Charlie Rangel calls for reinstatement of the draft

[Seggybop]

I support this bill. Even if most of the people drafted never fight anyone, it might help to shape up some of the more messed up people in the country. And I'd love to see what some of my hippy-extremist type friends say when they get a draft notice.

[Howedar]

Oh, so it would be good for a laugh. Never mind the economic and social ramifications, cause it would be very funny for Mister Dumbshit here to see the looks on his friends faces.


SIGN ME UP!

[RedImperator]

Mr. Rangel is having wank-fantasies about the 60's peace movement being reborn by threatening to force young men into the service against their will and send them off to die in a war. It's pure scaremongering. Expect more of it from the Democrats, as the "moderate" Clinton-Gephardt-Daschelle wing of the party got humiliated in the last election and the hardcore lefties like Rangel and Pelosi are gaining influence. A draft would have to be signed by Bush, anyway, and unless the Iraqis are landing in Boston Harbor--scratch that, Bush would probably be perfectly happy to see Massachusettes get invaded--he's not going to sign a bill that would make him LBJ: The Sequel.

[Durandal]

I support this bill. Even if most of the people drafted never fight anyone, it might help to shape up some of the more messed up people in the country. And I'd love to see what some of my hippy-extremist type friends say when they get a draft notice.

They'd ask, "Um ... why?" And no one would be able to give them a justifiable answer. If you're so gung-ho about people being forced to serve in the military, why don't you lead the way?

[Durandal]

Mr. Rangel is having wank-fantasies about the 60's peace movement being reborn by threatening to force young men into the service against their will and send them off to die in a war. It's pure scaremongering. Expect more of it from the Democrats, as the "moderate" Clinton-Gephardt-Daschelle wing of the party got humiliated in the last election and the hardcore lefties like Rangel and Pelosi are gaining influence. A draft would have to be signed by Bush, anyway, and unless the Iraqis are landing in Boston Harbor--scratch that, Bush would probably be perfectly happy to see Massachusettes get invaded--he's not going to sign a bill that would make him LBJ: The Sequel.

Yeah, the last thing this country needs is a sequel to another president.

[RedImperator]

Unintentional pun.

[Invader ZIm]

I fail to see why we require more cannon fodder to invade Iraq. The military is an environment in which citizens are stripped of their rights, and citizens cannot be placed in such an environment against their will without due process of law.[/qoute]

Incorrect - and a bit of a knee-jerk reaction -

Civilians indoctrinated into the military by any means, be that conscription or enlistment maintain the rights afforded to them under the UCMJ.

For example-

Article 31 of the UCMJ provides the same protections as "Miranda" does for example. Additionally persons accused of a court-martial offense are entitled to witeness an impartial officer's investigation of the event, something that is not offorded in civilian cases. There are many more examples such as the right to a speedy trial ect.

While it is true that the UCMJ is a seperate from the protections afforded to civilians under the U.S. Consitution, the system is parrallel. Any decision arrived at by a military court can be appealed through the UCMJ into the Federal court system. Also note that while serving military personnel are subject to trials by civil courts as well.

Your assertion that "...citizens cannot be placed in such an environment against their will without due process of law...", is completle bunk and utterly false. This issue has been brought up many time in European and American history, and in each instance the needs of the society in war time have always outweighted the rights of the individual. Taking examples from American history we can look at the the Milita Act of 1792, the Conscription Act of 1862, the Draft Act of 1863, and the Selective Service Act of 1917 and 1948.

Because the inspiration of this topic was Congressman Rangle's upcoming legislation ( which I will be suprised if it survives into the next Congress), it should be pointed out that all the previous laws enacted for conscription were presented to the Congress by the President. Presumably past Presidental office holders deemed it nessesary for the defense of the country to draw it's citizens into service. But to the best of my knowledge the suggestion has never been presented by a member of the House of Representives! Only a blind, 3 year-old that had just recently recieved a sharp blow to the head wouldnt recognize Rangle's political motive.

Also it is unnessesary to draft a "New Draft Act" when the Selective Service Act is still in effect. Let that sink in......

If the President decided tommorrow to call up draftees, he already has the legal authority to do so. Every President going back to Nixon in 1973 has had the ablitly to put the Selective Service Act into action. Congress declined to recend the Selective Service act after Vietnam when given the chance.

A president's cavalier attitude toward finishing Daddy's business is not due process.

Your personal politics aside- in this Republic the risks are shared progressively with it citizens, in times of peace and war. If you feel military intervention is cavilier in this case you should look up some of the military deployments that were done before the turn of the century, that will really make your head spin.


Honestly I dont understand what all the hand wringing about the "Draft" is. You would think that all those 18-year olds would take the time to READ the information the Selective Service provides them. Worst case - the draft comes back: you have 193 days from the declaration of the draft to when inductees are due for arrivial for training. Training will take another 4 to 8 months. Seems like we have already passed the viablity window for drafting people for Iraq doesnt it

[Seggybop]

They'd ask, "Um ... why?" And no one would be able to give them a justifiable answer.

So that they can fight instead of constantly complaining about how everything sucks. You might not think it's justifiable, but in their case at least, it is.

If you're so gung-ho about people being forced to serve in the military, why don't you lead the way?

I have no problem with that.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Mostly blind and Diabetic, I doubt they will draft me in my last two years of selective service.

[Invader ZIm]

It occurs to me that if Rangel really wanted to make some waves he should push to have the Selective Service Act "reinterprited" so that it follows the same rules as Title 9.

