It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What the hell is this 'Back Door Draft'?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I've heard this term over and over now, and frankly, I don't understand it. Is this another case of civilian misinterpretation of long standing military policy?

Is this about stop-loss and the Individual Ready Reserve?

If so, this is some crap.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I believe its a system of forcing people to serve beyond their commitment time. The term draft being used to imply involuntary service.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Yes, I understand what the term 'draft' implies, but this simply isn't happening.

Can someone show me where this is happening. Who is being held in the military involuntarily?



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   
That's exactly what it means. On every enlistment contract there is a clause which states that in a time of 'national emergency' an enlistment may be extended- at the military's sole discretion- for a period not to exceed 6 months AFTER the end of the emergency.

They call it back-door, because it is basically the same as a draft since the enlistees have no choice.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Yes, I understand what the term 'draft' implies, but this simply isn't happening.

Can someone show me where this is happening. Who is being held in the military involuntarily?


In a few isolated cases when the MOS is in Real demand, they keep them on a bit longer. BUT what they dont tell you is that this has been common even as Clinton was downsizing. It happened on my brothers ship at least 4 or 5 times but usually was only for 4-6 weeks until they can find a replacement. But the left thinks war is a business and that they didnt sign on the dotted line, it is perfectly legal.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Wow. ... from reports I have seen many people are being forced to stay beyond their commitment time. Its been on the news here not too long ago. And I believe they have even required some retired people to come back.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
edsinger why are you blaming the left? It isn't the left that is executing these options. Its the Bush admin. And this "emergency" is so broad that it could be a decade before this "emergency" passes. So people could be forced to say in years longer. No one is saying it is illegal. We are simply saying it is forced service which is why the term back door draft comes up.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Montana
They call it back-door, because it is basically the same as a draft since the enlistees have no choice.


Since the enlistees have no choice? Like someone held a gun to their head and made them sign the contract that specifically outlines the stop-loss clause?

Sorry, that doesn't work. When you sign a contract, you are making a choice. You are choosing to agree to the terms of the contract.

Where is the lack of choice?



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   
The lack of choice about extending their enlistment. When I joined up, my recruiter didn't even mention it. And what 18 yr old really READS an enlistment contract (actually, I was 17 when I signed mine). It wasn't until my enlistment was almost up and they were considering extending our enlistments that it was explained to me. Way in the back, in fine print. Just like the warrantees on a cut-rate appliance. The truth in advertising law would apply if it wasn't the military!



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
edsinger why are you blaming the left? It isn't the left that is executing these options.


Easy, it was the Democrats that started the Draft rumors and bills in congress. Did not Kerry mention this (Back Draft?) specifically? YOu dont get no more Left then Kerry, even Teddy Kennedy cant claim that title.

[edit on 11-10-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Montana
The lack of choice about extending their enlistment. When I joined up, my recruiter didn't even mention it. And what 18 yr old really READS an enlistment contract (actually, I was 17 when I signed mine). It wasn't until my enlistment was almost up and they were considering extending our enlistments that it was explained to me. Way in the back, in fine print. Just like the warrantees on a cut-rate appliance. The truth in advertising law would apply if it wasn't the military!


I don't care how old you are, you should know enough to read a contract that is going to effect the next several years of your life. What 18 year old actually reads their enlistment contract? Me, that's who. Actually, I was 20, but what's the difference. Anyone who signs a contract before reading and understanding it is a voluntary idiot, and deserves every stop-loss clause and individual reserve requirement they get. Just as the ones who do read and understand it.

If you sign a contract, but forget to read it, or can't read, or whatever, you're still bound to it. And as far the 'fine print'... every contract is completely printed in a 10 point font. There is no 'fine print'. All the print is the same size.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I hate to break it to you but Bush is a HUGE liberal. FDR type liberal. He is left. He just runs as a republican. Look at what a liberal is. Bush is all of those things.

And on those military contracts... as was just pointed out these contracts are at times signed by minors which I might add would be illegal for any business to do. The government makes a business out of exploiting minors. Something you or I would be thrown in jail for.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
And on those military contracts... as was just pointed out...


This was pointed out, but no one suggested that it was illegal, which it isn't.


...these contracts are at times signed by minors which I might add would be illegal for any business to do.


