In a bold statement of bipartisanship, Charles Rangel reintroduced legislation calling for us all to overlook the 13th ammendment and drag our youth off to war. Republicans, led by John McCain, are calling for increasing the size of our military forces in Iraq and elsewhere. Charles Rangel has stepped forward to provide the young, who we as a nation will ask to kill for us, to die for us, to torture for us and to be tortured for us. We will ask them to risk their lives, their honor and their mental stability.
If the recent mid-term election was a referendum on the war, Chuck didn't get the memo.
Follow me for more.
I followed this story closely in 2003 when Snopes was calling it an urban legend. Pressure from the people ultimately led to the bill being put up to a vote where it lost by a wide margin. But now the same claims are being made as to why it's necessary. If the new bill is anything like HR 163, the last bill Rangel put forward and my Enron funded Democratic representative co-sponsored, it has A LOT of flaws. Let's look at the main arguments and debunk them one by one.
- Congress wouldn't be so quick to go to war if their own children were eligible for the draft
Gimme a break--we had a draft during Viet Nam. Did Bush go? Cheney? Any of the other warhawks? HR 163 left all decision regarding qualification and selection of draftees up to the executive. But that's probably OK, cuz The Decider wouldn't put in any loopholes for his friends and contributors, would he? I'll have a look at the new text and see if it is any better.
- The volunteer army is disproportionately poor and dark skinned.
True, but not necessarily a bad thing. In recent decades, the military has functioned as a tax funded vocational education system, giving low income citizens help in getting on the socio-economic ladder. The bargain was, in exchange for the slight risk that the US would have to defend itself, you can get training in a wide range of skills that pay solid middle class wages in the civilian world. The bargain remains valid. What is not valid is the Executive's pursuit of illegal wars. Put an end to the war mongering, and the military can again function as a vocational school for the poor.
And, re: 1, there's no reason to believe that a draft would be any more representative that a volunteer army.
- Rangel doesn't really want to bring back the draft, he wants a debate on our military committments.
Fine. Have a debate. Putting a generation at risk to start a conversation is, is, I dunno, perverted? craven?
Let me also raise the question I put forward at a Juneteenth rally in Acres Homes 3 years ago--Why is a black man proposing that we ignore the 13th Amendment? In case you've forgotten, the 13th Amendment says "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." I think a draft fits the definition of "involuntary servitude". Let's not once again ignore the plain english meaning of our defining documents in favor of sophist legalese.
Next to lastly, the volunteer army is one of the checks and balances in our system of government. Lack of troops is one of the dynamics bringing the illegal war in Iraq to a close (and preventing more mischief being started in Iran and elsewhere). Providing troops will only prolong the bloodshed.
I voted against bloodshed in November? Didn't you? Please send Mr. Rangel a copy of the memo. The government does not own our young. The government has no right or power to take them from their intended course in life and put them in the way of bullets and IED's.
In 1812, half a century before the 13th Amendment, Daniel Webster stated on the floor of Congress
"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government."
UPDATE - here's the relevant text of Rangel's bill, HR 4752:
SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.
(a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.
(b) Form of National Service- National service under this Act shall be performed either--
(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or
(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.
© Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons covered by subsection (a) to perform national service under this Act.
(d) Selection for Military Service- Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--
(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; and
(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act.
(e) Civilian Service- Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
Like his previous HR 163, it does not do anything to make certain the priviledged cannot opt out. To the contrary, because it puts the president in charge of selection, you can bet that all the old rules of priviledge apply.