Draft Debate is Growing

With the war in its current state and the demands on the U.S. military could a draft be in the works? The following report could shed some light on this issue..

From: CBSNEWS.com

Today, America is a nation at war. But, as CBS News Correspondent Russ Mitchell reports, this war is being fought entirely by volunteers, including reservists. There are 2.3 million people in America's armed forces, and the military says the number of new recruits is coming in right on schedule.

But there are some talking about a draft.

"This is fighting a war with someone else's children," says Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. "This is fighting where you don't feel the pain of the sacrifice. � They want to fight. They volunteer to fight. Why should I put my kids in jeopardy when they want to do it? To say that is hypocritical, to say the least."

Rangel, who voted against authorizing the war in Iraq, has proposed a universal draft -- one that would take both men and women, ages 18 to 26, and offers almost no exemptions. His intention: to spread the burden of fighting across all of society, rather than limiting it to those who now volunteer.

The New York congressman says: "The question has to be, what are the incentives to volunteer? And when you see right now they're offering up to $20,000 for someone to go to war, or they're offering educational opportunities. All you have to decide is, who would be tempted by these kind of incentives? It won't be the kids of those that can afford the education, who don't need the money who would be tempted by this."

Full Report From CBSNEWS.com: New Draft Debate

I wonder if the war expands for unforseen reasons if the reality of such a draft would come to be. If we need a few hundred thousand more troops I am sure we will have no choise.

But they are already debating the draft at high levels which could mean they know more about possible future military actions than we may have been told of.

Gazz

If it came to defending the homeland against an attack I would say a draft is necessary. If there were a world war and our allies were being attacked by other countries then I would say yes. But a draft to protect American instrests is borderline criminal. Why should anyone die in a battle because we cannot choose our friends a little more carefully (like Israel). Why should our children die because a few idiotic leaders hide in safety and do stupid things like train and fund bin Laden and Hussein. Perhaps we should send these idiotic leaders and their children onto the battle fields and let them pay the price for their actions instead of everyone else.

If there isnt a problem in finding recruits then why the need for a draft? I dont like the way Representive Rangel comes across in his argument for it. When its time to serve its time to serve to me it is a personal decision. It sounds like Rangel is trying serve all of our youths.

If you want to exterminate an entire race from the planet you need a large army. Just use the German army from WWII as a reference.

Feel free to correct me if i am wrong, but is that not how Israel has theirs already set up?

Firepoker

I am a mother and my childrens are right now on that age range I rather send my childrens to exile that having them dying for this mediocre president and his cronies.

Heck just look at the financial aspect of it. 30 Billion to train 1 million troops. Considering were already in a tetering economy that seems to be sliding in the wrong direction, why would we want to piss away 30 Billion to send 1 million more people to their likely death. Not only that but the fact is that war begets war, and it will never change. It will just snowball until we hit real hard times in america econimically speaking.

Im with you marg. My wife and I both agree if this pattern of imperialism and tyrany by Bush and our government continues we will pack up and move to a more sane nation.

Thanks, and I don't want to look like a nonpatriotic but I am spanish and both my grandfathers fought for this country, one of them died while my mother was unborn, my father fought for this country and one of his brothers die while both were serving at the same time, I lost also 2 cousing in vietnam. My husband served in the marines is now retaired, and one of my brother served in the navy, I think my family have shed enought blood for this country already, if my son wants to serve voluntarily it will be his choice not somebody else.

I am surprised no one really got the jist of what he was saying. They reason for the bill was so it wasnt Poor Kids going to war. It was everyone, Your not exempt if your parents are rich or your in school etc. That was what that bill was about. Its not saying we need troops it ust saying for a draft the rules need to be changed. and that perhaps when the rich people who run the country their kids, would also go to war . they might think twice before say yes to war no.

[Edited on 30-5-2004 by ShiftTrio]

Thanks for the clarification, now sound better but it is not

Problem with Rangel is that he doesn't realize that people will always find a way to avoid being drafted. Medical deferrments during Vietnam were a joke. Regardless of whether a new draft bill is passed those with money and influence will avoid serving. Never underestimate people's creativity to protect their own fanny.

