Called Rangel's Office Today-Draft Legislation Will Be Introduced

[poe]

I spoke at length with an aide from Congressman Rangel's office and he confirmed that the bill that was introduced in the 108th Congress HR 163, will be reintroduced in the upcoming Congressional session. The exact number of the bill will not be known until all other procedures have been completed. The wording of the bill will essentially be the same as the initial HR 163;
(repeat HR 163 of the 108th Congress is not the same bill as HR 163 in the coming session), for questions call the switchboard and ask for Rangel's office
Phone:[phone] or call Rangel's office directly at 1-202-225-4365.

Snippets from the original bill are listed below to see the whole thing go to:

www.thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.163

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 163

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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 7, 2003

Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

(a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.

(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.

(c) INDUCTION REQUIREMENTS- The President shall provide for the induction of persons covered by subsection (a) to perform national service under this Act.

(d) SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--

(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; and

(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act.

(e) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2)

SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.

(a) IN GENERAL- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act.

(b) MATTER TO BE COVERED BY REGULATIONS- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed for a person's national service obligation under this Act.

(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this Act, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.

(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this Act and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.

(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this Act, including questions of conscientious objection.

(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this Act through civilian service.

(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this Act.

(c) USE OF PRIOR ACT- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this Act the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.

SEC. 5. INDUCTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Every person subject to induction for national service under this Act, except those whose training is deferred or postponed in accordance with this Act, shall be called and inducted by the President for such service at the time and place specified by the President.
SEC. 8. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.

(a) CLAIMS AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR- Any person selected under this Act for induction into the uniformed services who claims, because of religious training and belief (as defined in section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 456(j))), exemption from combatant training included as part of that military service and whose claim is sustained under such procedures as the President may prescribe, shall, when inducted, participate in military service that does not include any combatant training component.

(b) TRANSFER TO CIVILIAN SERVICE- Any such person whose claim is sustained may, at the discretion of the President, be transferred to a national service program for performance of such person's national service obligation under this Act.
SEC. 12. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term `military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services.

(2) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to matters concerning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to matters concerning the Public Health Service.

(3) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

(4) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.
<snip>
The Army and Guard are already being pushed to the limit. Thus, there will have to be a draft. But in order for there to be a draft, anti-war groups and spokesmen will have to be marginalized and crushed. So those of us who are anti-war should prepare to be called traitors and cowards with an intensity that we haven’t seen so far. Ann Coulter is soon going to go completely mainstream.

I always hated the complacency of the people who smirkingly bragged about being 'reality-based'. They missed the point of what had been said. Democrats figure out what past reality was like, and assume that future reality will be pretty much the same. Republicans figure out how future reality will be different from past reality, and then ask themselves what they can do to change and exploit this new reality. And they win that way.
I don’t think that anyone in the Democratic Party (or the left blogosphere) is at all prepared for what’s coming next. What I see now is people doing and saying the things that they should have been doing and saying in 2000.

www.seetheforest.blogspot.com

Se rebeller est juste, désobéir est un devoir, agir est nécessaire !

[King Coal]

1. This is a stupid, stupid move.

[uppityperson]

2. What about the no college deferment clause? No surprise

bah. If there is to be a draft, or legistlation saying who would be drafted if there were to be a draft, there needs to be language making neocon kids the same as the rest of us.

[ashmanonar]

7. i'm in college...

and i'm a bleeding heart liberal...how does college make me a neocon?

[uppityperson]

25. no no no no no, not what I meant.

Being in college does not make you a neocon at all.

The last draft bill voted on had a clause that did away with the college deferment, in that as soon as the current quarter or semester was over, you would be eligible. This means you couldn't continue in college for an unlimited time to avoid the draft. Rich people used to pay for college tuition for years and years and years and their kids would never graduate and never be draft eligible. This last bill voted down did away with a bunch of the neocon hideouts. Which was a big reason it was voted down.

[ashmanonar]

75. yea.

i knew, sorta, what you meant. it just sounded like you were claiming that college people tended to be neocons. i'll bet a lot of kids here have 'con parents (although with my school, that's probably a small number: pretty cheap college for being private) but i'd say that's the way with a lot of america. the 'con parents pay for every little thing the kid experiences in college (tuition, room and board, CAR, food...)

let's just say that my parents, despite being conservative, aren't anything near neocons...

but anyways, yea. sounded like you said college students tended to be neocons. and that AIN'T happening. thank the gods for liberal arts colleges. :7

on edit: lemme add another thing to the list of 'con kid payoffs: BOOZE!

[Coastie for Truth]

15. In 1968 when all graduate school deferments were supposedly eliminated

the military just opened a "delayed entry-extended leave" option - served one weekend a month and served 2-4 years after completion of graduate school - that was the only way they got any (non-medical) doctoral degree holders.

And, when you get past the 10% of the military who are the "tip of the spear" - the military uses lots of (ok - wastes two years out of the lives) of PhD level people (translators, programmers, engineers, social workers, historians, economists, etc., etc., etc.)

I served with PhD historians, educational psychologists, industrial hygenists, antenna engineers, mechanical engineers, psychiatric social workers, Russian lit PhD's, etc. They have something far from the fighting where they can under utilize educated people.

[bluestateguy]

27. I worked for too many years in graduate school for my skills

The military can't have them. period.

[Coastie for Truth]

38. Having lived through the VietNam era draft

The system has "scam points" where you can "serve" in one perverted sense of serving (i.e., career and family interruption, family separation) but NOT in a real "Rambo" sense of "serving" (getting shot at on the ground).

The system always has had those points -- always will. The military is, under the covers, a big, inefficient, high tech bureaucracy, with lost of sophisticated stuff that has to be done to keep the system from "crashing" (like running the computers for electronic fund transfer of GI's pay to the spouse's checking accounts -- the "back offices" are here in the US; logistics and supply chain management, etc).

A good expose of Halliburton etc. will move those tasks from Halliburton back to GIs.

[Spacejet]

18. Are you for real?

Do you REALLY believe the republican congress will allow such language? This reminds me of the people still calling for voting reform. As if Tom Delay will be leading the charge to fix voting "issues".

[uppityperson]

32. I am for real and unfortunately I don't think repubs would

They will block anything that threatens their kids or way of life.

[Warpy]

3. This bill doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

And thank goodness for that.

What they WILL pass is a "special skills" draft affecting both sexes. What they won't do is define those "special skills" clearly.

Oh, and they won't recognize the unpaid job of motherhood as being service to the country, since they're all MEN.

