U.S. Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005

[harloo]

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005
by Adam Stutz • Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM


The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism."

Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. Details and links follow.

If voters who currently support U.S. aggression abroad were confronted with the possibility that their own children or grandchildren might not have a say about whether to fight, many of these same voters might have a change of mind. (Not that it should make a difference, but this plan would among other things eliminate higher education as a shelter and would not exclude women -- and Canada is no longer an option.)

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

The Draft*

$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. SSS 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.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, 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 remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US 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 US Homeland Security Director, Gov. 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 cur-rent semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

*This article by Adam Stutz is from the "What's Hot Off the Press" column of the newsletter of Project Censored, a media research group at Sonoma State University that tracks the news published in independent journals and newsletters. From these, Project Censored compiles an annual list (more than 20 years running) of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported, or self-censored by the country's major national news media. The mission of Project Censored is "to educate people about the role of independent journalism in a democratic society and to tell The News That Didn't Make the News and why." dymedia.org/news/2004/01/105146.php

Well looks like the draft is being re-instated. Is it a coincidence that it is not being discussed by the Bush Administration considering it is an election year? :rolleyes:

[jaybird]

Is it a coincidence that it is not being discussed by the Bush Administration considering it is an election year?

Of course it's not a coincidence. Wouldn't want to jeopardize any votes. I heard this a few months ago. Very glad my son is 30, and sure glad my dot's b/f will be 26 by the time this is implemented, IF it goes through.

Is it time for me to dig out my '60's era protest stuff? :D

[nightrider127]

<~~~~~~~~~~Dusts off her picket signs from the 60's.

<~~~~~~~~~~Gets voice geared up for loud protesting.

[freeby4me]

Do you think this will include women?

[Legion600]

Before anybody starts dusting off the picket signs you should read this letter from Congreesman Peter stark who set this legislation rolling.
From http://www.house.gov/stark/documents/108th/univdraftstate.html

Mr. Speaker:

I am an original cosponsor of the Rangel/Conyers bill, the Universal National Service Act of 2003 (HR 163), which would reinstate a national draft. I would like to explain my support for this legislation. I ardently oppose war with Iraq. The evidence simply does not exist to warrant sending our nation’s young people to sacrifice their lives in Iraq. I believe America ought to be an advocate for peace, not imperialism.

Yet, war is on the horizon. The President is intent on invading Iraq whatever the cost. Thanks to the President’s brand of hotheaded bully diplomacy, war with North Korea may also be imminent. The only real question that remains is whether or not Americans are ready and willing to bear the cost?

I commend my colleagues Mr. Rangel and Mr. Conyers for their wisdom in authoring this bill. I’m honored to be an original cosponsor.

This bill requires all young Americans – men and women between 18 and 26 – to perform a two year period of national service in a military or civilian capacity as determined by the President. For those who conscientiously object to war, the bill assures that any military service would not include combat. Otherwise, there would be no preferences, no deferments, no chance for the well-off or the well- connected to dodge military service for their country, as did our President.

Reinstituting the draft may seem unnecessary to some. But, it will ensure all Americans share in the cost and sacrifice of war. Without a universal draft, this burden weighs disproportionately on the shoulders of the poor the disadvantaged and minority populations.

It is my understanding that out of the 435 Members of this House and the 100 members of the Senate, only one -- only one -- has a child in active military service. Who are we to know the pain of war when we ourselves will not directly bear the brunt of that action? It won’t be us mourning the loss of a child or loved one. Maybe some of you in this Congress would think twice about voting for war in Iraq if you knew your child may be sent to fight in the streets of Baghdad?

If our nation is to go to war, it is only right that all Americans share in the sacrifice of war. It is time we truly comprehended the consequences. I urge my colleagues to support a universal draft which I believe will make votes for war much more real for many of my colleagues.

As for this being "The News That Didn't Make the News" well I remember hearing about it. The sponsors of these bills wanted Congress and the American public to really think about going to war with Iraq.

[Technologist]

Ummmm.... Old news... These were introduced LAST YEAR (2003)!!! so much for the election year threory....

