Here we go again

[MDM4AU 336]

Look what's being passed around again by the left.

Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages 18-26) starting June 15,

2005,

is something that everyone should know about.  This literally effects

everyone since we all have or know children that will have to go if

this

bill passes.  There is pending legislation in the House and Senate

(companion bills: S89 and HR 163) which will time the program's

initiation so the draft can begin as early as spring, 2005, just after

the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying

to

get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the

elections, so our action on this is needed immediately. Details and

links follow.  This plan, among other things, eliminates higher

education as a shelter and includes women in the draft. Also, crossing

into Canada has already been made very difficult.

If this bill passes, it will include all men and ALL WOMEN from ages

18-26 in a draft for military action.  In addition, college will no

longer be an option for avoiding the draft and they will be signing an

agreement with the Canada which will no longer permit anyone

attempting

to dodge the draft to stay within it's borders (Yeah, Canada is going to work with the US on this!    ).  This bill also

includes

the extension of military service for all those that are currently

active.  If you go to the select service web site and read their 2004

FYI Goals you will see that the reasoning for this is to increase the

size of the military in case of terrorism.  This is a critical piece

of

legislation, this will affect our undergraduates, our children and our

grandchildren.  Please take the time to write your congressman and let

them know how you feel about this legislation. 

<http://www.house.gov/> www.house.gov &  <http://www.senate.gov/>

http://www.senate.gov.

Please also write to your representatives and ask them why they aren't

telling their constituents about these bills and write to newspapers

and

other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this

important

story.

The draft $28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service

system budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as

early

as June 15, 2005.  Selective service must report to Bush on March 31,

2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for

activation.  Please see  <http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html>

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the Selective Service

System annual performance plan, fiscal year 2004.

The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350

draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.

Though

this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and

influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's

prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan (and

permanent

state of war on terrorism) proves accurate, the U.S. may have no

choice

but to draft. (Even more likely if the saber-rattling against Iran

becomes, after an election win for Bush, an active plan to attack.)

These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam

era. College and Canada will not be options.  In December, 200 1,

Canada

and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used

to

keep would-be draft dodgers in.  Signed by Canada's minister of

foreign

affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge,

the declaration involves a 30 point plan which implements, among other

things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing

each country.  Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along

gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter.

Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of

their current semester.  Seniors would have until the end of the

academic year.

--

This seems important enough to forward widely, if you haven't already

suspected or heard about it.

While this email may not be totally incorrect, the premise being supported by this message is quite misleading.

After doing a little research, the bills are proposed, sponsored and being pushed by Democrats. The House bill (HR163 is sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel (D -New York); and S89 is sponsored by Sen. Frist Hollings (D - South Carolina) ). I find this a bit amusing.

[stoic-one 1,548]

HR 163 IH

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

Are they all Dems???

[channonc 466]

Hollings bill does not implement a draft rather mandatory military for all men and women. Totally different than a draft.

[Tigermike 3,044]

Hollings bill does not implement a draft rather mandatory military for all men and women. Totally different than a draft.

channonc,

Since you have an inside that we don't, please enlighten us on this subject. Under Sen. Hollings bill that would require mandatory military for all men and women, would there be exemptions? If so for what? How long of a "mandatory military service" does the bill call for?

[Duder 238]

These are the bills that prompted my question quite a while ago. They've been dormant for quite some time...

HR163

Congress: 108

State: Federal

Chamber: House

Bill Number: H.R. 163

Sponsor: Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)

Last Sponsor Date: Jul. 21, 2004

Official Title as Introduced: '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.'

Summary Sponsors Activity Committees

1/7/2003--Introduced. Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense. Requires induction into national service by the President. Sets forth provisions governing: (1) induction deferments, postponements, and exemptions, including exemption of a conscientious objector from military service that includes combatant training; and (2) discharge following national service. Amends the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the military registration of females.

Sponsor/Co-sponsor(s) 16

Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)

Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO)

Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)

Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. Fortney Stark (D-CA)

Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)

--- Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)

Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)

Jul. 21, 2004 Rep. Jesse Jackson (D-IL)

Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)

Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL)

Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)

Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD)

Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)

Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. James Moran (D-VA)

Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)

May. 19, 2004 Rep. Donna Christensen (D-VI)

Jan. 07, 2003 Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

Feb. 03, 2003 Executive Comment Requested from DOD.

Feb. 03, 2003 Referred to the Subcommittee on Total Force.

S89

1/7/2003--Introduced. Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense. Requires induction into national service by the President. Sets forth provisions governing: (1) induction deferments, postponements, and exemptions, including exemption of a conscientious objector from military service that includes combatant training; and (2) discharge following national service. Amends the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the military registration of females.

Sponsor/Co-sponsor(s) 1

--- Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC)

Jan. 07, 2003 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

I'm pretty sure these aren't going any where any time soon.

[channonc 466]

Hollings bill does not implement a draft rather mandatory military for all men and women.  Totally different than a draft.

channonc,

Since you have an inside that we don't, please enlighten us on this subject. Under Sen. Hollings bill that would require mandatory military for all men and women, would there be exemptions? If so for what? How long of a "mandatory military service" does the bill call for?

TigerMike,

Here is the exact wording of the section regarding exemptions:

SEC. 7. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

      a. QUALIFICATIONS- No person may be inducted for military service under this Act unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.

      b. OTHER MILITARY SERVICE- No person shall be liable for induction under this Act who--

            (1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or

            (2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States

Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes two years training therein.

Also, Here is the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Summary on the bill:

SUMMARY AS OF:

1/7/2003--Introduced.

Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense. Requires induction into national service by the President. Sets forth provisions governing: (1) induction deferments, postponements, and exemptions, including exemption of a conscientious objector from military service that includes combatant training; and (2) discharge following national service.

Amends the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the military registration of females.

As of now, the bill has only been referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee, I don't look for this bill to ever be taken up, especially since he will retire at the end of the year. Since Armed Services hasn't even held a hearing to discuss this bill, I don't look for it to ever get out of Committee. JMO.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

As a 18 year member of the Armed Forces, I can tell you that we do not want forced conscripts in our ranks. Call what you want, mandatory service or a all out draft, the effect of having people in our ranks being forced to serve rather than volunteering to do so will do more harm to our cause than good.

Personally, I see this as nothing more than fear mongering from our cheerleaders on the left. Anything to get votes, right?!!

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)

Seeing her name on the sponsor list told me all I would EVER want to know about this bill and the thought process behind it... :bonk:

[CCTAU 3,336]

As a 18 year member of the Armed Forces, I can tell you that we do not want forced conscripts in our ranks. Call what you want, mandatory service or a all out draft, the effect of having people in our ranks being forced to serve rather than volunteering to do so will do more harm to our cause than good.

Personally, I see this as nothing more than fear mongering from our cheerleaders on the left. Anything to get votes, right?!!

Russia has already proved that this does not work. They had mandatory 2 yr stints for all men. They had more people in their army, but they were less trained. Nothing takes the place of the professional soldier. The guy who chooses to be there and subsequently trains to be the best at what he does.

I do feel there should be some sort of mandatory boot camp/ introduction to the armed forces. Many will decide its for them and many others will come away with a better understanding of discipline and teamwork.

[TrueBlue72 0]

Reading through that, I'm not sure what the Dumbacrats are up to. Not sure it is really military service; it almost sounds like an attempt to enlist labor for the Socialist programs that they can't get the money approved for otherwise. With every sponsor on the bills being Dumbacrats, you can be SURE it is not intended to enhance our military capabilities.