[jackster]

5. no, because rich republicans don't want their kids going to war

I for one have supported some kind of national service for young Americans for some time. (I served as a young woman.) Not requiring MILITARY service is a way in which those that are conscientious objectors could serve in some other capacity. This is more equitable for all Americans and takes the burden from the minorities and less weathly. It is fair but it won't pass....

Good for Rangel for continuing his efforts however.

btw - I'm ANTI-WAR!

[Emboldened Chimp]

9. Forget equitable service...

How about not getting into any more wars?

[jackster]

10. yes, let's not get into any wars,

but we must have a military who's primary job is to PROTECT us! not go off hunting for wars!

I'm NOT IN SUPPORT OF ANY SOLELY MILITARY DRAFT.

[BOSSHOG]

12. No more Wars would mean

no more need for the draft. However, if conservatives want to galivant around the globe with their "mandate" then conservative blood should be shed as well. I applaud Congressman Rangel and his attempt to force the hand of those who don't give a flying dog fuck about going to war or whose kids get to fight such wars.

[Emboldened Chimp]

13. Fuck applauding Rangel...

...because if this goes through, my ass can be potentially drafted. No way am I giving up everything I've worked for to go fight for the Chimp's glory--not at 32, or any age.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Emboldened Chimp]

30. First off, you are way off base on your conservative comment...

Check the post counts, I've been here a long time. Second, I'm not fighting for something I don't believe in, especially when it only serves to bolster American Imperialism and Dick Cheney's Halliburton options. Third, I appreciate your service, but I'm sure you enlisted when you were young; I'm 32 and have built a life and am about to be married, start a family, etc. My time for going into the military has come and gone--I considered volunteering when I was 19, but opted for college. Sharing the burden at 19 and sharing the burden at 32 are two completely different things. People who are well past the traditional draft age should not be considered for military service, especially when it is we who are the instigators of war.

[Blue Wally]

94. Some of us.........

shared the burden (along with our spouses and children) well past the age of 32.

[Spacejet]

19. Unfortunately

instead of party growing a spine it would rather use peoples lives as pawns in a pathetic political game.

[southernleftylady]

8. no they wont start the draft.. it would be political suicide nt

[Coastie for Truth]

11. During VietNam

DOD did a "back of the envelope" study (may have been contracted out to a "Think Tank" at one of the Med Schools) about a "Doctor-Dentist-Nurse-Pharmacist-Bioscientist-Osteopathic Physicians-Veterinarians" draft for "National Service" (not just military, included USPHS, VA, NIH, Indian Health Service, etc), male and female, straight and gay/lesbian/transsexual. Options included forgiveness of student loans, etc.

Don't know how far it got, but it was the talk of the many med schools in Metropolitan Philadelphia

[bowens43]

4. This asshole needs to go.

What a fucking idiot.

[Ian David]

6. Our next Freeway Blogging Campaign

Feel a Draft?
We TOLD you so!


http://www.alternet.org/story/18766



http://www.freewayblogger.com/index.htm

[Book Lover]

14. Stop handing the President more power!

I am against any draft for many many reasons, but I think seeing the language, "The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act" is what sickens me the most. You are handing a drunk a bottle of gin.

[Midlodemocrat]

23. Exactly what I told Rangel's office. I used that quote, hope you

don't mind.

[Book Lover]

40. Freely given

Glad I could be of some help.

[Sirveri]

92. Why not put this under the office of the president?

The President is suppossed to be the commander in chief, it's his job to see to the needs of the military and the national defense. The Draft would fall under his purview. Of course if we had a draft I'd rather have someone else at the helm, but well, that's another point. It's too bad FDR ain't around any more to deal with it.

[Spacejet]

16. God what a fool

Here is what will happen

1. Democrat introduces draft legislation.

2. Republican majority amends it to add exemptions for rich/elite.

3. Republican majority passes it.

4. FAUX News runs 24/7 coverage of DEMOCRATS bringing back the draft.

5. Democrats kiss any chance of winning an election for the next 10 years good bye.

[LibertyorDeath]

20. Bingo we have a winner. Welcome to DU!

[uppityperson]

29. What happened last fall:

1. Democrats introduced draft legislation taking away exemptions for rich/elite.
2. Bill sat and sat and nothing happened.
3. Repubs panicked when "Bush=draft" ideas gained ground and forced a vote.
4. Voted down legistlation, proving that Bush does not equal draft and showing that repubs were the good guys since Demos were the ones who wanted bill passed.
bah

[LibertyorDeath]

31. That was before the "Man Date"

[in_cog_ni_to]

33. That's EXACTLY what will happen.

The repukes will conveniently neglect to tell the ignorant Faux News watching sheeple that THEY amended it so their rich kids can stay home. This is going to bite us in the ass.

I understand Charlie's bill. I do. I understand WHY he introduced it the first time. The repukes will NEVER pass it as it is. NEVER and there's no way in hell we can depend on the cable news channels to report the truth. I wish Charlie would just not re-introduce this bill. shit. This isn't good. Let the REPUKES make the "DRAFT" leap. THEY started the damn wars. Let THEM have to take the responsibility of a draft. The repukes are probably foaming at the mouth to get ahold of Charlie's bill.

The DEMOCRAT'S DRAFT! I can hear them now. :(

[Midlodemocrat]

39. I hope you don't mind, but I just quoted your post

to his NY office. I don't think, from speaking with his aide, that they understand how it will spin in the redlands.

[Tinoire]

56. Welcome! Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[K-W]

84. The republicans arent going to pass a draft.

Sheesh.

[poe]

21. The Aide Said There Would Be Essentially Two Components of Service

one would be "Military needs" the other "Community Based Services". i asked who would define what those definitions meant and who would decide in what sector an individual would be required to "serve." he said,"The President." according to him Homeland Security would be in the Community Based Services package so what role one might play there you can only guess. it's all militarism no matter how you slice it. i understand rangel's purported reasoning and challenged the aide on this-"share the obligations of service" was the exact phrase used-but there is no way senator's sons and ivy league boys and girls are going to iraq to catch bullets or to iran to sabotage liquefied natural gas pipelines or work in the field for KBR. I mentioned that once these bills get into play the game of semantical jujitsu begins and the intent,as flawed as it is, will be distorted and subverted. he replied that the bill would then not be sponsored by rangel. lastly i mentioned that rangel should be introducing legislation to indict the war criminals cheney,rumsfeld and wolfowitz,to withdraw from iraq and reduce the military budget by half. he did not respond. it's up to us to make this a political impossibility. the children of iraq are counting on that.
Se rebeller est juste, désobéir est un devoir, agir est nécessaire !