[nightrider127]

Originally posted by Legion600
Before anybody starts dusting off the picket signs you should read this letter from Congreesman Peter stark who set this legislation rolling.
From http://www.house.gov/stark/documents/108th/univdraftstate.html

Mr. Speaker:

I am an original cosponsor of the Rangel/Conyers bill, the Universal National Service Act of 2003 (HR 163), which would reinstate a national draft. I would like to explain my support for this legislation. I ardently oppose war with Iraq. The evidence simply does not exist to warrant sending our nation’s young people to sacrifice their lives in Iraq. I believe America ought to be an advocate for peace, not imperialism.

Yet, war is on the horizon. The President is intent on invading Iraq whatever the cost. Thanks to the President’s brand of hotheaded bully diplomacy, war with North Korea may also be imminent. The only real question that remains is whether or not Americans are ready and willing to bear the cost?

I commend my colleagues Mr. Rangel and Mr. Conyers for their wisdom in authoring this bill. I’m honored to be an original cosponsor.

This bill requires all young Americans – men and women between 18 and 26 – to perform a two year period of national service in a military or civilian capacity as determined by the President. For those who conscientiously object to war, the bill assures that any military service would not include combat. Otherwise, there would be no preferences, no deferments, no chance for the well-off or the well- connected to dodge military service for their country, as did our President.

Reinstituting the draft may seem unnecessary to some. But, it will ensure all Americans share in the cost and sacrifice of war. Without a universal draft, this burden weighs disproportionately on the shoulders of the poor the disadvantaged and minority populations.

It is my understanding that out of the 435 Members of this House and the 100 members of the Senate, only one -- only one -- has a child in active military service. Who are we to know the pain of war when we ourselves will not directly bear the brunt of that action? It won’t be us mourning the loss of a child or loved one. Maybe some of you in this Congress would think twice about voting for war in Iraq if you knew your child may be sent to fight in the streets of Baghdad?

If our nation is to go to war, it is only right that all Americans share in the sacrifice of war. It is time we truly comprehended the consequences. I urge my colleagues to support a universal draft which I believe will make votes for war much more real for many of my colleagues.

As for this being "The News That Didn't Make the News" well I remember hearing about it. The sponsors of these bills wanted Congress and the American public to really think about going to war with Iraq.


Sounds like the draft to me.

And yes, women would have to go.

People can always find a loophole to get around doing something they don't want to do and this will be no different.

And a FYI, I do have a son. He will be 34 in July so this will not affect him. He is an only child.

[harloo]

Thanks Legion for the extra information.

However, this is the part of the speakers letter that troubles me:

This bill requires all young Americans – men and women between 18 and 26 –to perform a two year period of national service in a military or civilian capacity as determined by the President. For those who conscientiously object to war, the bill assures that any military service would not include combat. Otherwise, there would be no preferences, no deferments, no chance for the well-off or the well- connected to dodge military service for their country, as did our President.

Do you really believe that the military will train 18 to 26 year olds and them only serving in a civilian capacity. It's too convinient when he says,"as determined by the President."

Now everyone knows Bush is gung ho for the war on terror, and he surely does not back down when it comes too war. He is one who believes in fighting every country until we rid the world of terrorists, which IMO is impossible.

[harloo]

Originally posted by Technologist
Ummmm.... Old news... These were introduced LAST YEAR (2003)!!! so much for the election year threory....

Thanks for the information. And if this is old news, it surely needs to be discussed before the legislation is passed. Don't you think?:)

[nightrider127]

This bill requires all young Americans – men and women between 18 and 26 –to perform a two year period of national service in a military or civilian capacity as determined by the President. For those who conscientiously object to war, the bill assures that any military service would not include combat. Otherwise, there would be no preferences, no deferments, no chance for the well-off or the well- connected to dodge military service for their country, as did our President.

Do you really believe that the military will train 18 to 26 year olds and them only serving in a civilian capacity. It's too convinient when he says,"as determined by the President."

This is what bothers me also.

[Legion600]

Okay apparently I wasn't clear. Stark and the others who co-sponsored this bill did it to get the American public's attention about what going to war meant.
It is time we truly comprehended the consequences. I urge my colleagues to support a universal draft which I believe will make votes for war much more real for many of my colleagues.

Now do you get it?

Here is another statement he made about H.J. Res. 114
October 9, 2002

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.

“I am deeply troubled that lives may be lost without a meaningful attempt to bring Iraq into compliance with UN resolutions through careful and cautious diplomacy.

“The bottom line is I don’t trust this President and his advisors.

“Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total authority to the President who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any specific act of provocation. This would authorize the United States to act as the aggressor for the first time in our history.

