who went abroad faced imprisonment or forced military service if they returned home. The U.S. continued to prosecute draft dodgers after the end of the Vietnam War. In September 1974, President [[Gerald R. Ford]] offered an amnesty program for draft dodgers that required them to work in alternative service occupations for periods of six to 24 months.<ref>Author unknown (14 September 1974)."[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F2061EF93A551A7493C6A81782D85F408785F9& Flexible Amnesty Plan Is Reported Set by Ford]". ''The New York Times.'' Retrieved 14 August 2012.</ref> In 1977, one day after his inauguration, President [[Jimmy Carter]] fulfilled a campaign promise by offering pardons to anyone who had evaded the draft and requested one. It antagonized critics on both sides, with the right complaining that those pardoned paid no penalty and the left complaining that requesting a pardon required the admission of a crime.<ref>Schulzinger, Robert D. (2006). ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=Dq4QiUWHrOIC&pg=PT38& A Time for Peace: The Legacy of the Vietnam War].'' New York: Oxford University Press, pp. ??. Retrieved 30 July 2011. ISBN 978-0-49-507190-0.</ref>

Some draft evaders returned to the U.S. from Canada after the 1977 pardon, but according to sociologist John Hagan, about half of them stayed on.<ref>Hagan, John (2001), pp. 3 and 241–42.</ref> This young and mostly educated population expanded Canada's arts and academic scenes, and helped push Canadian politics further to the left. Notable Americans who left for Canada and became prominent there include [[Jay Scott]] and [[Michael Hendricks]]. Other draft evaders from the Vietnam era remain in Europe and Asia.

==See also==
*[[Conscientious objector]]
*[[War resister]]
*[[Canada and the Vietnam War]]
*[[Desertion]]
*[[Refusal to serve in the Israeli military]]
*[[Yesh Gvul]]
*[[Recruitment to the British Army during the First World War#Conscription, 1916–18]]

==References==
{{reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
* Conway, Daniel. ''Masculinisation, Militarisation, and the End Conscription Campaign: War Resistance in Apartheid South Africa''. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press. 2012.
* Cortright, David. ''Soldiers in Revolt: GI Resistance During the Vietnam War'' (Re-issue). Chicago: Haymarket Books. 2005.
* Foley, Michael S. ''Confronting the War Machine: Draft Resistance during the Vietnam War''. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 2003.
* Hagan, John. ''Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada''. Boston: Harvard University Press. 2001.
* Halstead, Fred. ''GIs Speak Out against the War: The Case of the Ft. Jackson 8''. 128 pages. New York: Pathfinder Press. 1970.
* Kasinsky, Renee. ''Refugees from Militarism: Draft-Age Americans in Canada''. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. 1976.
* Kindig, Jesse. ''[http://depts.washington.edu/antiwar/vietnam_draft.shtml Draft Resistance in the Vietnam Era],'' Pacific Northwest Antiwar and Radical History Project. 2008.
* Simons, Donald L. ''I Refuse: Memories of a Vietnam War Objector''. Trenton, NJ: Broken Rifle Press. 1992.
* Todd, Jack. ''Desertion: In the Time of Vietnam''. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2001.
* Williams, Roger Neville. ''The New Exiles: American War Resisters in Canada.'' New York: Liveright. 1970.

==External links==
*[http://www.indianamilitary.org/Camp%20Atterbury/Amnesty%20Program/Amnesty%20Program.htm President Ford's National Amnesty Program at Camp Atterbury, Indiana, 1974]
*[http://www.resisters.info Resources on Conscription in the USA, from the National Resistance Committee]
*[http://www.library.ubc.ca/jones/amcan.html Vietnam War Resisters in Canada]
*[http://www.wri-irg.org/ War Resisters International]
*[http://www.warresisters.org/ War Resisters League (USA)]

{{anti-war}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Draft Dodger}}
[[Category:Anti-war]]
[[Category:Conscription]]

[[de:Kriegsdienstverweigerung]]