Former Afghanistan General Calls for Reinstating the Draft

[Tez3]

I heard a version of the draft I could get behind:

The decision to go to war becomes a popular vote instead of congressional. Then if it passes, those who voted yes are the first to be picked in the draft. And the only people eligible to vote to go to war are those who fit the criteria to go to war (able-bodied men {and women?} between 17 and 45).

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

During the last war we had conscription for men and women into the armed forces.

It's being mooted here by our government that we have a return to some sort of conscription but that really wouldn't go down well at the moment as they are making a few thousand soldiers redundant though not until after the Olympics to which they've been drafted in to cover the security. The company tasked to do security has failed to do so this week so the troops are having to do it, some straight from Afghan having had to cancel family holidays. So conscription would go down like a lead balloon.
The suspicion behind any attempt to resinstate conscription of any time would be that a government was trying to cut unemployment figures on the cheap or to bolster the armed forces on the cheap.

 

[Josh Oakley]

During the last war we had conscription for men and women into the armed forces.

It's being mooted here by our government that we have a return to some sort of conscription but that really wouldn't go down well at the moment as they are making a few thousand soldiers redundant though not until after the Olympics to which they've been drafted in to cover the security. The company tasked to do security has failed to do so this week so the troops are having to do it, some straight from Afghan having had to cancel family holidays. So conscription would go down like a lead balloon.
The suspicion behind any attempt to resinstate conscription of any time would be that a government was trying to cut unemployment figures on the cheap or to bolster the armed forces on the cheap.

:

There's always a trade off. In contrast, an all professional army, fighting in wars voted on by congress or even just the president... or in your country's case, the Parliament, means those who have much less a stake in war are voting on it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Josh Oakley]

This message is hidden because billcihak is on your ignore list.

Yep.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tez3]

:

There's always a trade off. In contrast, an all professional army, fighting in wars voted on by congress or even just the president... or in your country's case, the Parliament, means those who have much less a stake in war are voting on it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I know our military is very against any conscription of any type that involves them as they believe it would be damaging to their capabilities and make them unprofessional. Technically our monarch has to be the one who declares war which means they can also not declare war, though it would cause a constitutional crisis if that happened.

 

[billc]

Originally Posted by billcihak
This message is hidden because billcihak is on your ignore list.



Yep.

This makes me feel sad. Knowing that you won't know that I feel sad makes me feel sad again. Knowing that I know you won't know I feel sad, and the fact that that doesn't make you feel sad...makes me feel sad. Wow, I really feel sad after typing this post...which also makes me feel sad...

 

[Josh Oakley]

I know our military is very against any conscription of any type that involves them as they believe it would be damaging to their capabilities and make them unprofessional. Technically our monarch has to be the one who declares war which means they can also not declare war, though it would cause a constitutional crisis if that happened.

Oh, I wasn't entirely sure what powers the throne had left.

Our military is of two minds on this. some want the draft, some don't.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

Umm... that section of the law has already been quoted in this thread, so you really don't have to believe one way or the other. Just read it. It is pretty straightforward.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Ummm...maybe I'm misunderstanding the legal argument here but:

4.26 It is the fact that the citizenry are considered militia, although unorganized, that gives the federal government the power to enact the draft of individuals into the armed forces.

A. No. Historically,there have been drafts into both the state militia and into the armed forces,although today when we think of the Draft,it is only thought of in connection with the armed forces. The Draft,into the Armed Forces,is done under the War Powers of Congress (see 1.12). The U.S. Supreme Court in the Selective Draft Law Cases of 1918 specifically found that power to Draft into the armed forces was based on the war powers of Congress saying:

"The possession of authority to enact the statute must be found in the clauses of the Constitution giving Congress power ' to declare war ...to raise and support armies,but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years..to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces'" [245 U.S. 377]

While that USC defines what an Unorganized Militia is, it does not spell out any specific federal authority to call up UM as a militia.

The fed's can draft into the active service via Congresses War Powers.

The fed can federalize state national guard units.

I see no statute giving the fed authority to do anything with the UM. Such as order the citizenry to serve for their SS benefits because they are the UM and the fed has the power to call them up.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk