So my roommate and I are arguing about the draft...

[Askia]

My roommate and I have had the same running argument these last few days every time we watch C-SPAN.

He says: It’s only a matter of time before this administration re-introduces the draft, pre-Vietnam era standards, to the general population, to build up the army.

I says: Hold up. Now, a draft might come, but they’d never get the draft re-introduced to mainstream America after 30 years. There’s just waaaay too much opposition, even if it’s not organized. I could see more aggressive recruiting easy. But if they just want to draft people, they’d probably get prisoners in exchange for reduced sentences for a successful tour of service.

He says: the prison industrial complex ain’t gonna let prisoners go nowhere. All that cheap labor just going free? Off to war? To die? You don’t kill a cash cow. You don’t train black men to kill and hand them a gun. No, They’d ramp up the patriotism and the necessity of the draft. They would just send a letter saying, “Join up” and they’d join up.

I says: you act like there’s a finite number of prisoners to choose from. The prison system in the country can always get more men in jail. Most people are in over bullshit drug charges. Just step up focus on deadbeat dads who don’t pay child support. Get the new batch in after the first batch goes off to war…

and thus we go back and forth.

What’s likeiler? A nationwide draft or a draft of the prison population?

[Rysto]

Putting weapons in the hands of convicted criminals seems extrodinarily foolhardy to me.

[treis]

I don’t think either of them are very likely. The military simply doesn’t want people that are forced to be there. They don’t make good soldiers and they don’t make for an effective fighting force. Barring WWIII there won’t be a draft unless America is in danger of being invaded.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@treis

I don’t think either of them are very likely. The military simply doesn’t want people that are forced to be there. They don’t make good soldiers and they don’t make for an effective fighting force. Barring WWIII there won’t be a draft unless America is in danger of being invaded.

Bingo. And if America is actually in danger of being invaded, I’d think there’d be a lot more people joining.

[Marley23]

@Askia

No, They’d ramp up the patriotism and the necessity of the draft. They would just send a letter saying, “Join up” and they’d join up.

Yeah, with all the success they’re having overseas and the deep wells of public trust they’ve built up, convincing people we’d need a draft would be easy as pie. Especially a year after Bush promised there wouldn’t be a draft, and with the military saying a draft is unnecessary.

[Sage_Rat]

Did no one ever take the governments’ right to draft to the Supreme Court? Out of our supposed rights to “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” I can’t think of a one it doesn’t violate.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

Now look. Just start up a draft; draft as many of those people as you can.
We’ll call up every last youngster we can get our hands on,
hand 'em some speed, give 'em an hour or two to learn how to use
an automatic rifle and send 'em on their way
[right]from the Dead Kennedys Kinky Sex Makes The World Go 'Round[/right]

With already plunging approval ratings, a draft would be foolhardy at this time, and in any case training budgets and facilities can’t handle a large influx of new recruits. I find it highly unlikely Congress would authorize a draft, and I guarantee that the Department of Defense wouldn’t have any use for it. We’ve seen dumber things come out of this Administration, but only when they were riding high on public opinion, buoyed by the exploitation of emotion and jingoism which extended from certain well-known events. The threat of a draft is as much an anti-Bush pipe dream as the vaporous threat of weapons of mass destruction was a facile justification for exhibiting US might against a sneering despot.

Stranger

[XT]

What’s likeiler? A nationwide draft or a draft of the prison population?

I believe a snow ball in hell is the more likely to be honest. Both of the choices you give are so remote that choosing between them is difficult.

Basically what treis…the military simply doesn’t WANT a draft. Couple that with the fact that though you might think Bush is dumb as dirt (I admit its easy to think this at times) he’s not likely to commit political suicide…especially since it would actually degrade our military and its capabilities reguardless of if you dumped in a bunch of criminals who resented being sent off to war or dumped in a bunch of civilian kids who would equally resent being sent off to war. It would be one of those ‘devil and the deep blue sea’ moments.

-XT

[Stuffy]

I could see a prison “draft” working especialy if there was a promise to expunge the previous records of said “draftees”. A felony convition for drug trafficking is still a felony, I could easily see “drug” arrestees seeing that as a optimal solution to the current revolving door of prison, street, bust, prison, street, bust, prison…repeat ad nauseum. It’s be the ultimate do over. Shit, I hope no one in the administration sees this post.

[Little_Nemo]

I can’t imagine a prison draft ever happening. It’s the worst possible system - you get recruits who are unwilling and unskilled. And the military would almost certainly find that they were unable to get any non-prison recruits or retain existing service people who wouldn’t want to be fighting alongside convicts.

[XT]

@Little Nemo

I can’t imagine a prison draft ever happening. It’s the worst possible system - you get recruits who are unwilling and unskilled. And the military would almost certainly find that they were unable to get any non-prison recruits or retain existing service people who wouldn’t want to be fighting alongside convicts.

Yeah, I don’t think we need to lose any sleep over the Administration accidentally wandering into this thread, seeing the idea and going :smack: !! "Why didn’t WE think of this?!?!’. Unwilling, unskilled and probably more dangerous to our side than the enemy. Not to mention the fact that Republicans aren’t exactly know for their high opinions of criminals/prisoners. A chain gang? Yeah, I could see some Republican’s thinking wistfully about it. But to defend the nation? Not likely.