Rangel's phone#:[phone]; or switchboard at 1-888-508-2974

[Ian David]

28. Crap. I just noticed the bastard is a Democrat

How can we get him expelled from the Democratic Party?

I DO NOT WANT A MILITARY DRAFT BEING CREDITED TO A DEMOCRAT!!!

[Blue Wally]

95. Yeah.....

time to vote another Democrat off the island. Then we won't have anyone left except the "true believers".

[Midlodemocrat]

22. I just talked to his office as well.

Was told that these congressmen are putting together this legislation to try to stop the back door draft that is going on now. However, the aide did not comment on my remarks about giving the chimp too much power.

I did tell her that it was all over the internet and these bastards better grow a spine if they want any more money from democrats.

I also told her that they need to stand up in congress and say 'hell no' to this lying, thieving administration...and yes I did say it like that.

Now I am going to call my friends in NYC and have them call Rangel's NY office.

Shit.

[Tinoire]

57. That's not the best news.

I was really, really hoping that despite all the signs, this wouldn't happen. Not this way.

I'm calling too. Have a ton of mothers around who will be very interested in this also.

Wow. Thanks for the report

[bluestateguy]

24. My position on this is clear. This bill, and Rangel, must be defeated.

Search the archives if you wish but in short:

Rangel thinks that he can write a bill that will prevent rich kids from dodging the draft. He is naive. The Jenna Bushes of the world have ways of ensuring that they never have to serve.

He claims to want to force a debate over fairness and citizenship. A noble goal, but his bill to bring back the draft will, in reality, promote inequality and ever more perverted understandings of citizenship. The rich will avoid serving and his bill will provide the BushPNACAEI crowd with hundreds of thousands more warm bodies to conduct imperialist military conquests around the world. A disproportionate number of these bodies will be non-white and poor.

I am no longer a supporter of this congressman and I urge his defeat in the 2006 Democratic primary.

[Liberal Classic]

26. Thanks Charlie!

NOT!

[Ian David]

35. I just spoke to his staffer, and I had a hard time understanding him

I don't just mean I couldn't follow his argument.

I meant I couldn't understand about half the words coming out of his mouth.

I think the guy must have had vocalcord surgery or something.

In any case, I expressed my disatisfaction at length and suggested that Rengel may as well roll over onto his back and put his knees up to his ears.

[Liberal Classic]

60. Thank you for calling his office

I am not one of his constituents, but I am firmly opposed to any suggestion of a draft made by either party. Thank you very much, Ian.

[jojo54]

34. THIS IS buLLshIT!!

What a f__cking liar. Somebody help me here. Didn't he say there would be no draft or did I just miss some of his dancing??

[hector459]

43. As a vetern, Rangel has always been for the draft. Wants everyone to

participate in the war and not just the children of the working poor.
Flame me, but I agree with him. If the draft had been in force at the time of the vote on the Iraq invasion, do you honestly believe that it would have passed or even been asked for?

[poe]

36. Here's More

Sometime soon Rep. Rangel is preparing to reintroduce legislation to reinstitute the military draft since he strongly feels everyone should share the burden of war,” Emile Milne, Rangel’s press representative and legislative director, said last week.
While our ultimate objectives are very ambitious we will never achieve democracy and stability without being willing to commit 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have a draft, and have some form of war compensation,” Zbigniew Brzezinski told the New America Foundation. For Brzezinski, the United States faces either a “moment of wisdom” —the willingness to fight endlessly against an “insurgency” that logic dictates cannot be defeated, so long as the Iraqi people view the United States as a foreign occupier—or “resign” itself to “cultural decay” and a “loss of credibility,” that is to say abandon its role as hegemon and imperialist, the overriding goal of U.S. foreign policy for more than a hundred years.








Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:

The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.

So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years. There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be

leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.

The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.

In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.

[jojo54]

37. BTW

Did anyone notice Sec. 5, subset a: CLAIMS AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR??? This references religion as a possible deference to induction. Well, well, well, we all know who that leaves out now, don't we?

[Ian David]

41. Join your local draft board

Apply online to be on the draft board

http://www4.sss.gov/localboardmembers/bminquiry.asp

To serve as a Local Board member, an individual must:
1. Be a citizen of the US, at least 18 years of age
2. Reside in the county where the Board has jurisdiction
3. Be registered with the Selective Service, (males only)
4. Be able to devote sufficient time to accomplish Board Member duties

A Board Member may not:
1. Be an active or retired member of the Armed Forces or Reserve
Component
2. Be a member of a law enforcement occupation (example: Police
officer,
judge)

Training:
1. There is an initial 12-hour training session in members’ duties and
responsibilities.
2. In peacetime there is a 4-hour refresher course each year.
3. In the event of a national emergency the time requirement could be
a few
hours each month

[Blue_In_AK]

42. Who do YOU think "conscientious objector" leaves out

Traditionally, a person had to be raised in one of the "peace" churches, i.e., Quakers, Mennonites or Church of the Brethren, to get a pass for conscientious objection. Has this changed?

[Ian David]

44. Military Draft and Conscientious Objectors

Three of the ways to avoid the draft was listed as "Ministers of Religion" and "Ministerial Students" and "Student Postponement."
http://www.sss.gov/sssyou/sssyou.htm

This is troubling.

First of all, a new draft may likely not allow a student postponement anymore. But "Ministerial Students" is in a seperate category from just plain "student." Does this leave the door open to special status for students enrolled at Oral Roberts University or seminaries?

As for Ministers of Religion...

Classifications

http://www.sss.gov/classif.htm

Men are not classified now. Classification is the process of determining who is available for military service and who is deferred or exempted. Classifications are based on each individual registrant's circumstances and beliefs. A classification program would go into effect when Congress and the President decide to resume a draft. Then, men who are qualified for induction would have the opportunity to file a claim for exemptions, deferments, and postponements from military service. Here is a list of some, though not all, classifications and what they mean:

1-A - available immediately for military service.
1-O Conscientious Objector- conscientiously opposed to both types (combatant and non-combatant) of military training and service - fulfills his service obligation as a civilian alternative service worker.
1-A-O Conscientious Objector - conscientiously opposed to training and military service requiring the use of arms - fulfills his service obligation in a noncombatant position within the military.
2-D Ministerial Students - deferred from military service.
3-A Hardship Deferment - deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his family.
4-C Alien or Dual National - sometimes exempt from military service.
4-D Ministers of Religion - exempted from military service.

