| OT Now lissen up all you armchair warriors - nows your chance! [message #293187] |
Mi, 28 Juni 2006 18:35 |
|
Restoring the Draft: The Universal National Service Act of 2006
by Michel Chossudovsky
May 30, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca
Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat (NY), introduced on 14 February
2006 a bill in the US Congress which requires:
"all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of
18 and 42 to perform a [two year] period of military service or a period
of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland
security, and for other purposes."
The bill applies to both US citizens and non-citizens, to men and women.
There does not appear to be a provision which would exempt women who are
pregnant and/or caring for infants/children in a young age.
While there was some media coverage of Rangel's initiative prior to the
formal introduction of the bill, the matter has not been mentioned by the
US media since it was introduced in February. There has been a deafening
silence: since February 2006, not a single article or editorial has
appeared in print on the Universal National Service Act of 2006.
Neither has it been the object of public debate. The bill has been
referred to the House Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on
Military Personnel. Ironically, in previous discussion leading up the
bill, Rangel's initiative to restore the draft was described as "an
anti-war tactic".
"Rangel opposes war with Iraq and seeks to make the point that many
soldiers are volunteers from low-income and minority families. Political
leaders, his reasoning goes, would think twice about sending into war the
sons and daughters of a more complete cross-section of America. But
whether or not one agrees with Rangel's rationale, many Americans would
agree that universal service can be a great leveler and a unifying force
in society."
Despite Rangel's antiwar resolve, the bill supports Washington's stated
objective to extend the war into new frontiers and to ultmately send an
entire generation of young Americans to fight an illegal, and unjust war.
It is worth noting in this regard that the Neoconservative Project for a
New American Century calls for increasing active duty strength from 1.4
to 1.6 million.
The bill also supports Big Brother. Those who are not sent overseas to
the war theater would, according to the clauses of the bill, be inducted
into the civilian homeland defense corps and other civilian duties,
including the Citizens Corps, the "Neighborhood Watch Teams" and the
"Volunteer Police Service" established in partnership with local law
enforcement. (see http://www.citizencorps.gov/pdf/council.pdf )
While there is at present significant opposition to the bill on both
sides of the House, the US military is overextended and lacks the
manpower to carry out its global war agenda. This shortage of military
personnel is blatantly obvious in Iraq, where the occupation forces are
meeting fierce resistance.
The situation regarding the draft could also change if the war were to be
extended into Iran. In which case, the substance of this bill could
indeed be adopted to meet the manpower requirements of the US military.
History of the Bill
This is the second time Rep. Charles Rangel introduces his controversial
bill.
In January 2003, HR 163 was submitted in the House.
It was voted upon and defeated in the House in October 2003, on the
grounds that it had not been sent for committee hearings. However, it was
suggested at the time that the Republican-controlled House wanted to
defeat the bill, to squash rumors that Bush would reintroduce the draft
if reelected.
"In spite of adamant denial of draft rumors, Internet and campus
campaigners had trumpeted the bill as evidence of a "secret plan" to
reinstate the draft in case President Bush is re-elected."
---------------------------------------------------------
TEXT OF BILL: UNIVERSAL NATIONAL SERVICE ACT OF 2006 (HR 4752)
Link to official Congressional Document:
Universal National Service Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4752.IH:
|
|
|