“It sets a precedent for our nation - or any nation - to exercise brute force anywhere in the world without regard to international law or international consensus.

“Congress must not walk in lockstep behind a President who has been so callous to proceed without reservation, as if war was of no real consequence.

“You know, three years ago in December, Molly Ivins, an observer of Texas politics, wrote: ‘For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too hard. At a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy.”

“’Somebody,’ she said, ‘should be worrying about how all this could affect his handling of future encounters with some Saddam Hussein.’ How prophetic, Ms. Ivins.

“Let us not forget that our President -- our Commander in Chief – has no experience with, or knowledge of, war. In fact, he admits that he was at best ambivalent about the Vietnam War. He skirted his own military service and then failed to serve out his time in the National Guard. And, he reported years later that at the height of that conflict in 1968 he didn’t notice ‘any heavy stuff going on.’”

“So we have a President who thinks foreign territory is the opponent’s dugout and Kashmir is a sweater.

“What is most unconscionable is that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the certain loss of life. Do the generalized threats and half-truths of this Administration give any one of us in Congress the confidence to tell a mother or father or family that the loss of their child or loved one was in the name of a just cause?

“Is the President’s need for revenge for the threat once posed to his father enough to justify the death of any American?

“I submit the answer to these questions is no.

“Aside from the wisdom of going to war as Bush wants, I am troubled by who pays for his capricious adventure into world domination.

“The Administration admits to a cost of around 200 Billion Dollars!

“Now, wealthy individuals won’t pay. They’ve got big tax cuts already.

“Corporations won’t pay. They’ll cook the books and move overseas and then send their contributions to the Republicans.

“Rich kids won’t pay. Their daddies will get them deferments as Big George did for George W.

“Well then, who will pay?

“School kids will pay. There’ll be no money to keep them from being left behind - way behind.

“Seniors will pay. They’ll pay big time as the Republicans privatize Social Security and rob the Trust Fund to pay for the capricious war.

“Medicare will be curtailed and drugs will be more unaffordable. And there won’t be any money for a drug benefit because Bush will spend it all on the war.

“Working folks will pay through loss of job security and bargaining rights.

“Our grandchildren will pay through the degradation of our air and water quality.

“And the entire nation will pay as Bush continues to destroy civil rights, women’s rights and religious freedom in a rush to phony patriotism and to courting the messianic Pharisees of the religious right.

“The questions before the Members of this House and to all Americans are immense, but there are clear answers. America is not currently confronted by a genuine, proven, imminent threat from Iraq. The call for war is wrong.

“And what greatly saddens me at this point in our history is my fear that this entire spectacle has not been planned for the well being of the world, but for the short-term political interest of our President.

“Now, I am also greatly disturbed that many Democratic leaders have also put political calculation ahead of the President’s accountability to truth and reason by supporting this resolution.

“But, I conclude that the only answer is to vote no on the resolution before us.”

Now is it clear that he did not want war with Iraq and was trying to make a point about how easy Congress was ready to roll over for the President?

[gonnascream]

why do I feel an urge to pack my bags and move to canada ??????

sorry, but if this does goes through, It would affect my fiancee & me. And I am not going to lose another family memeber to war !

Sorry, but my grandfather gave his life in vietnam, and they screwd him when he came back. My dad served his country, but was never the same. Even though I never got to know my granddad, I felt like there has been a link missing in my life.

Gobs, honey, I am truley sorry for your loss. I know your son was a great man, and served his countryh proud. But if a draft was enacted, Not only would there be loss of life, but there would be more people like dawn suffering because of it.

I don't want my childen, my fiancee, or myself to suffer just because ol georgie-boy wants to get rich. Call me un-patriotic, but if the draft goes through, it's hi-ho off to canada we go.

[queenangie]

Think about it - this age group WOULD include the ages of President Bush's twin daughters in college.

[ocvachick]

Well.. Ill be 20 in '05 and would hate to have to "skip country" but I swear I would. After seeing a friend come from Iraq I know its not the place for me at all.

[harloo]

Originally posted by gonnascream
why do I feel an urge to pack my bags and move to canada ??????



Canada will not work.

You missed this one:

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US 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 US Homeland Security Director, Gov. 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

[Legion600]

Okay, I am going to try to explain this one last time.
and yes I am screaming.