Student Postponements - a college student may have his induction postponed until he finishes the current semester or, if a senior, the end of the academic year. A high school student may have his induction postponed until he graduates or until he reaches age 20. Appealing a Classification - A man may appeal his classification to a Selective Service Appeal Board.

See also:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=site:www.sss.gov+%22Ministers+of+Religion%22

Also, this is important:

The same applies if a person who is entitled to a complete draft exemption is improperly denied exemption, or given only a partial exemption, by the Selective Service. For example, ministers of religion are supposedly exempt from the draft. They don’t have to perform any kind of military or civilian service so long as they stay in their ministerial jobs. Usually, the kind of ministers who apply for the ministerial exemption are the ministers, rabbis and imams who conduct worship services in churches, synagogues and mosques. This is the image which springs most readily to mind when one thinks of a minister of religion.

However, sometimes the Selective Service has wrongfully denied ministerial exemptions to legitimate ministers on the grounds that the ministers did their work in an unconventional way. The best examples of this kind of situation involve the members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses religious group. According to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theology, every JW member is a minister of the gospel, responsible for bringing the good news of the gospel to the unsaved. Many readers may have encountered JW members who were doing their missionary rounds.

During the draft, every JW member considered himself eligible for the ministerial exemption, but the Selective Service has often been hostile and suspicious toward such claims. For one thing, Jehovah’s Witnesses are an unpopular group precisely because of their evangelistic practices, as well as their denunciation of flag-salutes and of other religions (especially Catholicism). For another thing, the Selective Service usually thought of “ministers” in accordance with the establishment paradigm of leaders who supervise worship services each week. And a final consideration provoking suspicion of the Jehovah’s WItnesses was the fact that JWs, who are rarely wealthy and often not even middle-class, support themselves by secular employment, rather then drawing their income from preaching the gospel.

Often, Jehovah’s Witnesses were were ordered by the Selective Service either to serve in the military, or to perform civilian alternative service as conscientious objectors. When Witnesses refused to do the duties assigned them, maintaining that they were entitled to a full draft exemption as ministers, then prosecution would result. In some cases, Witnesses went to prison, but there were some enlightened court decisions which recognized the ministerial status of at least some Witnesses. Some judges realized that being a minister doesn’t necessarily mean that you get your income from preaching the gospel-under that definition the apostle Paul, who was a tentmaker, would not qualify as a minister. Leading weekly worship services, enlightened judges recognized, was not the only task of ministers; ministrial duties included missionary work. Finally, the enlightened judges recognized that the ministerial exemption should be applied to members of unconventional religions as well as members of mainstream religions, or else the U. S. would be discriminating against unpopular religious groups, which would be unconstitutional.

http://nd.essortment.com/selectiveservic_roro.htm

If anyone is interested in becoming a minister, priest, rabbi, imam, or whatever (for free):

The Universal Life Church

You can become a legally ordained minister, instantly, online, at this website. The Universal Life Church is totally non-denominational, interfaith and welcomes all religions. After you fill out the ordination form, you will receive a pop-up instant credential, which serves as your receipt of your ordination. Print it immediately.

As a ULC (Universal Life Church) minister, you can officiate one wedding ceremony or you can make weddings, funerals, baptisms, house blessings, etc. your business. You can even start your own ministry. The Universal Life Church is interfaith and non-denominational.

We have, online, free training for ministers, an online, one-year seminary program, where you can receive a diploma to enhance your knowledge and your credibility, and a monk program.

While you don’t have to purchase anything from the ULC to gain the legal benefits, entitlements and respect, we do offer a wide variety of materials to assist you in your ministry and/or business.

More:
http://www.ulc.org /

On a side note:

More blatant forms of draft-dodging included feigning illness (including homosexuality, which was then considered a mental illness), self-mutilation (so as to render oneself unfit for service), and fleeing the country. Canada was a favorite draft-dodger destination in the Vietnam era, although the tightening of Canadian immigration laws since that time may make Canada a less welcome haven for American draft-dodgers today. Sweden, which maintained neutrality during the Cold War, was another favorite destination.

The respectability of draft-dodging may be illustrated by enumerating some of the prominent people who engaged in it. Grover Cleveland, future U. S. President, hired a substitute to fight in his place during the Civil War (hiring substitutes, or paying a “commutation fee,” was an old method of getting exempt from the draft, but such an option is not available under current draft laws). George Wallace bravely served in many bombing runs over Japan during World War II, but finally Wallace decided he wasn’t going to fly any more raids. Wallace received a discharge based on alleged mental illness. Whether this counts as draft-dodging or simple war-weariness is hard to tell. Dan Quayle (future Vice-President) got into the Indiana National Guard, which was never sent abroad even though the Vietnam War was going on (the President now has the power to deploy National Guard units abroad, which contradicts a long-standing Constitutional tradition). The current President of the U. S., George W. Bush, also had a stint in the Texas National Guard during Vietnam, although presumably the President would deny having dodged the draft. Former President William Clinton took various available options to keep himself from going to Vietnam while at the same time preserving his “political viability.”

From:
http://nd.essortment.com/selectiveservic_roro.htm

More Discussion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2954888


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2795445

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2903081

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2901833

[Blue_In_AK]

47. Thanks for the info

I hadn't even thought about the "ministers." I was just thinking about regular people I knew back in the Vietnam days who did two years' alternative service with Church World Service because they were Brethren and could legitimately claim CO status without too much opposition. I also had a very dear friend who fled to Canada and became a world-renowned "quark" physicist, but he couldn't come back to the US until the amnesty.

As to Rangel's bill, I understand his reasoning behind it (he explained himself on Bill Maher once), but I still would hate to see ANY kind of a draft return. The only good thing that would come of it would be people might finally get upset enough to kick these war mongers out of power. I think the draft is what finally sent people to the streets back in the old days.

[Ian David]

49. You're welcome. You don't mean Feynman, do you?

Anyway...

I don't want a bunch of freepers running around saying it was the Democrats who "shoved a draft down our throats."

A few minutes ago I just put my application to be on the draft board in the mailbox.

Actually, now that I think of it... can we leave a military draft up to the individual states?

You know, each state votes on whether or not they want THEIR citizens to be drafted?

And WHY is it the Reich Wing thinks "the people" should have the right to vote on who gets to marry whom, but NOT on whose children get killed in a pointless war?

Personally, I'm all in favor of a back-door draft and stop-loss orders.

Few things end wars faster than a whole lot of very pissed-off people with guns and the training to use them.

Let Bush continue to piss-off the people who he has sent to war "with the army we have, not the army we would like to have."


Anyway, it's Bush's war, let HIS party push for a draft.

