Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New bills explore draft possibilities
The Pitt News ^ | June 23, 2004 | Katherine Britton

Posted on 06/25/2004 5:32:43 PM PDT by NateLannister

New bills explore draft possibilities

By KATHERINE BRINTON Staff Writer June 23, 2004

The draft was done away with more than 30 years ago, but two bills could bring it back, though not as it departed from military law in 1973. Several new provisions, such as the inclusion of women in the selective service, were proposed in early January of 2003. Also, the bills mandate that those not selected for military service would be required to fulfill a two-year obligation in a civilian capacity.

Jennifer Victor, an assistant political science professor at Pitt, predicted that it was extremely unlikely for the draft to be enacted again. Referring to the Nixon administration during the Vietnam War, she explained that, because of overwhelming public disapproval, the draft was cast away.

"Either party would get completely trounced if they supported an involuntary draft, because of the strong public opposition." In addition, both bills have been stagnant since Jan. 7, 2003 when they were referred to committees, according to the Library of Congress Web site.

Victor added that the draft question will have little bearing on the upcoming presidential election, since both Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and President George W. Bush oppose a new draft.

Then what purpose do these bills play? Victor clarified that sometimes bills proposed during the beginning sessions of a new congress, in this case the 108th congress, may be proposed as symbolic gestures, "and the fact that they never received a hearing, simply referred to committee, just emphasized that they are symbolic gestures rather than real policy makers."

The House bill, H.R. 163, was introduced by a Democrat from New York, Rep. Charles Rangel, who proposed the bill as a symbolic admonition of the possible consequences of war, rather than an actual legislative proposal, thus arousing public opposition to a war that Rangel believes is unjust, according to his Web site.

The Senate bill, introduced by Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., was proposed with similar intent, but with one exception. The Senate bill was proposed to draw attention to the issue of the voluntary draft, which, 30 years before, was considered biased, according to Victor.

Titled the Universal National Service Act, the Senate bill attempts to close gaps of gender, economic class and race by adding provisions that would ensure a more equitable group of draftees. Victor said that the two bills were a "natural modernization of a male-only draft that would be viewed by a contemporary public as inequitable."

During the last active draft period, she explained, a disproportionate number of minorities and lower-income people were drafted because draft-age people who could afford it became draft-dodgers, taking shelter within university halls or crossing borders.

The twin bills include provisions that would prevent draftees from dodging the draft. The reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable also eliminate higher education as a shelter by letting underclassmen postpone service until the end of their current semester, whereas seniors would have until the end of their academic year.

Will the draft ever become a necessity?

"There is a decent amount of evidence that the military is spread too thin," Victor said. "Service men and women in Iraq are National Guardsmen and reservists not meant for extended overseas service. This speaks volumes about an overextended military."

Rather than drafting to remedy a shortage, Victor explained, the military should instead transition into more specialized, efficient groups of soldiers.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: conscription; draft; military; war

1 posted on 06/25/2004 5:32:44 PM PDT by NateLannister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NateLannister

Why is it that the dems who hated the draft during Vietnam are rushing to reactivate it now? IMHO it's to force people that are against the WOT into service so it can be dismantled from the inside.


2 posted on 06/25/2004 5:36:21 PM PDT by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NateLannister
The House bill, H.R. 163, was introduced by a Democrat from New York, Rep. Charles Rangel, who proposed the bill as a symbolic admonition of the possible consequences of war, rather than an actual legislative proposal, thus arousing public opposition to a war that Rangel believes is unjust, according to his Web site.

The Senate bill, introduced by Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., was proposed with similar intent, but with one exception. The Senate bill was proposed to draw attention to the issue of the voluntary draft, which, 30 years before, was considered biased, according to Victor.

A good point to make with younger voters this year: Conscription is a Democratic Party proposal.

Of course, what they are trying to do is make the military unpopular.

-Eric

3 posted on 06/25/2004 5:37:47 PM PDT by E Rocc (Facts are to the left what garlic is to vampires.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc

Definitely seems like a little reverse psychology... make people afraid that their sons and daughters might get drafted to go to Iraq... and thereby turn public opinion against the war.


4 posted on 06/25/2004 5:39:54 PM PDT by NateLannister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NateLannister
New bills explore draft possibilities

Headline is a lie. As it says in the article,

...may be proposed as symbolic gestures, "and the fact that they never received a hearing, simply referred to committee, just emphasized that they are symbolic gestures rather than real policy makers."

To propose a bill as a "symbolic gesture" is hardly to explore the possibilities of the effect of that bill.

It's really irritating that this COMPLETE NON-STORY keeps getting play in the press. Look, which part of the following don't people get:

both bills have been stagnant since Jan. 7, 2003 .... they are symbolic gestures rather than real policy makers .... Charles Rangel, who proposed the bill as a symbolic admonition of the possible consequences of war, rather than an actual legislative proposal ....

Seriously: WHAT DON'T YOU GET, Katherine Britton? Symbolic, stagnant, dead-on-arrival bills that are not "actual legislative proposals"... and that's a story about "draft possibilities"?

Give me a break, please.

5 posted on 06/25/2004 5:52:56 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutch Boy
Why is it that the dems who hated the draft during Vietnam are rushing to reactivate it now? IMHO it's to force people that are against the WOT into service so it can be dismantled from the inside.

Not really. It's just to scare people into thinking it's a possibility that they'll be forced into service so the WOT can be dismantled from the inside. These (D)s aren't any more interested in actually reviving a draft than I am.

6 posted on 06/25/2004 5:54:08 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NateLannister

> Also, the bills mandate that those not selected
> for military service would be required to fulfill
> a two-year obligation in a civilian capacity.

Bingo. And this is why the Dems support the draft.

Apart from being supporters of slavery (and if this
isn't "involuntary servitude" what is?), you can be
sure that whatever else the "alternative" service
involved will include copious amounts of liberal
tribo-collectivist indoctrination.

Hey, draft advocates, why only two years?
Why not 5, or 10, or 20?


7 posted on 06/25/2004 6:51:37 PM PDT by Boundless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NateLannister

In terms of getting numbers, we don't need a draft. If needed, all President Bush needs to do is ask for volunteers. My buds and I in Gen X and Y will be the first to line up (some already have volunteered). The cause is just.


8 posted on 06/25/2004 9:54:04 PM PDT by MilesVeritatis (Beware the fury of a patient US military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NateLannister
A draft for the military isn't going to happen.

As "sneakypete" (who used to post here) has stated, they'll use to the threat of a draft to institute a program to trade citizenship for military service. (Sheeple will gladly accept it, since it would mean they don't get drafted). Bush and company gets a cheap military, the RATS get more voters, and the ruling elites get a de-Americanized military which they could one day use for domestic edict enforcement.

Once they "solve" this problem, I expect them to use the momentum to push for a national service program. Opportunists in both parties will again use the removal of the military draft threat to push this through (i.e., we worked our butts off so junior wouldn't have to go to Iraq for 2 years, and the best we could do was get this compromise where all he has to do is perform "national service" for a couple of years instead).

The left will relish the chance to indoctrinate our youth. Many of the right will get sucked in under the guise of "patriotism".

But make no mistake: any "national service" program would be nothing more than a federal indoctrination effort to 1)consolidate their control over those already in the system, 2) get more citizens into the system (like homeschooled Americans-- can't have a million independent thinking kids out there, 3) set up a national ID card consisting of biometrics, and 4) identify "troublemakers".

9 posted on 06/25/2004 10:06:31 PM PDT by Mulder (Those who would give up liberty for temporary security, deserve neither -- Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson