Draft June 2005 - Write your Congresspeoples.

I know that there was a topic here about the IRR's being called up. Wouldn�t you know it; I saw the story on the news weeks later. Since I haven't seen a thread with this in the past few days, I just thought that some people might use this.

I'm not a whining bleeding heart liberal, nor am I a bible thumping conservative hell bent on always being right. I do, however, oppose the idea of an upcoming draft. I am nobody to look down the barrel of a gun and judge another human being. I'd rather they kill me before I even had a chance to think about it.

So here's a website... given to me by a friend about the active draft legislation in the house right now. If you oppose... write your senators, it MIGHT sway the way they vote... then again it might not. Interesting just the same.

Draft Legislation

I'm not inviting the deplorable Anti-American sentiment that most Americans here seem to carry, because it is quite annoying to read you prattling on about, andto be perfectly honest, I don't care. I don't care if the president is well liked or not. I love the country I live in, but will not sacrifice my morals to fight in a war that I no longer support, simple as that.

Thank you Sara for bringing an issue as pertinent as this to light. This is the first I have heard of a draft since 2001, but I thought that was just hearsay... Obviously I was wrong. I would urge every american here to express their opinion on this subject with the link Sara has provided, as it concerns us all.

No problem. =)

I feel it's largely a political tactic to garner support for one side. It would be political suicide to vote something like this through, seems to me anyways. It still doesn't discount the institution of a draft as a possibility for the near future.

Hi Sara,

Veterans Equal Rights Protection advocacy, VERPA,
www.verpa.org... has a Bill to abolish the Feres Doctrine before the Senate Judiciary Committee awaiting an S#. Senator Specter has had this information since October, 2002. His administrative assistant promised us last week that the paperwork would be signed in time for Veterans Day. Didn't happen.

So what has this got to do with the Draft?

Let me explain Feres to you and then I will show how you and others can avoid the Draft.

Feres died in a barracks fire on a military installation in New York in 1946. His wife sued the government for negligence and lost.

In 1945, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson temporarily stepped down from the bench because he had been nominated to become the lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. Ironically, after witnessing the presentation of crimes against humanity against the Nazi defendants, Justice Jackson became the author of the Feres Doctrine.

Feres negates the First Amendment Right to seek redress for grievances against the government for ANY crime. The Supreme Court upheld the Feres Doctrine in 1950.

The wording of the Feres Doctrine is all inclusive; it states that no member of the military, or their families, may bring suit against the government for ANY crime "incidental to service".

We at VERPA specifically noted that we do not address wounds or death suffered in combat.

What we are concerned about, and have case files on, are the crimes of murder, rape, assault, torture, negligence, medical malpractice, nuclear experimentation, medical experimentation, false arrest, perjury, witness tampering, witness intimidation, conspiracy to obstruct justice, secreting exculpatory evidence,
violations of attorney client relationship, treason and more.

Current members of the Supreme court have opined that Feres is "bad law" and that Congress has the power to abolish it.

How can a person be expected to take the oath of enlistment and swear to protect and defend the Constitution of The United States while simultaneously forfeiting their Right to seek redress under the very same Constitution? There is something very wrong with this picture.

Feres has been on the books for 54 years and not one person entering the service has ever been advised of it's existence. No one finds out about Feres until it is too late.

Congress does not have the power to remove, alter, erase or otherwise modify the First Amendment. Our fore fathers decided that seeking redress for grievance against the government was so important that they put it in the First Amendment.

If Feres is still a law of the land when the Draft is reinstated, affecting ALL men and women between the ages of 18-34, prospective draftees can choose not to take the oath of enlistment because they refuse to forfeit their Right to seek redress as guaranteed by the Constitution.

So, as long as the Feres Doctrine remains adopted by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, no American can be compelled to accept the oath of enlistment to join any of the Armed Forces of The United States.

There used to be an expression; "You can't go to war without bullets". That is now modified to; "You can't go to war without trigger pullers".

Regards,

John McCarthy
Chairman of The Board of VERPA
Blog: www.jenmartinez.com...
email: [email protected]

Here is the rationale behind HR 163:

Congressman Pete Stark January 8, 2003
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?

The current status of HR 163
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.

The current status of S 89
Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

This isn't something to get all worked up over, at least not HR 163 and S 89.

Neither bill is specifically about a draft in the traditional sense, they're about mandatory military service.

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.

[Edited on 25-5-2004 by Enki]

God I'm glad I'm Canadian.

I have heard this brought up many times before, and there is no viability to it. Many American Generals have been asked, Powell has been asked, Rumsfield has been asked.

The answer is NO. No draft. Especially considering this. While nothing imparticular has spelled certain disaster for a re-election bid, nothing would do that better than a draft.

Draft = NO BUSH, he knows this.

These two bills are old news to me.

I dont think it will go through

What does every greedy corrupt power hungry politician yearn for? More power. If this thing is passed through then they know they wont get elected for another term.

It wont happen.

I'm not worked up over it, simply because I've got medical problems that would most likely prohibit me from being drafted. I don't think they'll get pushed through either, since I -believe- they were brought about by the same group of political fanatics lobbying against it, I feel it's a political tactic. A few recent events though, have made me wonder how likely something like this is.

Bottom line, no matter if it's something or nothing at all, it's never wrong to voice your opinions, especially to the right people.

I do appreciate the info though, specifically on the Feres Doctrine, good to know. Thanks folksies =)

Originally posted by d1k
God I'm glad I'm Canadian.

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Wow... that just made my day!

Covered here:
Draft reinstated, 2005
the draft is getting closer

Please feel free to continue or add your comments to the above existing related threads/topics.

Thread Closed


seekerof