Talk:Conscription in the United States

October 2004 Debate

For an October 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Revival of the draft

John Kerry's Plan

Unfortunately, Kerry's 100 day plan has disappeared from his site. I still prefer the John Kerry forum URL I posted because it is an exact quote, obviously a cut and paste of the original. The quote is also preserved several other places on the web, just search google:

"100 day plan" kerry

Here is a URL that references a fact sheet:

Iowa Caucus candidate news

Bush in the second debate, practically did a "read my lips" that he would not implement a draft. Kerry is far more likely to implement a draft. He is a nationalist with the hubris to beleive he knows what is best for others. In addition to his "100 Day Plan to Change America" where he proposes mandatory public service to graduate from high school. He thinks everyone has a duty to serve their nation and to encourage this he proposes a system where college tuition is paid for in exchange for service. His key supporter, Ted Kennedy proposed mandatory public service back in the late 70s, perhaps they were inspired by JFK, "Ask not ...". Then look at the history of the volunteer army and the draft. Senator's Barry Goldwater and Mark Hatfield co-sponsored the bill to end the draft in 1968. Conservatives have been behind the professional army movement and critical of the quality of a conscript army, especially in this technological age. While more of a moderate than a conservative, Bush subscribes to conservative principles in this area. I can't support Bush for other reasons, but with a son that would become draft age during a 2nd Kerry term, there is no way I could support him. Bush is more predictible than Kerry, and he will avoid a draft on principle, and I also believe Bush is less likely to institute a draft based on his and Kerry's personal historys. Note that he chose to avoid the combat that Kerry thought was his "duty". Now perhaps you think that is admirable, but the problem with these "duty" types, is that not only do they think it was their duty, they think it is you and your son's duty also--Silverback 08:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here is a site that preserves the original 100 days page before it was purged

page snapped from google before the purge--Silverback 20:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another site: Kerry pushes mandatory national public service

NPOV Dispute

from the article:

An early report from the early summer of 2004 claimed that the administration of George W. Bush had authorized 27 million dollars for for investigation and preparation for reinstating conscription as early as January of 2005. A vigorous debate than ensued as to whether or not a no-draft position was feasible within the parameters of Bush's sweeping military goals. In mid-October of 2004, a separate proposal appeared for conscripting only medical personnel.

there needs to be factual documentation to back/support these points. I have not been able to find this information from an unbiased source through a google search. simple to remove my dispute, just back it with a neutral source. Alkivar 06:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the Bush administration has been criticized for implementing a "back door draft" by involuntarily extending the enlistment periods of military personnel for an additional two years after the expiration of their original commitments. 7

mentioning a slanted term such as "back door draft" makes the neutrality questionable in my mind. Also the source listed as a backup is from a biased (pro-kerry) author. to fix the NPOV in my mind 1) we need a better backup source, and 2) we need to remove the inflammatory "back door draft" Alkivar 06:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

don't know about the link, JML provided it. the term "back door draft" is in common usage and so should be acknowledged in the article, but not endorsed through usage. had unstruck 2nd claim after checking talk. either i missed your comment (sorry if so), or you added it after adding the npov tag. Wolfman 06:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My suggested wording is "Nevertheless, the Bush administration has been criticized for involuntarily extending the enlistment periods of military personnel. In some cases this could be for as long as an additional two years of service after their current commitments expire." i think this gets the point across without using a spin phrase used by one side of the issue. Alkivar 06:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

well, i'll let you and JML hash it out. but, i do think it appropriate to acknowledge the term, as it is widely used. as to the 1st disputed paragraph, i think it should go as it is undocumented. I believe that's due to Silverback who seems to be quite resilient about his additions. Wolfman 06:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some people would word this passage as "Nevertheless, the Bush administration has implemented a back-door draft by extending.... (etc.)" Your criticism would be valid if applied to that wording. In the actual wording, however, we're reporting a criticism that's been made, which is different from adopting the criticism ourselves. It's stated to be a criticism, it's attributed (through the link), and the phrase you object to is in quotation marks for further emphasis. In reporting debates on controversial issues, we frequently report on the spin phrases used by each side. The very first example I thought of was, IIRC, one of Newt Gingrich's favorites: "death tax" for what's long been called the estate tax. (Supposedly anyone on his staff who used the phrase "estate tax" in any context was fined one dollar. It always had to be "death tax" -- pure spin.) Sure enough, in our article (Inheritance tax#United States) we report that conservatives call it the "death tax".

As for the link, it's not as if we were holding up a pro-Kerry source as having a correct opinion. The linked article reports on a lawsuit. The alleged bias would come in only if there were a legitimate question as to the factual accuracy of the report. I think it would be good form for someone who wants to raise such a factual question to begin by doing at least some checking to see whether the point is legitimately in dispute. In this instance, it was the work of a moment to search for "back door draft" and come up with 11,900 hits on a Yahoo! search, the first page of which included this USA Today article about the California lawsuit. It confirms the basics, although the link I used has more information about the "John Doe" plaintiff's individual situation. (For good measure, here's another newspaper article.)