Like the credit card companies, and the cell phone companies, and the automotive dealerships, and banks, etc. No, minors sign legal contracts every day. The only stipulation for a minor to sign a military contract is that they must have a signed parental consent form supporting it.


The government makes a business out of exploiting minors.


This last one is just silly...



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
I hate to break it to you but Bush is a HUGE liberal. FDR type liberal. He is left. He just runs as a republican. Look at what a liberal is. Bush is all of those things.


Well a lot can be said for that, he is not RonnieR for sure. But if you take out defense and homeland security spending, he has at least controlled the rise in descresionary spending. Why do you think the Dems hate him so. Their main voting block took a big hit.

How many of you get 'cost of living increases' at work?



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Delta.. I remember sitting in the recruiter's office as a 17 year old and him trying to pressure me to sign right then and there and I had no parent with me.

edsinger.... Bush signed that health care package for seniors. That was an extremely expensive piece of legislation. Then of course there were all the corporate handouts as well.



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
edsinger.... Bush signed that health care package for seniors. That was an extremely expensive piece of legislation. Then of course there were all the corporate handouts as well.


Well you are spot on there, but he has kept down some spending. But in this regard he was spending his way out of Clinton's recession maybe. I dunno.



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
How did Clinton downsize the army? Because he didn't order up as much stuff as Reagan/Bush-Elected? Well, lets see, no COLD WAR! Might explain it. Lets see, Reagan/Bush-Elected had something called RUSSIA in check. So they increased the military. Clinton? We had Kosovo, not a real threat. Also, Clinton ordered more ships then Bush Jr. Why is Bush gutting the Navy? Because we aren't fighting countries with Navies? Well, thats not an excuse, just like no Cold War or enemy is an excuse for Clinto to bring in 6 ships and 22 planes.

Also, Reagan gutted the military, Lincoln called for 118,000+ horses, Reagan? Only 3. Why did he gut the military? Is he a liberal wimp?



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Delta, the difference between the maturity of a 17 yr old and a 20 yr old is actually quite large. Especially if the 20 yr old has had to provide for him or her self for a couple of years. VERY large in most cases.

A contract is a contract, no arguement. However, a contract that is mis-represented or mis-leadingly explained can be, and indeed very often is thrown out.

The traditional way for the military to entice EM's to either increase the length of enlistment or to re-enlist is to offer rank advancements or cash bonuses. Or in some cases, a desired school or qual course. To change the way the game is played at the two minute warning leaves a bad smell in the air, you must admit.



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Also, Reagan gutted the military, Lincoln called for 118,000+ horses, Reagan? Only 3. Why did he gut the military? Is he a liberal wimp?


Thats actually quite funny!


As for the Bush Jr and the funds, its a new military. Thank Rummy for the 'more' flexible approach....we dont need massive armored divisions and a 600 ship Navy.

As for Clinton, now that WAS funny!



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Montana
Delta, the difference between the maturity of a 17 yr old and a 20 yr old is actually quite large. Especially if the 20 yr old has had to provide for him or her self for a couple of years. VERY large in most cases.


Which is why a 17 year old requires parental consent, and which is also why it is a good idea for any 17 year old to consult with a mentor or other responsible adult before making huge life choices.


A contract is a contract, no arguement. However, a contract that is mis-represented or mis-leadingly explained can be, and indeed very often is thrown out.


No military contract is misrepresented. It is only presented. Recruiters are on about the same rung of the human evolutionary scale as the parking enforcement official, I'll admit that, but it still is the responsibility of the individual to READ the contract before signing it. It is also the responsibility of the person signing the contract to actually fulfill it as well.


The traditional way for the military to entice EM's to either increase the length of enlistment or to re-enlist is to offer rank advancements or cash bonuses. Or in some cases, a desired school or qual course. To change the way the game is played at the two minute warning leaves a bad smell in the air, you must admit.


I don't understand what you're saying here. Change the way the game is played? Are you saying that there's some kind of bait-and-switch operation happening here? As if when someone was about to sign their re-enlistment contract and some Sergeant First Class says, "LOOK OUT, IT'S A SHARK!!!", and switches the contracts?

But beside that, of course bonuses are offered for longer enlistments. Of course good soldiers who intend to re-enlist are offered guaranteed placement in schools that would further their careers. Offers of rank are never included as a bonus or incentive to re-enlistment, though.

[edit on 12-10-2004 by DeltaChaos]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join