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Its not saying we need troops it ust saying for a draft the rules need to be changed. and that perhaps when the rich people who run the country their kids, would also go to war . they might think twice before say yes to war no

ShiftTrio I agree, but I have to wonder why there is even a debate over a draft at all.

Rich kids poor kids.. does it really matter? I don't think there are many rich kids joining the military these days and if they are they are going right into Officer status.

I think there will be fewer youths willing to join the longer the war continues and that paradox will lead us to the draft.. And god forbid should a conflict with Iran, Syria or North Korea erupt I am sure there will be no debate the draft will be put in at light speed.

By the way I laughed for a while at the image of reagan you have as an avatar now my head hurts

Gazz

I agree, its just the point that he wasnt trying to get people drafted just "trying" to make it fairer (is that a word?)

Good observation Shift.

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
I am surprised no one really got the jist of what he was saying. They reason for the bill was so it wasnt Poor Kids going to war. It was everyone, Your not exempt if your parents are rich or your in school etc. That was what that bill was about. Its not saying we need troops it ust saying for a draft the rules need to be changed. and that perhaps when the rich people who run the country their kids, would also go to war . they might think twice before say yes to war no.

[Edited on 30-5-2004 by ShiftTrio]

Rangel is a fool, plain and simple. I certainly wasn't blessed being born into a family with lots of money. It would have made plenty of sense for me to sign up for the military to help pay for my education. But I knew the consequences, and chose not to. And paying for college was (and still is) a big issue for me. So Rangel is just whining and trying to champion the cause of 'poor, unfortunate minorities' to make him look better.

The ONLY way I could see any positive in Rangel's argument is that if what he wants comes true, and there is talk of a draft, and that EVERYONE will be at risk to be drafted, that people will be less wary of sending our troops to fight all these wars. That's the ONLY positive. And even then, he could be spending his time arguing against these wars and conflicts, rather than essentially spiting EVERYONE with his silly argument for a draft.

They will make so fair that bushes daughters will be the first to be drafted right.?

The day the Bush daughters get drafted and actually go into combat duty I swear Ill change my sexual preference. I can say that safely because it will be a cold day before those two ever get called and actually get shipped off to do battle.

The Feres Doctrine may be the ultimate answer to the Draft.

VERPA, Veterans Equal Rights Protection Advocacy, www.verpa.org...
has a Bill awaiting an S# in the Senate Judiciary Committee. But they are stonewalling us, again. The Bill demands the abolition of the Feres Doctrine.

Feres was adopted 54 years ago by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court as "law of the land".

So what is Feres? In 1946 Feres died in a barracks fire at a military installation in New York. His wife sued for negligence and lost. Hence, the Feres Doctrine.

At the end of WWII, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson temporarily stepped down from the bench to become the lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. After seeing the evidence of crimes against humanity by the Nazi Regime, Jackson, ironically became the author of the Feres Doctrine which simply states that no member of the military can bring suit against the government for ANY CRIME "incidental to service".

We are not talking about wounds or death suffered as a result of combat.

What we are talking about is murder, rape, battery, assault, torture, negligence, medical malpractice, medical experimentation, nuclear experimentation, wrongful convictions, perjury, conspiracy to obstruct justice, witness tampering, witness intimidation, 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.

So what has this got to do with the Draft?

Congress does not have the power to make changes to the First Amendment. The Right to seek redress for grievances from the government was important enough for our Founding Fathers to put it in the First Amendment, just after Free Speech.

So, who in their right mind would take the oath of enlistment or commission to protect and defend the Constitution of The United States knowing full well that they will be forfeiting the Right to seek redress? What is wrong with this picture?

Now all we have to do is educate all the 18-34 men and women who Will become eligible for the Draft by this time next year.

The Selective Service System cannot legally demand that you forfeit your Constitution Rights any more than Congress can dilute the First Amendment. So, refuse the oath of enlistment or commission on those grounds.

There used to be a saying, "You can't go to war without bullets". That can now be amended to "You can't go to war without trigger pullers".

If Feres is abolished, then at least those inducted won't become second class citizens without recourse.

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

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by John McCarthy]

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by John McCarthy]

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by John McCarthy]

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by John McCarthy]

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by John McCarthy]

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by John McCarthy]

I never knew this before, my daughter is right now posting on the internet to other young people about fighting back the draft this is going to be very educational.

Thanks.