::::::::
It will provide more troops for intimidation of countries that don't kowtow to them.It will enable them to waste more lives pursuing whatever today's purpose is in the occupation of Iraq. It will give them more forces for more pre-emptive strikes.
It will also strengthen the shadow police state they have been legislating into existence all around us. The National Defense Authorization act nullifies Posse Comitatus. Under it the President may at will deploy troops as a police force [of draftees] during a natural emergency... terrorist attack, or other condition,...[which he can declare unilaterally.] [a]
From the renewed Patriot Act; "There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.' "...empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence,..." [b] "Without warrant!"
And there is the Military Commissions Act, which abrogates habeas corpus - a foundation stone of freedom since 1215 and a right specifically mandated by the Constitution [Article I Section 8] - and allows indefinite detention, torture and the use of coerced statements as evidence...[c].
The regressives will support legislation for a draft. It will suit both their short-term and long-term purposes.
A draft, it is said, would motivate people to oppose military adventurism lest their children and spouses get called up. This is dream stuff.
Our nation has never had a draft without exemptions.
The regressives will see to it that a new draft law has provisions to ensure that their ilk won't serve. They don't oppose military adventurism; they'll cheer a draft on, pursuing imperial dreams. Any legislation that can pass this Congress will be shot through with loopholes.
Even Rep. Rangel [D-NY], who pushes a draft every chance he gets, has written exemptions into his scenario. Having a draft, he says, would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service. He didn't mention that some would end in battle. [d]
We can expect to see all the usual devious legislative maneuvers: midnight tweaks of language; obstruction in committee to language protecting individuals; threats of filibuster; and, a last resort, just in case, the veto. Whatever it takes, to get a draft - with their special exemptions written into the law - they will do.
So again the burden of service will fall on people who don't have relatives in high places, who don't have influence with draft boards and assignment officers, who aren't rich enough to fight legal battles to avoid serving, who can't move abroad...
It is good to see that Speaker-elect Pelosi has said that a military draft will not have the support of the House Democratic party apparatus. But the Democrats in Congress have a sickening record for tamely submitting to neocon attempts to eviscerate the Constitution, to favor plutocrats over 'We the people,...'
For instance: there were Democrats who voted for the Iraq war resolution, for the Patriot Act and its revision, for the Warner National Defense Authorization act, and for the Military Commissions Act, etc. They have no guts. THEY SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN UP OFF THEIR OVERSTUFFED BOTTOMS AND CHAIRS AND STORMED OUT!
They failed their oaths of office to protect the Constitution.
Yes, Sens. Feingold, Bingaman and Leahy, and Kucinich and some other Representatives, spoke out. But the Party did not back them up; it was nothing but a doormat.
Throughout the election campaign the party was careful to say nothing about rescinding the Military Commissions Act, let alone the other emasculations of the Constitution. Yes, Sen. Dodd now speaks of revising that Act. But the party did not have the courage to say so during the campaign, Afraid to be called soft on terror? What they were soft on was keeping their oaths and protecting the Constitution.
And it was not just on Constitutional provisions that they caved in. They turned their backs on bills violating provision after provision of the Preamble. They submitted tamely to 'tort reform,' the bankruptcy bill, nominations of biased judges - remember Alito? - and they stood idly by while the regressives slashed funds for veterans while granting tax breaks to plutocrats.
Where were the filibusters?
And impeachment? "Not on the table..." Never mind that the oath to defend the Consti-tution includes the obligation to take up apparent cases of high crimes and misde-meanors...when the facts support it; not just when a party functionary thinks the wind is in the right quarter.
A draft is too dangerous a thing to be put in the care of a party with this record of spinelessness.
It is much too dangerous to be put anywhere remotely within the grasp of a cabal de-
termined to make over the country into a feudal state, where if you're in the ruling class you live high but otherwise you're a serf, dependent on the whim of some a corporate suit for health care, retirement...
A draft at home would open the way for Strykers in the streets, snipers on the rooftops, draftees arresting citizens without warrants for giving the finger to officials...
Abroad a draft will mean more deaths, more veterans with massive disabilities and unending pain, more devastated families among us - and more appalling slaughter among really innocent people in other countries...
NO!
===
References
[a] Defense Authorization Act of 2007 - Bush Moves Toward Martial Law - 10/26/06
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
[b] Patriot Act
http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060131/NEWS/201310308/1030/new\
s0
[c] Military Commissions Act - M. LeVine, UCal-Irvine 10/3/06
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1003-31.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
[d] C. Rangel - Key Democrat Wants to Reinstate Draft 11/19/06
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112006L.shtml