[Blue_In_AK]

52. Not Feynman -- Nathan Isgur, actually

whose name comes up simultaneously with Feynman several times on a Google search. Nathan was a high school classmate of mine, absolutely brilliant. He passed away about four years ago.

[K-W]

85. Thats standard fare, you are reading too much into it. Think Quakers.

There are pacifist religions.

[KoKo]

45. This makes me sick...but the threat of it may just blow open the Bush

Doctrine of "Pre-Emptive Strike" and wake some folks up to the "Reality of Endless Wars and Death."

I do NOT want this pill to pass...but the wake up call that it might is what we need. So, from that standpoint I think Rangel's effort is probably worth it.

We Americans have not been asked to sacrifice as a people. Only those who have no alternative but the Military or those who want it for a career are being asked to sacrifice.

Maybe those busily building the McMansions, buying the Hummers, taking the cruises and Re-Fi'ing to buy more will understand that the Bush Doctrine can affect them. The good times will be over. The Reality of what these Monsters are doing, will hit home. There's nothing else we can do. The protests don't stop them, the Debt doesn't stop them and our Democrats can't stop them. The DRAFT is all we have left.
If that doesn't stop them then I hate to think what would.:shrug:

[Ian David]

46. If we need a draft, we do NOT want a Democrat on-record proposing it

Rangel needs to be expelled from the Democratic Party as if he were too much Tequila in Jenna Bush's stomach.

[Peak_Oil]

48. Outstanding research.

I take back everything in my other thread. You did a great job on this, and my hat's off to you. Excellent work.

[HootieMcBoob]

50. Get a grip everybody!

Charles Rangel is an excellent Congressman who doesn't deserve the bad mouthing that he's getting from a lot of people here.

He's introducing the bill in order to have a debate on the state of the military under Bush. George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld's incompetence have nearly destroyed the Army. The men and women in the Army today are essentially indentured servants due to stop loss. They're doing many more tours than were ever done during Vietnam. The Reserves and National Guard have already lost more soldiers than during the entire Vietnam war and morale is very low. The Army is way below their goals for recruitment and according to Seymour Hersh the high level officers are very very worried about the situation.

When this bill was introduced before the Republicans wouldn't allow any debate and when it was voted on I believe Rangel ended up voting against it. He voted against it because there was no debate and he will do it again if there is no debate.

It's very unlikely that this would ever pass. Republicans are not going to vote for any bill that could harm the children of their big donors. If they change the language to make exemptions or loopholes that would allow the children of rich Republican campaign contributors to avoid service the Democrats, including Rangel, would vote against the bill.

The Army will still be in very bad shape and some form of draft will probably end up coming down the pike in the future and you can bet it won't be anywhere near as fair as the one Rangel is proposing.

I served in the Army Reserves and believe me there are no rich kids in the enlisted corp. I hate the fact that the people doing the dying in Iraq are all poor or working class men and women, most of who enlisted because they needed money to pay for college tuition.

You can also bet that if there was a real possibility of the children of the far-right wing pundits and corporate media getting their asses shot at in Iraq we wouldn't be in the position we are now. People are not so cavalier about starting wars when there is real risk involved.

So, I support Charles Rangel in this and hope the bill is debated in congress. Rangel is one of our best Congressman and we shouldn't be so quick to rip him apart.

[KoKo]

51. Well said about Rangel. If the Repugs introduce a bill it will exempt

their kids, relatives and anyone but working poor...and preferable Democrats if they could find a way to get that in the bill. It's better that Rangel call them on it first. He, at least, can close the loopholes which would allow the Repugs and Wealth Dems and others to put in the loopholes.

[Ian David]

53. Ah, the Repugs will be the heroes!

That Democrat Rengel tried to force a draft down our throats, but we patriotic Republicans quashed it.

I might be naive, but I'm not buying it.

Instead of introducing a bill to allow a draft, why not introduce a bill that would just close the loopholes IN THE EVENT OF A DRAFT.

On edit:

With the Republican super-majority, even if every Democrat voted against the bill, a modified version WOULD STILL PASS if the Rethugs supported it.

[Spacejet]

62. Do you have any idea at all how congress works?

"He, at least, can close the loopholes "

Yes, that's right. Rangel, belonging to a party in serious minority status, will surely be able to do what you suggest.

Not only that - he'll be able to make sure the long standing history of the rich & elite being on the front lines continues. Throughout every war in history the rich and elite have been on the front lines, right? Surely they will continue to be all thanks to Rangel.

By the way... please PM me about a bridge I have for sale...

[KoKo]

69. Yes I do...and in answer to you...Rangel's Bill will have

"first on floor preference" meaning that other bills will have to justify the deviance from what he proposed...even though he's a Dem and the Repugs Rule...there's a "protocol" there that gives him first preference. So, that others (meaning Repugs) are now forced to fight over the language/nuances of the bill before they propose their own.

That's why Charlie should go FIRST!

[Spacejet]

76. Ummm

I think you're forgetting the committee process...

And there does NOT need to be a justification to amend his legislation while on the floor. True, you can give speeches, but you can give a speech about Big Bird for an hour and still vote to amend if you so desire.

[poe]

55. I hope you will continue in this conversation

Rangel has done stalwart work especially in regards to exposing the coup in Haiti. There are possibilities with this bill as you described. Still this debate needs to be focused more on the (il)legitimacy of the invasion/genocide and extraordinary reductions in the warfare state. The conversations about our military have become so normalized in our daily lives, it damages us all and steals from other dialogues necessary for alternative (read sane) ways to exist on the planet.
Loopholes will be put into the bill if it goes through, i suspect we will get a very different and much more suave wording in the coming years so as to make our military state more inclusive and user friendly.
Welcome to soft fascism.

[HootieMcBoob]

58. if loopholes are added

then Rangel and the rest of the Democrats should vote against it. The problem is that there aren't many ways to debate the war and the use of the military in congress. The Democrats have very little power and no contol at all over what goes on. Rangel is doing what he can to bring the issue to the public's attention.

[Spacejet]

77. Oh is he?

So if I go ask 20 people on the street even one of them will be able to tell me what Rangel is doing in congress?

Afraid not. The ONLY thing people will know is that according to FAUX News (and every other "news" organization Rove blast faxes) the DEMOCRATS brought back the draft. Period.

[KoKo]

80. agree "soft Fascism" is the worry. It's taking a big chance just to

get a dialog going in the US...But, I've got to hope that Rangel is smart enough to know the Repugs could amend his bill right to where they want it to give a pass to their kids in preference over the Repugs.

