• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

US Draft 2005?

A

Anonymous

Guest
Story

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.

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: http://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.

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

Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know. Let your children know too -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!

Please also contact your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and contact newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.
Click to expand...

From the Congress homepage
S. 89

S.89
Title: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons 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.
Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.163
Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Click to expand...

H.R. 163

H.R.163
Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons 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.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (14)
Related Bills: S.89
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Click to expand...

Cosponsors for H.R. 163

Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1] Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI] Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14] Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23] Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5] Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8] Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13] Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]
Click to expand...

Live it up guys... :D
 
isnt it part of the "American Way"?...a citizen army...something to do with the gun thing too.. so they cant complain. Or they can get a good Draft lawyer to get them off...A continuation of a former right to pay for someone to do the service for you!
 
I hope this isn't true - but if it is, I hope as many people as possible refuse to be drafted. I know that if that was me I'd refuse point blank.
 
JerryB said:
I hope this isn't true - but if it is, I hope as many people as possible refuse to be drafted. I know that if that was me I'd refuse point blank.
Click to expand...

The problem with that Jerry, they'd probably throw you in jail and sexually abuse you.
 
I just read this at this moment, and haven't checked any of the links (though if memory serves there's a couple of pages about this buried somewhere deep in the bowels of the I-word thread). But what strikes me as most fascinating initially is the the co-sponsors of the house bill, Abercrombie, Jackson-Lee, Norton, Stark, Lewis, etc. are some of the most consistently leftish, anti-Bush, anti-war members of congress.

They are also almost all either African-American or Hispanic (well, not Abercrombie, he's a white guy with hair below his shoulders). Which leads me to believe that since under the all-volunteer military most of those serving are poor and/or non-white, this is a serious attempt at brinksmanship by Bushs' foes.

But I'd have to delve a bit deeper to come to any real conclusion.
 
lopaka:
When I heard this bandied about before, someone theorized that it was the intent of the non-chickenhawks to frame the discussion of the war in terms that the public would pay attention to. There's a big difference in peoples' perceptions between a war where volunteer soldiers are sent and a war where you're called up and told you have to go. It was thought that this might be a way to stir up anti-war sentiment (or at least discussion of the matter) in the majority.
 
US Draft 2005

Is anyone aware of similar attempts to re-introduce National Service in the UK? - If so, does someone have some spare suitcases, please!
 
As Blair now appears to be hesitating about sending the 3,000 extra troops to Iraq I doubt National Service will be reintroduced here just yet.
 
Holy shit. Just as you thought things couldn't get worse.

well, that really is amazing. So the Bush administrations answer to everything is "throw more men at it".

Well if this is true then this is bad news for generations of voters and their families. Hopefully this'll make some of those war mongering pro-war types wake up and smell the coffee as their young are sent of to be slaughtered for their country. Hopefully they'll come to their senses and move to do something about this now and stop it before things REALLY get out of hand. I hope so for the sake of generations of young Americans to come. For the sake of everybody.

And as if the whole thing isn't blessed with a certain sense of irony; "Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era." I bet this becomes another tasteless after dinner speach gag for Bush.
 
Does this mean that they expect a much bigger conflict to occur in the future?
The problem with drafted soldiers is that they're more likely to get killed or do something wrong. The American government won't have the time to give them proper training (heck, the regular troops don't have proper training).
I won't get drafted if the UK decides to bring back the draft (I'm too old and unfit for all that), but I am still very concerned.
 
Re: US Draft 2005

bazizmaduno said:
Is anyone aware of similar attempts to re-introduce National Service in the UK? - If so, does someone have some spare suitcases, please!
Click to expand...


there wa a bit of a nasty turn when Thatcher had new call up cards printed mid Falklands.... they claimed that they just needed "updateing"... i was the right age then and i woudlnt have gon, no way.
 
There's nothing wrong with the concept of National Service! Bring it back I say! It might stop all these young yobs running riot on the streets. Why, I was reading an article in the Daily Mail today and.. .etc etc...

Seriously, there is a difference between National Service and the draft. I think the aim of National Service was to instruct people about citizenship, whereas the draft is when they need some cannon fodder.
 
Mr Snowman said:
Seriously, there is a difference between National Service and the draft. I think the aim of National Service was to instruct people about citizenship, whereas the draft is when they need some cannon fodder.
Click to expand...

it just made my dad hate everything forign and especiely arabs and reserved for extra venom Egyptians.... he had to guard the Sueze cannal with a lee enfield and some twat shouting at him all the time.... in fact he hasnt gon "abroad" since and hates anything about the army.
 
sidecar_jon said:
it just made my dad hate everything forign and especiely arabs and reserved for extra venom Egyptians.... he had to guard the Sueze cannal with a lee enfield and some twat shouting at him all the time.... in fact he hasnt gon "abroad" since and hates anything about the army.
Click to expand...

Tell him that the glass is half full! He got to go abroad for free where it was nice and sunny, he got to experience a foreign culture, he got to play with guns and best of all, he must have some really amusing anecdotes about his Sergeant Major!
 
The draft is one of those curious things. Typically in a volunteer based army, the lower end of the class system is over-represented. In principle the draft system should equalise things so that "nice" middle class boys and girls are sent off to war as well. (Of course some of those also manage to dodge the draft so it doesn't turn out to be as egalitarian as it may first appear.) If you know that your son or daughter may be forced into the armed forces would you be more or les likely to support poilicies that could lead to armed conflict?

I can't see it happening, however. This is an election year and the draft is hardly a vote winner. The military don't tend to like it either, both because of the difficulty in operating with troops who never even wanted to be in the army, let alone fight a war, and also the western way of warfare is increasingly technological and you would see an increased burden in training and support.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens. :confused:
 
Mr Snowman said:
Tell him that the glass is half full! He got to go abroad for free where it was nice and sunny, he got to experience a foreign culture, he got to play with guns and best of all, he must have some really amusing anecdotes about his Sergeant Major!
Click to expand...

i dont think he sees it that way..he lost his future career as an aprentice graphic artist... Egypt was much too hot and sandy, expeciely in a tent with scorpions under the ground sheet. The Only time he met Egyptians was when they constantly tried to steeel everyhtign not nailed down and he took the safty off his rifel once...someone said that there was a "mad dog" in the camp, and one of the local "terrorists" was nicknamed "Mad Dog".he was on guard duty but it turned out to be real mad dog which someone else shot.... he detested his SM... seargent major Britain..facist, racist, nasty piece of work is the best he'll say about him.
 
Thought it was dubious. Though part of me wishes there were a draft, just so the proportion of Americans who slavishly follow their president's disastrous foreign policy can experience the consequences of their opinions for once.
 
Re: US Draft 2005

bazizmaduno said:
Is anyone aware of similar attempts to re-introduce National Service in the UK? - If so, does someone have some spare suitcases, please!
Click to expand...

Colour blind and diabetic! I'd be no good to them. Best stay here and keep everyone safe.
Also I remember being told at university that as a member of the press you are exempt from being called up.
That's three get-outs for me already!
Have fun guys and remember the Camel Spider thread! ;D
 
Worth quoting the web link for psterity :)

Draft not to be reinstated despite E-mail story warning otherwise


by Mike Burns
March 26, 2004


With tens of thousands of American military troops currently abroad, some young people cannot resist wondering if the draft could ever be reinstated.

Rumors warning of an imminent military draft traveled via E-mail last week from Sonoma State University in California to English professor Cecilia Tichi, who gave students copies of an American Studies Association list-serve email alleging that pending bills in Congress were forerunners of a potential military draft with no exemptions for women or college students.

“Any issue that’s going to affect the age group of my students personally, I feel a responsibility to call to their attention,” Tichi said.

But Congressional sources in Washington assure that a draft is nowhere in the near future.

The email referred to House Resolution 163 and Senate Bill 89, the “Universal National Service Act of 2003” as the draft bills under scrutiny. Rep. Charles Rangel, (D-N.Y.), presented H.R.163 to the House Armed Services Committee Jan. 7, 2003, while Sen. Ernest Hollings, (D-S.C.), introduced the identical S.89 to the Senate Armed Services Committee the same day.

H.R.163 has stalled in committee since Feb. 3, 2003.

Rep. Rangel’s office said Tuesday via telephone that due to few co-sponsors, it was “highly unlikely the bill is going to have any success.”

A House Armed Services Committee staffer confirmed the bill’s status, pointing out that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had denied prior to the bill’s introduction any need for a draft, and stating that no hearing was currently scheduled for the bill.

Sen. Hollings’ office said they “don’t have any way of knowing” the future of the bill because the Republican majority decides the committee’s agenda.

The Senate Armed Services Committee Web site had no hearings listed.

The Selective Service System, the federal agency overseeing draft registration in preparation for a military emergency, denied the draft rumor on its Website as well.

“Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces – either with a special skills or regular draft,” it reads.

The bill made an appearance on CNN.com Jan. 8, 2003 and in the Washington Post Feb. 4, 2003. Secretary Rumsfeld’s comments on the need for a draft appeared in both stories, and Rep. Rangel’s staff acknowledged the unlikely passage of the bill in the Post.

Despite coverage in major media outlets, the story reemerged nearly a year later, Jan. 28, 2004, in an article by Adam Stutz for Project Censored, a media research group at Sonoma State University claiming to distribute “The News That Didn’t Make the News.”

