Spanner
Spanner

remembers when it was all fields round here
Location: in the works... somewhere...
Member Since: 27th Feb 2003
Total posts: 2790
Posted:Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005 (USA)



Being only 22 years old myself, I find this very disturbing, which I'm sure is a feeling many American readers between 18 and 26 will share.

Why propose it in election year?

Did they really think this pending legislation will not become common knowledge very soon, along with the inevitable opposition?



And, this time around, will it set a precedent for other member countries of the "coalition of the willing"?



***edited to include text of dead link***



 Written by:

Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005

By Action Alert

May 27, 2004, 14:50





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 *******s women in the draft.





The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.





http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg
br>




"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"

Delete Topic

thor
thor

Flaming Lesbian
Location: Portland, Oregon
Member Since: 19th Feb 2004
Total posts: 181
Posted:why in an election year?

to make it hard on the other guy. if kerry says this is a bad idea, he's anti-american, he dosen't want to defend our country! if he says it's a good idea, everyone will hate him.

it's more complicated than that, but i've been doing homework for too long and words have lost all meaning.

during vietnam, a few kids were gathered on a college campus in Kent, Ohio. alot of them died. their parents were on television saying how angry they were at their children for protesting, they felt the guard did their job.

vietnam was more popular to the white bread middle class than it seemed. it was their children's responsibility to go somewhere they didn't want to go, and do something they didn't want to do, and die somewhere they would be forgotten. and in america, the land of the free, the home of the brave, the shelter for the tired and poor huddled masses who only yearned to breathe free, refuse from some teeming shore, homeless and tempest-tossed searching for her lamp beside some golden door, the middle class white bread people are all that matter.

sorry for the cynicism. it's just how things are appearing to me at the moment.

and sorry for the grammer and spelling, it's been a long day.


Lights dancing off my skin as chains wrap round it.
Pain is in a little box and I'm so glad I found it.

Delete

Dai
member
Location: Aberystwyth/ Newcastle
Member Since: 12th Aug 2003
Total posts: 22
Posted:Quote:



during vietnam, a few kids were gathered on a college campus in Kent, Ohio. alot of them died.



A few kids were gathered? alot of them died? It was a large demonstration which turned into a riot, not that in any way justifies killing 6 students and wether or not you think 6 is a lot is up to you, however the way you wrote it seemed very biased possibley misleading.

On the issue of drafting that seems quite worring, what exactly do they need all those troops for - there must be many millions of americans of draft age and you can't exactly send a few million troops over there so there's no point drafting everybody but it's not fair to draft some and not others. Just seems a bit crazy really! eek confused


even a frisbee is a lethal weapon in the hands of the wrong person

Delete

Spanner
Spanner

remembers when it was all fields round here
Location: in the works... somewhere...
Member Since: 27th Feb 2003
Total posts: 2790
Posted:Dai, I don't think Thor was intentionally undermiming what happened in Ohio smile

Those who want to check up on what happened there can do a quick Google search. The words "Kent", "Ohio" and "Vietnam" should be sufficient, although the most popular term seems to be the "Kent State Massacre", so searching by that phrase may yield better results.

Yeah, I can see now, how it would make sense for some to make it hard on Kerry.

I'm still quite surprised that this has been announced now, especially after Nick Berg's father so recently damned Bush for his son's beheading. I suppose the talk of whether the footage of Nick's death was genuine or not, combined with the current questions regarding the political background of his father, may have had bearing on the decision.

See What Happens In A Draft, part of the Selective System Service. I'm wading my way through it at the moment, but a lot of it is already ringing my alarm bells. Does anyone know how impartial this process is supposed to be?

In fact, at the bottom of one page: "Who Must Register?", there is an animated banner, featuring faces of two men who seem fairly indifferent, and two either smiling or laughing. This is alongside captions saying "18? Ensure Your Future. It's The LAW. Register with Selective Service. Click Here", etc.

Am I right in thinking that men of 18 years and older already have to give this information to the Service, in case they decide to draft? eek


"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"

Delete

Mistress Aurora
Mistress Aurora

Hot Schtuff
Location: Stillwater,OK/Wichita Falls,TX
Member Since: 19th Jan 2003
Total posts: 1032
Posted:Quote:
Am I right in thinking that men of 18 years and older already have to give this information to the Service, in case they decide to draft? eek



Yes it is a law that when a male becomes 18 he must register with selective service, in case it is ever used. If he doesn't he could get into trouble with the law I presume.

Now if the draft were to start up again women would be eligible also...Which makes me kinda happy. (that is too all the women out there who complain about not having equal rights like men, but who say no to registering to the draft)(i am a woman btw).

I really can't see the draft starting up again though. Too much opposition to it. I see it as a way for the democrats or whoever proposed it to make the war's cause even more damaging. Therefore making it harder for the Bush to win in the presidential elections.