I have to think Rangel is clever enough to know where this would go. God help him and us if he isn't. :-(

[Zensea]

82. He's my congressman and I don't have a problem with him either

I was a conscientious objector.

I think discussion of the draft should be on the table.

It might make people think twice about interventionism for a change.

[ChicanoPwr]

54. Hey Bushbots what do you have to say now

The Bushbots are about to be asked to sacrifice THEIR kids...

How are THEY going to get out of this one now...their poor little babies.

[BeatleBoot]

88. Exactly.

[Tinoire]

59. The medical community has already been notified

I don't know how officially but my sister and her husband are physicians and yesterday she told me the medical community knew this was coming and that physicians would be among the first to go.

Needless to say, people are not happy~!


It's... stunning to see this actually happen. No matter how jaded and cynical you get, it's still a shocker.

Se rebeller est juste, désobéir est un devoir, agir est nécessaire !

[poe]

70. Perhaps you would have the Kissinger quote handy-sadly appropriate

He says to Alexander Haig something like "soldiers are just stupid mules to be used...." It shows the utter contempt those in higher places have for, well, everyone. The view of disregard was best stated by Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.  “Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy,” Kissinger told Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein.
Se rebeller est juste, désobéir est un devoir, agir est nécessaire !

[ChicanoPwr]

78. This is why Tinoire

MEDICAL DRAFT IN STANDBY MODE
http://www.sss.gov/FactSheets/FSmedical.pdf
The Health Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS) is a standby plan developed for the Selective Service System at the request of Congress. If needed it would be used to draft health care personnel in a crisis. It is designed to be implemented in connection with a national mobilization in an emergency, and then only if Congress and the President approve the plan and pass and sign legislation to enact it. No portion of the plan is designed for implementation in peacetime. If implemented, HCPDS would:

Provide a fair and equitable draft of doctors, nurses, medical technicians and those with certain other health care skills if, in some future emergency, the military’s existing medical capability proved insufficient and there is a shortage of volunteers.
Include women, unless directed otherwise by Congress and the President.

Draft a very small percentage of America’s health care providers into military service. Impact on the availability of civilian health care would be minimal. Those health-care workers whose absence would seriously hurt their communities would be deferred on the basis of community essentiality.

Begin a mass registration of male and female health care workers between the ages of 20 and 45. They would register at local post offices. HCPDS would provide medical personnel from a pool of 3.4 million doctors, nurses, specialists and allied health professionals in more than 60 fields of medicine.

Require minimal training for HCPDS draftees, because they are already skilled personnel.
=================================
Those draft boards were are already to go.

Yet back in October 21, 2004, The NY Times ran this fair tale:
Pentagon Says No Medical Draft Is Needed ( AP )

ABSTRACT - Dr William Winkenwerder Jr, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, says draft of civilian health care workers is unnecessary; says Pentagon's own medical system and private health care networks with which it is associated are sufficient under any circumstances...
============================
Which is kind of interesting because Rep José E. Serrano (D-NY) came out with this press release the day before the Times ran their story.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny16_serrano/041020MedicalDraft.html
A First Step Towards the Draft: Medical Workers

Washington, DC, October 20, 2004—Today, Congressman José E. Serrano (D-NY) expressed outrage over a report by the Selective Service recommending a plan for a draft of doctors, nurses, and other health care workers during times of crisis. An article in yesterday’s New York Times exposed the confidential report, which detailed how such a draft might work and how public opinion could be manipulated.

“This report shows that the Bush Administration is in fact preparing for a possible draft,” said Serrano. “The administration has dangerously overextended America’s armed forces in Iraq, and put the lives of countless soldiers in danger. Instead of planning for how to re-build that nation, the President instead decided to plan for a draft. Make no mistake, a draft for medical workers could be just the first step towards the return of mandatory military service.”

The report details how health care professionals ages 18-44 would register with the Selective Service, a process that would include some 3.4 million doctors, nurses, and other health care workers. The report, done by a private contractor for the government, also stated that a medical draft would be sure to disrupt the lives of those who were called to duty.

The release of this report seemingly confirms the fears of millions of young adults in the United States that the President is pursuing a policy to reinstitute a military draft after the election. The President already has instituted policies that, in effect, constitute a “back-door” draft for members of National Guard and Reserve units, by extending their tours of duty. Additionally, by calling up recently separated members of the military, who have already fulfilled their military commitments, the Bush administration has essentially created a draft of individuals who have already served in our country’s Armed Forces. “The Bush Administration has already instituted a back-door draft for members of the National Guard, Reserve units, and members of the military who have finished their service,” said Serrano. “It should come as no surprise to Americans that bad planning in Iraq is starting to lead to bad policy in the United States. The medical draft is already being planned for—who will be next?”
===========================
They were already planning the draft. I am concern too, my sister is a doctor too.

[superconnected]

61. oh look they included women too

I was expecting that.

[superconnected]

63. why are democratic senators doing this?

[regnaD kciN]

93. They're doing it to force the Republicans to vote it down now...

...when they're still saying there's "no need for a draft." That way, it can't be introduced for real later in the term, when the G.O.P. may have changed its mind.

Still, I agree it's not a smart move, because, when the Republicans decide we need a draft down the line, they can point to how the Democrats called for it first, so can't legitimately oppose it now.

[sw04ca]

64. Not gonna happen....

...because the Republicans like being in power. Even if the Republicans actually passed this monstrosity (which they never will. It will be defeated as quickly and decisively as it's predecessor), Bush would have no choice but to veto it. The Pentagon bosses would never accept a draft (it defeats the entire point of the American military. Your army isn't amazingly good merely because of it's toys. It's as amazing as it is because it's all-volunteer), and in any event, the Republicans would be held responsible in November 2008 if they let it get through.

[HootieMcBoob]

65. I guess that's why the Israeli Army is so bad n/t

[sw04ca]

66. No...

The Israeli Army is good, but they are in a position where they are extremely vulnerable, surrounded on all sides by mortal danger and with a significant terrorist threat within their own lands. Of course, it's impossible to compare the two, since the Israelis have been fighting a war for almost 60 years, while the modern US Army has fought the occasional regional conflict (Panama, Grenada), and then two wars against Iraq. And even in Iraq, the Army let the Chair Force do a lot of the work, so pitched battles were pretty rare.

[HootieMcBoob]

67. How long have we been in Iraq?

And how much longer do you think we'll be there? What branch of the military is doing the lions share of the work there?

