The Return of the Draft in Spring 2005.

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Mon May 24, 2004 9:36 pm

Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a \"long, hard slog\" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on \"terrorism\"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, \"to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.\" These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a \"smart border declaration,\" which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a \"pre-clearance agreement\" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a
shelter and includes women in the draft.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon May 24, 2004 9:59 pm

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

You can find both bills by going here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c108query.html
Type "S.89" or "HR.163" to get the two.

S.89 was introduced by Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D - SC)

HR.163 was introduced by Chuck Rangel (D - NY), Jim McDermott (D - WA), John Conyers Jr. ( D - MI), John Lewis (D - GA), Pete Stark (D - CA), and Neil Abercrombie (D - HA)

Notice the number of D's after guys names, and the complete lack of any R's. This is not "the administration" trying to get these bills passed -- this is the Democrats trying to make the draft an issue in a pathetic vote-grab.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Mon May 24, 2004 10:02 pm

I wonder how many republicans are thinking of supporting it, considering the situation in iraq.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon May 24, 2004 10:03 pm

Heh. This time the Sky

really is falling (for it). These are the bills we touched on in an earlier thread. Both sponsored by Democrats (Senate bill by Fritz Hollings (D), House bill by Charles Rangel (D)) that don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of passing. They'll just lie dormant in committee, most likely, as a *looming threat* to give credibility to the *possibility* because they will die a quick death if ever brought to an actual vote. Folks need to understand that government bills don't need to make any sense or have any hope of passing; all they need is a sponsor to be placed in the official record. Just more scare tactics from the Dems trying to stampede votes to their side. Nothing to see here, move along. The Pentagon DOESN'T WANT a draft. It has more than enough volunteers and an all-volunteer military is infinitely preferrable to conscripted troops.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon May 24, 2004 10:15 pm

I wonder how many republicans are thinking of supporting it, considering the situation in iraq.

Probably very few.

The arguments I've heard for the draft have been things like "A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while the most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent." - Chuck Rangel (D-NY.) He's playing the race card *and* the class-warfare card all at once. Here's another quote:

Chuck Rangel (D-NY) wrote:I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve--and to be placed in harm's way--there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq. A renewed draft will help bring a greater appreciation of the consequences of decisions to go to war.

He wants to re-institute the draft, not to make our all-volunteer army *more* effective, but to make it *less* effective and *less* likely to be used.

The Republicans, so far, aren't taking the bait.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Mon May 24, 2004 10:23 pm

A smart person would use this as a method to get more young involved in democracy.

fat chance.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon May 24, 2004 10:33 pm

flip, what do you mean?

Are you saying those who are not using this as a method to get more young involved are not smart? Who are you suggesting should be using this and isn't? How should they be using it to get young people involved?

I don't see what you're trying to say here.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Mon May 24, 2004 10:38 pm

Fat chance that any Current politian would actually attempt to use the current draft bill to encourage more active partictiaption of those under thirty.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon May 24, 2004 10:42 pm

active participation in the military, or active participation in elections?

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Mon May 24, 2004 10:43 pm

Democracy.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon May 24, 2004 10:48 pm

btw, those keeping score can pretty much look at the legislators sponsoring the bills and identify the *crazy old aunts in the attic* of the Dems. Stark, in particular, is the crazy old coot that is more recently known for egging on a Republican colleague by harranguing him as a *fruitcake* (not that that means homosexual or anything

) and threatening to beat him up.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon May 24, 2004 10:48 pm

meaning "elections / voting" or meaning "serving in the military in order to set up democracies in other countries"?

Also, is there any particular reason such politicians should use this for that purpose? What do you propose a "smart person" would do? "Use it to promote participation" is a pretty vague statement.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Mon May 24, 2004 10:56 pm

Using the spectre of its possible passage to encourage more voting, but the total sum of Democracy isn't limited to Military Service and ballot marking.

the US could do with a viable third party... at the congressional level, not just in the white house.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon May 24, 2004 10:57 pm

Flip, save me the research, how many viable parties exist in Canada?

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Mon May 24, 2004 11:05 pm

Lets see, you got the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Block.

the block only run canidates in quebec, and the NDP get the votes of the far left.

so you got four parties.

If you are pissed off with the performance of your congresscritter, and yer not too happy with the opposing party, who are you gonna vote for if you were so inclined?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue May 25, 2004 11:01 am

I am in favor of mandatory civil service of one year once a person graduates high school. This could be either in the armed service or other service in the public good.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue May 25, 2004 4:47 pm

I'm with Dedman on that. So many great things could come from mandatory civil service for all concerned.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed May 26, 2004 12:41 am

it will pass if nothing is done about it.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed May 26, 2004 12:56 am

Not when the party endorsing it only has 40% of the votes in the Senate. The Republican senators have known about this for a long time, and they're pretty much all just waiting for it to come to a vote so they can smack it down. There's no way it will pass -- it's being used to scare up votes, but it doesn't have much support.