The Project Censored story, “U.S. Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005” claims the bill could spell a potential draft next year.

Stutz writes, “… the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately.”

Inciting the spread of the story, Stutz writes, “Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all the aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents…. And let your children know – it’s their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!”

The Vancouver Independent Media Centre posted the Project Censored story, and Professor Roberta Hill at the University of Wisconson-Madison sent the story via email to the list-serve for the American Studies Association, a professional group of more than 5,000 faculty across the nation, including Tichi.

Tichi photocopied the email and distributed it to students in her three English and humanities classes.

“I thought, ‘This is my responsibility to let my students know,’” she said.

Upon seeing a copy of the email, students had different reactions. Some feared a potential draft, while others did not.

“It’s really scary, I think. I think that it’s really scary that nobody knows about it,” said.senior Elizabeth Dozier.

“I thought, ‘I hope I don’t get drafted. I’m a little skeptical … I just skimmed through it,” said senior Stephen Wiese.

Tichi admitted she had not seen any sources other than the email she received, but that John Stephens, executive director of the American Studies Association, doesn’t send out emails “frivolously.”
Click to expand...
 

Despite coverage in major media outlets, the story reemerged nearly a year later, Jan. 28, 2004, in an article by Adam Stutz for Project Censored, a media research group at Sonoma State University claiming to distribute “The News That Didn’t Make the News.”

The Project Censored story, “U.S. Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005” claims the bill could spell a potential draft next year.
Click to expand...

Not really censored then. ;)

I've seen previous "project censored" stories appear in the main stream press as well. Maybe they should read more. ;)
 
The short version of my thought is: Surely the draft would be elctoral suicide? All the Democrats would have to do is promise to end it and it'd be game over. Or am i missing some nuance? I'd rather attack the Republicans for some of the deplorable things they are doing than for mutterings of what they might try. Why fire probable blanks when Bush is virtually handing our depleted-uranium rounds every week.
 
I think your presupposing a unified 'liberal' Democrat front. Looking at the scene in the US from the media and speaking to friends I'm not sure that there is one!
 
Hugo Cornwall said:
I think your presupposing a unified 'liberal' Democrat front.
Click to expand...

TBH. I was more presupposing a natural electoral opportunism - i.e. "If that'll get us elected we'll do it." Everyone Hates X?... We agree... Not-X is our policy friends!
 
i dont think its true

I am not so sure that is is true- my husband is in the USAF and they are trying desperately to get people OUT of the military by using a Palas-Chaise (sp?) program that allows airmen to get out early with an honorable discharge. I dont know much about it but i think they were trying to get rid of 10,000 men or something. Anyway my facts arent totally straight but i do know that thye are trying to cut down..so why would they draft?
 
First of all, it's guaranteed that you'll get people talking if you say anything about the draft. Second, I don't see how showing the budget for the selective service is of any proof that a draft is planned. Third, the extra money alloted to SSS is not for a draft it is for the people that work within the selective service to work to enlist those that state they are interested in joining the armed forces when they sign up for selective services. Yeah I'm already tired of numbering what I say. /If you were to look through the past bills that have gone up for vote you will see that most of them are just B.S. that a congressman wrote up to please one of their lobbyists. Then they put no effort into the passing of the bill and they tell their benefactor that they couldn't muster enough support. / If any Senator/Representative were to vote to pass a draft it would be automatic career suicide. / If there were a real draft bill proposed I'm pretty sure John McCain's name would be first on the list as the creator of the bill. McCain has publicly voiced his opinion that he is more than in favor of reinstating the draft./

I'm guessing you non-american readers (and probably the american ones too) aren't really familiar with our political system. Our political parties might have had different agendas when they were created but nowadays there's no difference. While the democrats hide their wasting of taxdollars under the guise of helping the less fortunate the republicans hide it under the guise of helping the country as a whole.

But really what I'm trying to get at is I'm an american and could possibly fall under the requirements if there were a draft but I don't give a rat's ass. If you dodge the draft you will be court-martialled. If you "acidentally" shoot yourself in the foot while your "hunting" then you're automatically 4-F and off the hook. (One to the foot beats one to the skull). Oh wait, you brits don't get to have guns, I guess you're screwed.
 
Did I miss the part where we became the 51st state and anyone here really gives a damn what Congress does? :D Based on passport control, Iraq currently qualifies for that dubious honour...

Hazarding a guess it would take a good couple of years of hardcore brainwashing to get anyone on this island outside of the BNP to get the feeling our small fortress made by nature for herself was under any serious threat from 'outside', so conscription isn't a serious option here. The only way its worked previously here was by the introduction of a Total Warfare scenario where all manufacturing went to war effort etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top