THE SPONSORS OF THIS BILL WROTE IT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC REALISE WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ!
THIS WAS INTRODUCED IN EARLY 2003 BEFORE WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ.
NONE OF THE SPONSORS OF THIS BILL WOULD VOTE FOR IT CONGRESS TRIED TO PASS IT.
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WOULD NEVER ALLOW THIS TO BE PASSED.
GO BACK AND READ THE COMMENTS THAT I POSTED FROM REPRESENTATVIE STARK WHO CO-SPONSORED THE BILL.

DO YOU ALL UNDERSTAND NOW?!

THAT SOME REACTIONARY DIPSTICKS ARE TRYING TO MAKE THIS AN ISSUE ABOUT GEORGE BUSH IS STUPID BECAUSE THE BILL WAS INTRODUCED BY A DEMOCRAT!

[AngelGrim]

either way this is new news to me, and I don't like the thought of drafting at all, whether it be just a thought or something someone would try to get passed.
Now, am tiptoeing out, the yelling hurt my ears lol.

[mlayton1994]

I dont agree with this either. I voted for Bush the first time but, more than likely I will not vote for him again. Sure he stands up for morals but, look at all the other damage he has done.

I am 27 but, I do not feel that is draft bill is right and I hope that it never passes (JMO).

[harloo]

Originally posted by Legion600

THAT SOME REACTIONARY DIPSTICKS ARE TRYING TO MAKE THIS AN ISSUE ABOUT GEORGE BUSH IS STUPID BECAUSE THE BILL WAS INTRODUCED BY A DEMOCRAT!

Did you have to take it to this level? Everyone in this thread was responding in a adult like manner until this quote. :)

[gonnascream]

in that case it's high-ho off to mexico I go !

[AngelGrim]

Originally posted by gonnascream
in that case it's high-ho off to mexico I go !

lol I thought the same thing, even if I wouldn't be the age to go if this ever was put into effect, I would grab my nephews and neices and run like heck. Just figure if they would want to go if something like this did happen then fine, if not, then "On the road again"

[Anthill]

"Reinstituting the draft may seem unnecessary to some. But, it will ensure all Americans share in the cost and sacrifice of war. Without a universal draft, this burden weighs disproportionately on the shoulders of the poor the disadvantaged and minority populations"

The above statement p*sses me off. All americans share in the sacrifice and cost?? Yeah right, how many Politicians including your's truly the Bush family will be sacrificing thier lifes??? Hey I don't blame them, if I had the $$$ I would do the same thing, but don't put in there a statement about how we all should share the burden, and make sacrafices, when you know the only people who are making sacrifices are the people who don't have the Family connections / Money to get them out of it.

And if we do have this Draft how will we take care of them when they come home after the war???? As good as we have had in the past? Like Vietnam, Desert Storm??

[adorkablex]

Ok.. my mom reads this board.. and she's talked mentioned the posts made on here to me and I've occasionally browsed through when she leaves the window open with it..

When she told me about this yesterday... I was honestly seriously p/oed.
Yeah I think if they reinstate the draft that no one should be exempt from it.....But I think that the fact that they have an age limit on it is boloney.
Why is it that people my age (I'm 17.. 18 in a little under 4 months) are the ones forced to put their lives on the line? Seems to me that if an 18 year old can be sent where they don't want to be.. if their lives are so easily shoved to the back burner while they do they do their "duty" that a 28 year old should be forced to face the same thing.
These are children...babies that people are so happy to send overseas... people who don't even realize quite yet that they are mortal beings... I don't think it hits home to people that this isn't a movie.. this isn't a playstation game.. this is a dumb war. Started by a president that they didn't even have any say in electing.. Thats the thing.. these politicians are sending these 18 and 19 year olds over their to die.. when these kids can't even legally buy a six pack of beer.. they didn't elect those officials into office..
These are my friends, my peers being sent over their to die..
Maybe it'll make people over the age of 30 think a little harder over being so trigger happy at fighting a war that isn't needed when it's their children who're at stake.

[AngelGrim]

and they say a child will lead them, this poster does have a point

[fatesfaery]

Originally posted by AngelGrim
and they say a child will lead them, this poster does have a point

Well.......actually....she's my child, and she has been raises to have strong beliefs and to stand up for what she believes.

Raven, I don't think her reference to trigger happy was aimed at anyone here.