The main thing that needs done about it is the guys supporting it (who I listed above) need to be exposed for the fools they are. It would be really helpful if the media would publish essentially what my first post said.

S.89 was introduced by Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D - SC)

HR.163 was introduced by Chuck Rangel (D - NY), Jim McDermott (D - WA), John Conyers Jr. ( D - MI), John Lewis (D - GA), Pete Stark (D - CA), and Neil Abercrombie (D - HA)

Notice the number of D's after guys names, and the complete lack of any R's. This is not "the administration" trying to get these bills passed -- this is the Democrats trying to make the draft an issue in a pathetic vote-grab.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Thu May 27, 2004 12:39 pm

I would certainly not agree with mandatory civil service. What kind of BS is that?! Serve the government or go to prison? You insane? You know I saw a documentary about something like that, but it was hard to understand because the pictures were black and white, and the narration was in German.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu May 27, 2004 3:23 pm

Testiculese wrote:...mandatory civil service.
...Serve the government....

Two different things.
It's about serving your fellow citizens, your community, not the government.

We have mandatory schooling for people until they reach adult status..why..because they don't know better than to educate themselves, and an educated populace serves the quality of life in our communities.

Well, we have a bunch of selfish, anti-social young citizens who don't know better than to go through life by screwing their nieghbors.
A little mandatory civil service would educate them and improve the quality of life in our communities in a lot of ways.

4 years of high school followed by 1 year civil service wouldn't be so bad.
Students going into college could include civil service as a part of their freshman year course load and get credit for it.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Thu May 27, 2004 5:03 pm

Being that this is supposed to be a free country it should be up to the individual whether or not they'd like to serve. Sure, our freedoms aren't free, I do realize that, but we've established a country where those individuals who do choose to serve are heralded as special or important people. Well, atleast until they come back home

Then they're almost forgotten. If everyone served they would just be the norm or the average and we'd have a much more militant country then we already have IMO.

There will always be people willing to actually do the fighting. Let those of us that choose not to for reasons other then "fight the power" or "I hate the government" or whatever, be free to do our part back home. There are still quite a few of us that support what is going on and aren't hippies

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu May 27, 2004 9:35 pm

I'm not talking about just serving in the military. Civil service could be any number of things, be a big brother, build houses like habitat for humanity, work as a security guard in an inner city school...etc. etc.
Of course military service would be great but truthfully they don't want to waste training you for only one year service anyway!

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Fri May 28, 2004 5:01 am

How about this...

You spend half of your life being educated on the basics and then a skill in which to utilize for a career, most of which is funded by tax payers. The other half dedicated to using said skill which in turn creates a tax payer and also provides revenue for businesses and the like generated by making personal & public investments. All of which in turn provide a very important service that keeps this country going round.

I would call that a "mandatory service"

Sometimes it seems like people would make it seem that nobody does anything that helps. Being a contributing citizen helps. Anything you do outside of that to make life better for other people is a bonus, it shouldn't be mandatory. Thats what makes good will special.

Character is developed through trial and error. I shouldn't need my balls busted on whats right for me to do. If you're smart, you figure it out, if you don't you might not live long enough to do so. Another version of population control

Course, they don't make it any easier when all these whackos come out of the woodwork and make it so people who didn't take the hint and do something with their lives can live off of the incomes of people who did.

I might be all over the place and off topic here, I'll admit it. It's 4:00am, I just got off of work....meh.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri May 28, 2004 5:54 am

As to the notion of a draft in 2005, stop and think a moment. Why would we need one? Iraq will have had by then their national elections and will be totally sovreign. While we will more than likely have troops stationed there, the numbers will be less than what are there now. So unless someone sees a situation where more military personel are required, the whole notion of a draft is a Dem. red herring to scare brainless liberal 18 year olds (and their equally brainless parents

)

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri May 28, 2004 11:15 am

Mandatory service just like in Israel. It's a good job for people that are not fortunate enough to go to college. Let's do it, as for a draft, why not, draft people like Bush, oh wait, he joins the National Guard to eek out of service

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Fri May 28, 2004 2:06 pm

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

The Return of the Draft in Spring 2005.

The Return of the Draft in Spring 2005.

Re: The Return of the Draft in Spring 2005.