Bush has no plan to get us out of Iraq. In fact there are plans to build several permanent bases there. Now there's talk about Iran. If you're familiar with PNAC you know that they don't want to stop there either. We are currently smack dab in the middle of a war with no end in sight! The Army has been decimated by the incompetence of these maniacs. They are not getting enough new recruits to keep this insanity up. Do you expect the men and women who are in the Army now to remain there and keep up the work all on their own while all the chickenhawks back home drive around with magnetic "support the troops" ribbons on their SUVs?

There will be a draft of some kind. The question is what kind of a draft and how fair it will be.

[poe]

68. A very long time

The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiqués are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are today not far from a disaster. Our unfortunate troops, Indian and British, under hard conditions of climate and supply are policing an immense area, paying dearly every day in lives for the willfully wrong policy of the civil administration in Baghdad but the responsibility, in this case, is not on the army which has acted only upon the request of the civil authorities.”

T.E. Lawrence, The Sunday Times, August 1920

By invading, occupying and imposing a new regime on Iraq, the United States may be following, intentionally or not, in the footsteps of the old Western colonial powers—and doing so in a region that within living memory ended a lengthy struggle to expel colonial occupations. They fought from 1830 to 1962 to kick out the French from Algeria. From 1882 to 1956 they fought to get the British out of Egypt. That’s within the lifetime of every person over 45 in the Middle East. Foreign troops on their soil against their will is deeply familiar.

The view of disregard was best stated by Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.  “Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy,” Kissinger told Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein.<11> 

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1683/P120/

[KoKo]

71. Exactly...Kudo's to you Hootie...it's important that a Democrat shoots the

first "strike across the bow."

[sw04ca]

72. You are, of course...

...incorrect.

In the end, practical considerations will ensure that no wars will be fought beyond a certain point, even if they should be fought. After all, the Army will certainly carry the most load during the occupation, but during the actual invasion of anywhere, the Navy and Air Force are vital, since getting ground troops killed in pitched battles is bad for PR, as we are now seeing.

At any rate, as long as the US continues it's inefficient methods of warfare (which you can trust it to do, once again for PR purposes) the wars they can fight are strictly limited. Now, if America were to engage in a more total strategy towards war (saturation bombing of cities, artillery barrages against any and all resistance, that sort of thing), it might be able to get farther, although Iran would still be a bitch to take.

Besides, the casualty rate is so low that it's not like replacement is a critical issue. Once the Iraqis have been trained to handle security better (and the training is an international project. Even Germany is training the new Iraqi forces), American needs in Iraq will drop. After that, Bush won't have enough political capital to do anything more than launch random airstrikes, Clinton-style.

[KoKo]

73. You are only including the "Dead" in casualties....not the maimed and

psychologically impared. Which number in the thousands. It's very short sighted to leave them out. The "collateral damage" of WAR is often more important that those who have "departed" with ribbons of glory. :shrug: As a society...those who are left living as the walking wounded still have a VOICE...those who are dead have NO VOICE.

We have yet to hear from those who still have life in their bodies but are not whole in body or spirit, or mind.

[HootieMcBoob]

74. "You are, of course..."

Give it a rest, OK. If personal attacks weren't against the rules I'd call you a pretentious prig. So, I won't call you that. I'll just suggest that you read a couple of things.

Are you familiar with PNAC? They are the people who's ideas are driving this war and Bush's foreign policy. This is a recent letter they've written:

Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces
January 28, 2005


Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:

The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.

So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.

There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.

The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.

<snip> here's the whole thing: http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

Here's a link to the paper - Rebuilding America's Defenses - That has been the blueprint for Bush's foreign policy so far. I don't think he'll be getting any new advice. http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

There are now 14 "enduring" U.S. military bases under construction in Iraq. The neo-cons intend to have a permanent U.S. presence in the middle east. I find it very troubling but it doesn't look like we're going anywhere soon.

[poe]

79. Stay on it HMcB

Let's all get this message out beyond the blogosphere and also challenge our local reps. Rangel is misguided in his politique in this matter. This diverts attention from the legitimacy of the criminal acts. And sadly junior league military analysis adds to the growing militarization of our daily lexicon.
I'm telling you nothing when i say these people (PNACer's) are serious and pathological as well as patient and vicious. Bad combination.
Se rebeller est juste, désobéir est un devoir, agir est nécessaire !

[sw04ca]

90. Personally...

...I think the idea of the US having military bases in the Middle East isn't neccessarily a bad one. It certainly might do some good towards calming that troubled region, if they are there is somewhat limited numbers. Also, bases within democratic Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia would allow more leeway in dealing with the House of Saud, who are, along with the mullahs in Iran, the real enemies of Western Civilization in the region.

I'm well aware of PNAC, although I don't place quite the omnipotence upon them that you do. After all, were they not writing the leaders of Congress to drum up support and complain about the administration, in the very letter you have posted?

As for the veiled insults, they don't bother me. Generally, personal attacks are the refuge of those with nothing to say.

[poe]

81. here's More for those keeping score-dodgers vs. yankees

Fast forward three weeks. PNAC Strausscons, mindful of the criticism of “realists” such as Scowcroft and Brzezinski, issue their carefully plotted letter to big shot Congress critters, demanding a beefed up military, including more soldiers. Naturally, they avoid any mention of conscription, although this is a natural conclusion, considering the military is actually shrinking and big fat bonuses are not attracting new recruits, mostly because young people realize going to Iraq means you either come back in a flag-draped coffin, come home missing a limb or two, or return a certified whack job determined to commit suicide by cop. If you read between the lines of the PNAC letter you can see DRAFT in ten foot high red glowing neon letters.

But the Strausscons don’t plan to put 500,000 soldiers in Iraq because Iraq is a done deal—the place is a mess and the “election,” as predicted by Scowcroft, will eventually result in civil war, not because it is a natural state of affairs for Sunni and Shi’ite Iraqis to kill each other—in fact, they have coexisted for hundreds of years together, regardless of the much overplayed schism between these two Islamic factions—but rather because the Strausscons are pushing them in this direction, most notably through a lopsided “election” that will put the Shi’ites and Kurds in the driver’s seat and exclude Sunni Iraqis who ran the place under Saddam Hussein. In short, this will ensure the primarily Sunni-based resistance continues, exactly as planned by the Strausscons.
For the Strausscons and Likudites, a pluralistic and united Iraq is wholly unacceptable. For the Strausscons, there is but one allowable situation in the Arab and Muslim Middle East—and it consists of ethnic strife, civil war, Islamic fanaticism, all of it preventing Arab nationalism and a collective Arab and Muslim identity. The Likudites in Israel want a splintered, chaotic, ethnically aroused and violent Middle East—sort of like gang warfare on Chicago’s Westside, an endless battle of shifting alliances and skirmishes—not peace and certainly not democracy. If you look beyond Strausscon doublespeak you will realize this is the objective: Israeli and U.S. hegemony over cowed Arabs and Muslims.