Ah let the games begin cool



RISK: Do not follow the common path; Go where there is no path and leave a trail.

Delete

SpitFire
Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Member Since: 2nd Dec 2002
Total posts: 2723
Posted:This topic came up among some friends.

Chances of a draft being reinstated are quite low given the unpopularity of the idea. It is disturbing, though, to see that being enrolled in school is not an out.

What is more disturbing to me is the bill which would allow Congress to overturn Supreme Court decisions.:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3920:/
br>
This bill is more disturbing to me because it throws the checks and balances out the window. Civics 101.

Some representatives are getting their underwear in a twist because the courts are ruling that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Representatives got their panties in a twist when the Supreme Court ruled segregation was unconstitutional. Who protects the minority if not the courts?
Eh...what do I know...I'm just one of those minorities.


Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Spanner, the Draft does exist even now, since one can never know when a major war will suddenly happen, although we all hope that it will not. EVERY MALE of age 18 or older must register. Doesn't matter if you have a physical condition or anything else, you still have to register. Because of my back and the fact that I have ADHD, I cannot be drafted, but because of my training, I might be conscripted into service for the military, in spite of that. However, due to physical limitations (the fact that I have to take medicines to function properly), I personally can never serve in a combat role. In spite of that, I had to register.

The chances of the draft being reinstated are very low and would be greeted with a lot of resistance both inside and outside of the military. The Pentagon has already said in no uncertain terms that it does not want a draft and that it would rather a volunteer military.

However, a number of Democrats have been pushing for the Draft because, they reason, if Republicans were forced to send their sons and daughters into combat every time they got the odd itch to invade someone, maybe they'd be a little more reserved.

I think that having the Selective Service is necessary. The Draft saved not only the U.S., but possibly the entire world in WWII.

However, if they reinstate it just to send people to Iraq or off on other such boondogles, I'll pick up and move, even if I am not eligible. I won't provide my services to a country with such warped values.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Ade
Are we there yet?
Location: australia
Member Since: 14th Mar 2001
Total posts: 1897
Posted:Quote:
And, this time around, will it set a precedent for other member countries of the "coalition of the willing"?




I don't think so for Australia - it'd never get off the ground, it'd be political suicide to propose conscription in this country... smile


Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Quote:

What is more disturbing to me is the bill which would allow Congress to overturn Supreme Court decisions.:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3920:/
br>



It would be interesting if it passed because it's unconstitutional (very clearly so...no question about that). But if the SC said it was unconstitutional, what power would it have to enforce that ruling?


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Spanner
Spanner

remembers when it was all fields round here
Location: in the works... somewhere...
Member Since: 27th Feb 2003
Total posts: 2790
Posted:A lot of this is becoming clearer to me now - thank you smile


"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"

Delete

SpitFire
Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Member Since: 2nd Dec 2002
Total posts: 2723
Posted:Quote:
Quote:

What is more disturbing to me is the bill which would allow Congress to overturn Supreme Court decisions.:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3920:/
br>



It would be interesting if it passed because it's unconstitutional (very clearly so...no question about that). But if the SC said it was unconstitutional, what power would it have to enforce that ruling?



Exactly, Lightning. It throws the checks and balances out the window. We have three branches of government so that no one branch can strong arm it's policies and agendas.

One friend responded that Congress already could overturn SC decisions by constitutional amendments. I believe the Judicial Branch, though has the power to interpret constitutional law. Unfortunately, I'm not well versed in such things to offer more information, and need it myself.

Off to do some research....and take some congestion medicine. Bleh hate being sick.


Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Delete

Twirly
Twirly

Shoryuken!
Location: Hexham, Newcastle, England
Member Since: 25th May 2004
Total posts: 233
Posted:http://www.newamericancentury.org/


If you want to know why on earth American could need all those troops, have a browze of this. Also if you really want to know why America worries so many people, look here. I'll probably start a new thread on it at some point but it seemed relevant now so here it is. Below is a wee extract from their "statement of principals"

Quote:
we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.





Just read around though, it pretty much details exactly what the american government intends on doing over the next, well, century. While its not offical government policy, a look at who is behind it (Rumsfelt + Cheeny etc are all in there) gives you an idea of how much power they have.

A few years ago this site seemed terrifying, but reading it now I've realised that the stuff Bush says on the news every day is starting to become a replica of it, so it may not actually seem that shocking anymore.

Davy


Delete


Similar Topics

Using the keywords [feel draft] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > A story of feelings true. [34 replies]
2. Forums > Can you feel that draft? [11 replies]
3. Forums > Is it unusuall to feel differnt outside? [14 replies]
4. Forums > It makes me feel stupid [23 replies]
5. Forums > Feel better Cass! [10 replies]

     Show more..