Members of Bermudians Against the Draft should have been recognised as conscientious objectors by the Defence Exemption Tribunal due to their strong beliefs, their lawyer told Supreme Court this morning.The campaign group is in the midst of its fourth legal bid to get mandatory military service outlawed.Several members of the campaign have asked the Defence Exemption Tribunal to let them off serving, based on their beliefs, but have failed.This morning, their lawyer Eugene Johnston expanded on those beliefs, claiming compulsory military service goes against various articles of the Bermuda Constitution.He listed the rights to freedom of conscience, freedom from forced labour, freedom from torture or degrading treatment and freedom of religion and belief as the key areas at stake.He said the men believe forced service is not justifiable under any circumstances and that conscription is an exercise in forced labour."Because the Regiment depends on the policy of conscription, it time and time again puts in place the requisite conditions for the mistreatment of persons subjected to compulsory military service," argued Mr Johnston.He said of the BAD members pursuing the current case: "The applicants make no apology that their beliefs may make some people uncomfortable."He explained that group member Larry Marshall Jr went before the tribunal in 2005. However, Mr Johnston complained, what was supposed to be an independent tribunal contained figures including Wendell Hollis and Larry Burchall, who both had ties to the Regiment at the time."The exemption tribunal is not independent and impartial," claimed the lawyer.Mr Marshall Jr expressed his belief to the tribunal that conscription is "an unfair and unjust system" and pointed out it was abolished in Britain many years ago."If this is not slavery, then it is the closest thing to it in the 21st century," complained Mr Marshall Jr. "Rest assured that I am prepared to fight this thing to the bitter end."His request to be recognised as a conscientious objector was denied, but he was given a year-long exemption from Regiment service in order to pursue the first stages of the BAD court case.That case, which was based on arguments under the Human Rights Act, was rejected by the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Privy Council over the period 2007 to 2010. Now, BAD is back before the Supreme Court, this time relying on Constitutional arguments.Another member of Bermudians Against the Draft, Audley Campbell, went before the tribunal too. Again, Mr Johnston complained, a number of people with Regiment links including Mr Hollis and Mr Burchall were present at the hearing.Again, Mr Campbell's application to be recognised as a conscientious objector was rejected, but he was given a year long exemption to pursue the BAD case.Four more members of BAD went before the tribunal in November last year. This time, Mr Johnston said, others with links to the Regiment including Major Warren Furbert were present.Mr Johnston appeared on behalf of the four reluctant conscripts; James Famous, brothers Tekle and Seth Ming and Shaki Easton.He argued that the Regiment exacts a policy of forced labour, that that belief cannot sit alongside the men having any role in the Regiment, and that conscription is comparable to slavery.It took the tribunal six weeks to come to a conclusion, which was delivered one working day before Recruit Camp began at the Regiment last month.No reasons were given for ruling against the men and Mr Johnston complained that a subsequent appeal to Governor Sir Richard Gozney was incorrectly rejected.Sir Richard said he was not convinced that the men are conscientious objectors as described in the Defence Act as, while they object to conscription, he was not convinced they object to military service if it was on a voluntary basis.Mr Johnston argued the Governor used a "very narrow" definition of what a conscientious objector is, and had failed to heed the mens' constitutional rights.The men were warned they faced being arrested and made to attend Recruit Camp after the rulings against them. However, Government later agreed to hold off from that action after Mr Johnston launched injunction proceedings in the Supreme Court.The men have been told Government will now wait until the outcome of the current case before any action is taken against them.The current case is being argued by Mr Johnston on behalf of Larry Marshall Jr, his brother Lamont Marshall and Jamel Hardtman. Mr Johnson says Lamont Marshall and Jamel Hardtman have been denied a fair opportunity to appear before the exemption tribunal.The case, which is being heard by Puisne Judge Norma Wade-Miller, continues.