So what about the revamped military with its additional 500,000 or more soldiers, presumably acquired through bullet-stopper conscription?

The answer should be relatively easy—those bullet-stoppers will be needed for invasions of Iran and Syria, for as the Strausscons know very well simple bombardment will not be enough to spread the required level of chaos and violence smoldering in Iraq into neighboring Iran and Syria. As well, the Strausscons don’t have a spare decade to weaken Iran through sanctions, as Clinton and Junior’s daddy did to Iraq, exacting a terrible cost in human life. It will take brute force. It will take “boots on the ground” and a march down the road to Tehran and Damascus. It will require more doors kicked in, more Abu Ghraib prisons, more execution, covert ops, and Israeli-style checkpoints where civilians are terrorized and killed. Iran will be Iraq on steroids and it will take 500,000 or more soldiers to complete the job.

Of course, the stupidity of this scheme is that the entire Muslim world will rise up in response. But because the Likudites and Strausscons are racists who believe Arabs are stupid and ineffectual—moral and intellectual inferiors to white people and Jews—they do not currently view this as a problem, as they didn’t when Bush invaded Iraq.
www.kurtnimmo.com

The view of disregard was best stated by Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.  “Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy,” Kissinger told Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein.

[KoKo]

83. What you say is probably the scenario the PNAC is looking for..BUT

how do we wake the Average American UP without a draft? How do we engage America in a conversation about PNAC and what they plan for our sons and daughters?

Without the THREAT of a draft...no dialog...they will do it anyway. They will do it with the draft they will impose. To try to stop a draft to achieve the Straussian PNAC'ers is like those of us who tried to stop the Iraq Invasion...dead on arrival.

so...what do we do. We hope that our Dem Rangel can seize the issue before the Repugs ram it down our throughs with a "voice vote."

I don't have any other answer...do you?

[poe]

87. Let's contemplate this-it merits a well thought out response

I have been considering your excellent and difficult question throughout the day as i suspect many DUers have. I wish i could relate the sobriety with which i consider this. What is happening with our hyper militarized society destroys all political space for life enhancing endeavors. How can we shift the debate into arenas which takes us away from the lexicon of war? I'm going to try to get back to you with something more concrete than another question. Se rebeller est juste, désobéir est un devoir, agir est nécessaire !

To rebel is right, to disobey is a duty, to act is necessary !

Michael Ledeen of the
The American Enterprise Institute...........
says:
"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence -- our existence, not our politics -- threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
The view of disregard was best stated by Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.  “Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy,” Kissinger told Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein.

[KoKo]

89. The PNAC "Elitist Mentality" leaves little room for a shift in

dialog. They want to destroy us...they've almost succeeded. And..we don't know what to do. Yet, we should have the most creative minds..be the most flexible. Yet we are clueless...

I don't know if there is an answer...but thank you for recognizing that this is agonizing for those of us who tried to stop this Invasion and the Bush Doctrine of "Pre-Emptive Strike."

It's shocking to many of us that we've reached this point..where there's no dialog. And we are dealing with people who have no sense of America in the way the rest of us envisioned it. That we are dealing with folks without a conscience a moral compass that is in any way in sync with what most Americans think.

Perhaps, many of us have been wrong, though. The Dark Side of America which has always been there just needed the right combination to flourish. And, sure enough...the right combination appeared when there was no organized group with enough strength who could fight it back.

[K-W]

86. The neocons dont have that much capital.

Congressional republicans are not drafting thier constituents. The necons can bitch all they want.

[underseasurveyor]

91. Don't know if this will make anyone feel better about Rangel's motives

or not and not that it'll change anything today but.......
It was 2 republicans that ORIGINALLY introduced the idea of a draft in the first place back in Dec. 2001.

Rangel's strategy was/is (if I remember correctly:freak: ), knowing the repubs will no doubt provide special loopholes to spare those special rich friends the horrors of war, he countered with a bill to close those loopholes so that those special rich folk couldn't avoid being drafted because of school, privilege, favors and the like. Not just the poor folk being drafted but ALL that are eligible with the hope that going to war would absolutely be THE LAST resort if these elites knew they carried the same and equal risks n burdens just the same as anyone else. Which IMO is a stupid idea anyway. The rich and the 'special' will always find a way out of or around anything. Tons of cash and influential acquaintances will get you anything or out of anything.

Frankly I agree with many others here. I wish Rangel would stop this, shut the hell up and let the goddamn repubs be seen as the true face in front pushing for a draft. I also don't agree with any type of mandatory national service either. Fucking bullshit:grr:

Anyway here is what was first introduced back in 2001 by

two republickin's

not Democrats. Remember that ;-)
-------------------------------------
A military draft law was recently introduced in
the U.S. House of Representatives by two Republicans.
Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c107query.html and
search under bill number for HR 3598.
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001 (Introduced
in the House)

HR 3598 IH 107th CONGRESS

1st Session
To require the induction into the Armed Forces of
young men registered under the Military Selective
Service Act, and to authorize young women to volunteer, to
receive basic military training and education for
a period of up to one year.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 20, 2001

Mr. SMITH of Michigan (for himself and Mr. WELDON
of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill;

A BILL
To require the induction into the Armed Forces of
young men registered under the Military Selective
Service Act, and to authorize young women to volunteer, to
receive basic military training and education for
a period of up to one year.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the
`Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001'.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents for this Act is as
follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.

Sec. 2. Definitions.

Sec. 3. Basic military training and education.

Sec. 4. Period of basic military training and education.

Sec. 5. Educational services and prorated Montgomery GI Bill
benefits.

Sec. 6. Role of Selective Service System.

Sec. 7. Induction of conscripts and acceptance of volunteers.

Sec. 8. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 9. Exemptions.

Sec. 10. Military training in branch of member's choice;
conscientious objection.

Sec. 11. Pay and allowances.

Sec. 12. Discharge following training.

Sec. 13. Relation to authorized end strengths for active forces.

Sec. 14. Conforming amendments.

Sec. 15. Transitional provision.

[ObaMania]

96. Dumb question..

.. why's he doing this? And if it's brought to a vote, and if it is implemented, won't DEMs take the brunt for this?

[ObaMania]

97. And...

.. does he have a "state your party affiliation" clause in it to ensure fair recruitment and distribution of DEMs and PUKEs should there be a draft?