[Howedar]

Your assertion that "...citizens cannot be placed in such an environment against their will without due process of law...", is completle bunk and utterly false. This issue has been brought up many time in European and American history, and in each instance the needs of the society in war time have always outweighted the rights of the individual. Taking examples from American history we can look at the the Milita Act of 1792, the Conscription Act of 1862, the Draft Act of 1863, and the Selective Service Act of 1917 and 1948.

One small problem: we're not at war.

[Falcon]

Rangle is an 'uber dove'

The reason he is trying to establish this resolution is his own perverted way to prevent war. He thinks that by drafting everyone he will cause massive protests al la Vietnam and the war will be halted. The continuation of the draft will insure that America turns into a pacifist nation out of fear of being drafted.

[His Divine Shadow]

Oh I agree with that. No nation I can think of needs a conscript army right now.

I'm not sure we need one, but we got one, rather big too with reserves, 1.2 million men IIRC.
It's been Finlands policy to be millitarily independent after WW2, and it's something we do take pride in, and I've been there, twice now.

[Invader ZIm]

Your assertion that "...citizens cannot be placed in such an environment against their will without due process of law...", is completle bunk and utterly false. This issue has been brought up many time in European and American history, and in each instance the needs of the society in war time have always outweighted the rights of the individual. Taking examples from American history we can look at the the Milita Act of 1792, the Conscription Act of 1862, the Draft Act of 1863, and the Selective Service Act of 1917 and 1948.

One small problem: we're not at war.

EEEENNNGGHHHH!
Sorry thanks for playing! A declaration of War by Congress is not required.

http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastwe ... 9%20%20AND

[Sea Skimmer]

Oh I agree with that. No nation I can think of needs a conscript army right now.

I'm not sure we need one, but we got one, rather big too with reserves, 1.2 million men IIRC.
It's been Finlands policy to be millitarily independent after WW2, and it's something we do take pride in, and I've been there, twice now.

Finland doesnt need 1.2 million men. Thats about the size of the US reserve and National Guard.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Is there any chance I can get rejected from a draft because of my asthma?

Traditionally, asthma will get you marked as "unfit for service" faster than you could say "unfit for service." Perfectly understandable, given all the asthma attack-inducing things that comprises your typical boot camp. Back when I went through the footwork to enlist, they made very sure to ask if I had asthma at any time in my past or present.

With that addressed, a draft would be pretty stupid in today's more technically sophisticated military. What a draft is meant for is producing a large number of warm bodies for the purpose of getting them shot at, in a relatively short period of time. There's no really big conventional war on the horizon that would merit a draft. Most of the wars the US will fight will probably be these small brush wars that we're fighting now, (such as the operation in Afghanistan.)

[Enlightenment]

The main reason a draft is pointless--or even counterproductive--in this day and age is that most modern wars are over in less time than it takes to train a recruit to be more dangerous to the enemy than to his/her peers.

[ArmorPierce]

Well the guy that is saying that he is going to prupose the Bill is because he wants the politicians that are actually saying lets go to war and such to have some connection to the military and the poeple that would be going into the countries that we are at war with.

I still don't support the draft because for the army of these days needs to be better trained and back when we had the draft the casualties were larger than wars after the draft which was due to less training.

Also, this guy is an asshole who says that it doesn't matter if you want to or not to defend the country and enlisted men who are paid goes against everything he stands for

[The Duchess of Zeon]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/ ... index.html

Cogressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) annouces that he is preparing a proposed bill to reinstate the draft.

Thoughts anyone?

Personally, I think it's got a snowballs chance in hell of succeding.

If we need more troops, we can just make a call for volunteers. After 9/11 it won't go unanswered.

The reason he's doing it alone makes it obvious it wouldn't get past a Republican congress. "I want you to pass this so people will protest your policies more." Wow. That really has a chance of passing.

[Alex Moon]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/ ... index.html

Cogressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) annouces that he is preparing a proposed bill to reinstate the draft.

Thoughts anyone?

Personally, I think it's got a snowballs chance in hell of succeding.

If we need more troops, we can just make a call for volunteers. After 9/11 it won't go unanswered.

The reason he's doing it alone makes it obvious it wouldn't get past a Republican congress. "I want you to pass this so people will protest your policies more." Wow. That really has a chance of passing.

I think it could actually hurt Democrats. Many of them opposed the draft back in the 60's, and if they supported Rangel's bill now, they would face the wrath of the anti-war Left which is their core, as well as much of middle america. Even if they don't support it, Republicans can use Rangel as an example of an elitist, uncaring attitude within the democratic party. The idea that they would be willing to force thousands of america's youth, especially from poor and minority backgrounds into the military, an action that would be expensive and very dividing for the country, simply to score some political points is one that I think the Republicans can use to cause divisions within the democratic party.

[His Divine Shadow]

Finland doesnt need 1.2 million men. Thats about the size of the US reserve and National Guard.

Well not for our current territory, but for our future one, oops, I've said too much.

[Invader ZIm]

... The idea that they would be willing to force thousands of america's youth, especially from poor and minority backgrounds into the military, an action that would be expensive and very dividing for the country...

Good Grief where does this freckin Myth come from???

OK lets consider the Vietnam War the last time the U.S. active conscripted people into the Army.

2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers.

86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasians, 12.5% were Black, 1.2% were other races.

Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers.

Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better.

These statistics are supported by the Combat Area Casualty File
(The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, i.e. The Wall), Center for Electronic Records, National Archives, Washington, DC.

The idea that only poor and minorties will bear the burden of a Draft is complete crap. Just because the politios and talking heads say something over and over dont make it a fact.

You would think that the people on this board would take the time to analyize the facts about this topic. Make this sort of knee-jerk assumption about a scifi vs. debate and Wong will be all over you like white on rice. Use your head and think.