On the basis of the foregoing, I'll add the USA Today link and unstrike the passage. As for the first paragraph, I didn't write it. I can tell you that the Selective Service System website includes this page about a standby medical draft. JamesMLane 06:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--Silverback 11:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) I think the first paragraph and the stricken one should go, they are minor political fluff and very POV. Perhaps the realistic provisions for a medical draft can be retained. If we are to retain the first paragraph, it should be noted that Charles Wrangel also voted against the proposal, and the list of oppenents should be made more balanced, the libertarian party, milton freidman, william F. Buckley, George W. Bush, John Kerry, hundreds of congressmen and senators, etc. The back door draft issue seems more legitimate, although in my modification, I note that I put "involuntary" in quotes. Soldeirs receive a lot of "involuntary" orders in war. In a voluntary military, the question is whether they are really "involuntary" in the usual sense, and whether they are "innocent civilians", the usual victims of a draft. Frankly, I question whether anyone can really give informed consent to yield such complete control over their lives to a government given the unpredictable nature of the future. Critics of people who change their mind midstream and refuse to follow orders, argue that they don't see how the military can work without discipline. Advocates of freedom suggest that the military get better at screening for the right kind of people, issuing orders that they will follow and paying the amounts necessary to attract and retain them.--Silverback 11:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's your addition that has POV problems. You assert that the Bush Administration's action was "authorized by statute". That's at issue in the lawsuits. Note this passage from the Contra Costa Times article:

"This is not a frivolous lawsuit," said Michael Noone, a military law specialist at Catholic University of America and a former judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force. "I had assumed the government had an ironclad case, but the complaint looks valid on its face. I'm really curious how the government will respond."

Furthermore, you personally may consider this "minor political fluff", but it has affected 20,000 people (so far) and is, objectively (in terms of public attention paid to it), much more significant than the Kerry national-service idea that you're so keen to broadcast. The Bush action is also much closer to what most people would expect to find in an article about "Conscription" in that it involves military service. JamesMLane 13:39, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph about the draft bill was the minor political fluff and extremely POV, since it only listed liberal opposition to the bill, the vote shows that it was just a political ploy. The back door draft is not political fluff and I treated it objectively. The note about it being authorized by statute, is from the link that I added, the government would have no case without that, because several laws are suspended by the executive order. Frankly, I thought, thought this explanation needed to be in there for the administration action to be comprehensible at all. I am uncertain about the chances of the lawsuit myself. Unfortunately, the declaration of war issue, has been raised several times with the draft, and the court has always decided the less-than-declaration authorizations by Congress were sufficient. So any chance of the case must rely upon technical issues with the order itself, which I don't know enough about to judge. I'd be happy if the case was won, but courts often don't let the language of the law get in the way of decisions they want to make. I don't see how my phrasing in the paragraph is POV, it makes the issues clear, even though I think the back door draft is wrong. I think it should be illegal, but I think it probably is not based on current case law giving, I beleive undue, deference to the executive branch.--Silverback 14:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I went back to look at the language, and you are wrong, I did not say the administration action was authorized by statute, that would have been POV, I stated that stop loss orders are authorized by statute, whether their order complied with the requirements and is properly applied to the compainant, is what the courts will decide, probably incorrectly. :-( --Silverback 14:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think your phrasing would confuse many readers. I've tried to reword the description of the legal contentions, while stepping gingerly because we don't have the actual papers -- I know from experience that reports of a litigation in the popular press can be laughably wrong. At least the New Standard article included more direct quotations from the complaint, so I've relied on that for the allegations about the relationship among the statute, the Executive Order, and the stop-loss orders. JamesMLane 15:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the first paragraph disputed paragraph, no one has really defended. It is true that there is a contingency plan for a draft. But this seems to be required by a law of Congress from several years back. So putting it at Bush's feet seems a tad unfair. Currently, the DoD, SecDef, & Pres all disavow any plans to draft doctors. [1] Removing paragraph.

I believe that the NPOV tag ought to be stricken, as Alkivar's stated concerns have been addressed. Wolfman 14:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concur Alkivar 15:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me for lack of formatting, but I had to register to show this point. The article is very biased against Bush because it discusses the "Back Door Draft" twice but never once ever mentions that it is a practice done in every major conflict in United states history. Lasersailor184 15:33, 15 Feb 2006

Reverting

Herewith my explanation for reverting Alkivar's latest edits:

1. Quotation from Bush: It was earlier cited to a CNN transcript. It's better to cite to Wikisource if available. I changed the citation to Wikisource and conformed the quotation to the text as found therein. The first sentence of the previous quotation was redundant, so I deleted it; the second sentence is where Bush states his position.
2. Anderson citation: Please refer to my comments above about your objections to the source about the lawsuit. Here again we're not offering anyone's opinions as gospel truth. The article cited, although it is an opinion piece, is asserting an objective fact, that Anderson has made certain statements. I'm not going to go off on another search. If you have any kind of evidence that USA Today misreported Anderson's position, feel free to present it and we'll investigate. Until then, there's no reason not to link to this source. JamesMLane 17:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Query re FCNL link

The external links have included this one: "Dan Smith article in FCNL". I expanded "FCNL" to Friends Committee on National Legislation, but then, when I went to check the link, it turned out be a list of a whole bunch of articles. It wasn't immediately obvious what was being linked to here, or why.