Ashley.......you remember what I told you about posting here.....state your opinion, but be nice to people, all people, even those who don't agree with you.

[Legion600]

Originally posted by harloo
Did you have to take it to this level? Everyone in this thread was responding in a adult like manner until this quote. :)

Yep, I did. Know why? Because almost no one that responded to this paid attention to what the people who co-sponsored this bill were saying.
It would be akin to someone who didn't want logging in a specific area trying to get a bill passed that would allow all the trees in the U.S. to be cut down.
The sponsors of this bill did not want the U.S. to go to war with Iraq. They introduced this bill in January 2003 in the hope that Congress and the American public would wake up and realize what could happen should we go to war with Iraq. The American public, being the sheep they are, paid no heed to it and instead jumped on the war band wagon.
The people (and I am not talking about anyone here on BBS) who are now making an issue out of this year old bill are dipsticks. They are tring to make it look like Bush and his cronies are behind this when this bill was begun by a Democrat who's intention was to open the public's eyes. Obviously he failed in his attempt, just like I have failed in mine to make people understand that this bill will NEVER get out passed.

[mwbahl]

Ok so this is bull because right now the Armed Forces are doing a Force reduction right now. And I know becuase my hubby could possibly be part of it.

[adorkablex]

Originally posted by Ravenlost
adorkablex...while I agree with you, I must point out that I am 45-years-old...well over 30 and I am not, nor ever will be "trigger happy at fighting a war".

I wasn't refering to anyone on the message board...and if it seemed like I was, I'm very sorry...
I was pointing my short finger @ politicians and people who are gung ho with war...
I just can't understand why people are so ready for people to die.

[adorkablex]

Originally posted by fatesfaery
Well.......actually....she's my child, and she has been raises to have strong beliefs and to stand up for what she believes.

Raven, I don't think her reference to trigger happy was aimed at anyone here.

Ashley.......you remember what I told you about posting here.....state your opinion, but be nice to people, all people, even those who don't agree with you.

Yeees mother :rolleyes: lol... (kidding)
I know everyone has the right for their own opinion.. and I love the fact that everyone's opinions differ... It'd be rather boring if everyone agreed with everyone else....And I wasn't going to be mean to anyone on here... you know that I'm not like that... I'll behave:D

[adorkablex]

Originally posted by Ravenlost
Force Reduction? Then why is my brother leaving for Iraq this weekend?

I'm sorry about your brother..
I'm not an overlybig prayer..I only pray for certain things (world peace..ending world hunger...a body like britney spears lol those type of things..j/k about the latter)but I'll pray and hope for his well being.

[mwbahl]

Force Reduction is appling to those who have been in trouble with in the last 2 years. These people are not trouble makers or anything like that but the military feels that they have too many military members so they want people to get out. They will still continue to send people to Iraq but are asking people to get out and even forcing out some people.

PS I feel for your brother my hubby was in Iraq for 6 months

[joannej]

It has been a very long time since I have posted to this board but
I can't help letting you all in what's happening in Canada
As we speak, there has been a case going through legal channels
to allow a American citizen to stay in Canada so as to avoid going to
Iraq. It appears at this time, this individual will be allowed
to remain in Canada as long as they need to avoid war. I know agreements have signed by John Manley and Tom Ridge but they are
only good as the papers it's printed. Our courts will make the
final decision and it looks they may just allow this person and others stay here in Canada as they did during the Vietnam War. This time will be different though. Persons coming into Canada in the past
hid from authorities while here. Now it seems these persons will be
able to register to stay here legally which means they can work
or attend school.

There has been news reports on about just this topic this past week
and it will be interesting to see what our court system will do about this. Since I very much disapprove of the war in Iraq
those who wish to enter Canada should be welcomed with open arms Hope this helps somehow.

I also want to add , we have been aware for some time that your government is not telling you everything about
what is happening in the rest of the world. They have censored parts
of your newspapers and tv news program, so you don't get a clear picture of it all. There is an American online news source called
Salon.com that is speaking the truth , Maybe signing up and reading this news source will give you a better picture what is happening
worldwide.

JO (niagara)

[stresseater]

Legion, you might as well give up lol. I get it though just so you know you aren't alone. As for salon, it is one of the most left leaning sources of information on the net. It is regularly ridiculed on political boards as a non source.I think I'll pass. :) :) If you really want a balance, surf many sites and compare.