The closest match I could find was this one. Although it's titled "Rock the Draft", it's more about campaign-related issues than about conscription itself. (It's about the Republican National Committee trying to intimidate Rock the Vote.) This link might belong in one of the campaign articles, but it doesn't seem to be appropriate here. I'm removing the link. If the reader should be directed to a different article on the FCNL site, the link should be restored but with a more precise URL. JamesMLane 06:52, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hagel Quotation

Removed the Hagel quote because the link-footnote does not contain it - it just goes to Wes Pruden's latest column. Certainly if a correct link can be found the quote can go back in.

Nevertheless, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) stated that a military draft may be necessary "in the future."

Ellsworth 00:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

conscription template

There is a conscription template. Shall we use it? Zeimusu 00:12, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

I don't think it improves in any way on the normal methods of linking related articles. It's not really an appropriate subject for a template. What does the template accomplish that couldn't be done with internal wikilinks or, if absolute need be, a category? JamesMLane 01:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

why is www.sss.gov offline?

Frightening news, if true....... The President has given the Selective Service System a set of readiness goals to be implemented by March 31, 2005. As part of these performance goals, the System must be ready to be fully operational within 75 days. This means we can look for the Draft to be in operation as early as June 15, 2005.

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. Details and links follow. If voters who currently supportU.S.aggression abroad were confronted with the possibility that their own children or grandchildren might not have a say about whether to fight, many of these same voters might have a change of mind. (Not that it should make a difference, but this plan would among other things eliminate higher education as a shelter and would not exclude women -- and Canada is no longer an option.)

I DELETED THE FOLLOWING: Senator Barry Goldwater proposed ending the draft during his unsuccessful 1964 campaign as the Republican candidate for President. Ted Wilkes 22:26, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I added it back.--Silverback 22:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously the above text about the draft being reinstated by June is completely wrong, probably purposefully so. Its August now, and still no draft. Just another left wing bomb thrower. ColdFusion650

"Greetings"

I think this word, as the standard opening for letters informing a man of his being drafted, should be mentioned. i believe it was universally recognized, and i suppose feared.(User:Mercurywoodrose)99.101.138.130 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's actually "Greeting" not "Greetings", as can be seen in this induction notice:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription-greeting-1970-09-24.pdf

(Thank you, JDS) -- JohnH~enwiki (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Born early in year?

In doing a lookover of writeup of the lottery of 1969, I have not seen the aim of correcting the born-early-in-year problem. This refers to the greater tendency to draft those born earlier in the calendar year. Carlm0404 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to the first lottery of the Vietnam War era? That one had a tendency draft those who were born later in the year. How so? The days-of-the-year were stored in little plastic "eggs" and put into a bin first-to-last, leaving the later days of the year at the top. The boneheads (random draft-age kids) drawing the eggs had a tendency to just pick from the top of the pile. The result was that the later days of the year were way over-represented in the low draft numbers. I was one of the unlucky ones, getting a draft number of 66. A fellow grad student, Ted, got assigned number 6. Devilish draft.

A hue and cry ensued with the result that the next year (and presumably, subsequent years) SSS put dates in one drum, numbers in another and set the drums rotating in opposite directions for 24 hours before dates were drawn and matched with numbers simultaneously drawn.

Or was there another lottery I'm missing? -- JohnH~enwiki (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Pre-1917 statistics

I think the only periods of federal drafting before 1917 were during the Civil War, under the Militia Act of 1862, Enrollment Act of 1863, and Confederate Conscription Acts 1862–1864? I've been trying to get stats on how many men were drafted during this time, and I'm running out of time to continue searching. Some sources that might have this info, if anyone else is interested in tracking it down:

• We Need Men: The Union Draft and the Civil War. By James W. Geary. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1991. Pp. xi-264. review
• History of military mobilization in the United States Army, 1775-1945 by Marvin A. Kreidberg and Merton G. Henry. [Washington] Dept. of the Army, 1955.
• The Evolution of Military Conscription in the United States. Timothy J. Perri. The Independent Review. Vol. 17, No. 3 (Winter 2013)
• Footnoted sources on STUMBLING TOWARD TOTAL CIVIL WAR: THE SUCCESSFUL FAILURE OF UNION CONSCRIPTION 1862-1865

-- Beland (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Butt

A part or you that is big and also called a ghat. get roasted,pals! 47.225.190.192 (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yo momma

Yo mommas so fat,she has her own zip code! Get roasted, pals! 47.225.190.192 (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)