-XT

[ExTank]

To my knowledge, the only people advocating a reinstatement of the Draft has been a few Democrats (all in the name of bringing class equality to the armed services), with the only one I can put a name to being Rangel. I may be wrong, and some Republicans may have joined that bandwagon, but I don’t believe so.

So anyone hoping to use this to hate eeee-vil Bushite 'Pubbies even more needs to look elsewhere.

[rjung]

With this Administration, I think they’ll take a third tack: increased use of third-party mercenaries.

Look at all the benefits:

1. No need to ruin Republican chances in future elections with an unpopular draft.
2. Mercenaries can bypass those pesky laws against torture and atrocities.
3. The mercenary companies (run by friends of the GOP, I’d wager) can charge outrageous prices for their services – and get them with hassle-free no-bid contracts.
4. When the US gets further into debt, it’ll make a perfect excuse to cut pack on those pesky social service programs even further.

[Voyager]

I’d be looking for the Administration actually trying to increase the size of the military (which would be a good thing) and failing before there is any chance of a draft. It might be a good idea (he says 30 years out of danger!) to equalize the pain of the war, but it won’t happen.

[Monty]

@Stuffy

I could see a prison “draft” working especialy if there was a promise to expunge the previous records of said “draftees”. A felony convition for drug trafficking is still a felony, I could easily see “drug” arrestees seeing that as a optimal solution to the current revolving door of prison, street, bust, prison, street, bust, prison…repeat ad nauseum. It’s be the ultimate do over. Shit, I hope no one in the administration sees this post.

I can’t see that happening at all. For one thing, the military doesn’t accept individuals with felony convictions (unless they receive a waiver). For another, the military kicks out people who get into trouble with drugs in the military. For yet another, the military doesn’t want a draft. And finally, All branches of service met November active-duty recruiting goals

[quote]
[ul][li]The Army reached 105 percent of its recruiting goal with 5,856 recruits. [/li][li]The Navy reached 102 percent of its goal with 2,742 recruits. [/li][li]The Marine Corps reached 105 percent of its goal with 2,127 recruits. [/li][li]The Air Force reached 101 percent of its goal with 2,407 recruits.[/ul][/li][/quote]

[Jonathan_Chance]

Toss me in with the ‘political suicide’ crowd. If Congress and any administration authorizes a draft in the absence of overwhelmingly obvious threats to national survival (Canadians pouring over the border and forcing people to wear toques or something) the most likely outcome is a 75%+ turnover in Congress and a completely crippled administration.

It’s a non-starter.

[kanicbird]

Prisoners cost $$$$$, much more then they produce.

Also, while a draft might be used in a national emergency, like against China if and when they attack, there is no advantage to a draft. We have highly trained and highly motivated troops (see re-elistment rates), a draft would destroy that and our fighting ability would be devistated.

[Martin_Hyde]

A general draft won’t happen unless there’s a pressing need for it. And the by pressing I mean an extreme situation. After Vietnam we won’t have a draft unless we’re fighting for the very survival of our country, or if we’re involved in some sort of global world war scenario akin to World War II.

A prison draft is, not trying to be mean, just simply stupid as hell. It wouldn’t happen ever and it’s one of the dumber things I’ve seen proposed.

[Fear_Itself]

@Sage Rat

Did no one ever take the governments’ right to draft to the Supreme Court? Out of our supposed rights to “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” I can’t think of a one it doesn’t violate.

Yes, the Supreme court considered the legality of the military draft in 1918, in [Arver v. United States](Arver v. United States). Short answer: the draft is legal, and not unconstitutional.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Sage Rat

Did no one ever take the governments’ right to draft to the Supreme Court? Out of our supposed rights to “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” I can’t think of a one it doesn’t violate.

Oh it has, and the SCOTUS more or less laughed the challenges out of court.

In Lichter v. United States (334 U.S. 742 (1948)) the court stated that:

The constitutionality of the conscription of manpower for military service is beyond question.

In Arver v. United States (245 U.S. 366 (1918)) the SCOTUS pretty much dismissed even the concept of opposing conscription on constitutional grounds.

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.’ Article 1, 8. And of course the powers conferred by these provisions like all other powers given carry with them as pro ided by the Constitution the authority ‘to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.’ Article 1, 8.

As the mind cannot conceive an army without the men to compose it, on the face of the Constitution the objection that it does not give power to provide for such men would seem to be too frivolous for further notice.

And:

Further it is said, the right to provide is not denied by calling for volunteer enlistments, but it does not and cannot include the power to exact enforced military duty by the citizen. This however but challenges the existence of all power, for a governmental power which has no sanction to it and which therefore can only be exercised provided the citizen consents to its exertion is in no substantial sense a power. It is argued, however, that although this is abstractly true, it is not concretely so because as compelled military service is repugnant to a free government and in conflict with all the great guarantees of the Constitution as to individual liberty, it must be assumed that the authority to raise armies was intended to be limited to the right to call an army into existence counting alone upon the willingness of the citizen to do his duty in time of public need, that is, in time of war. But the premise of this proposition is so devoid of foundation that it leaves not even a shadow of ground upon which to base the conclusion.

And in the concluding paragraph of the decision:

Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.

People challenged military conscription both via protest and via legal means during the American Civil War, World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War (at least that’s what I’ve found in my 5 minutes of web browsing.) Every single time these attempts failed, so I’d say it’s safe to assume the right of the government to raise armies via conscription is pretty much etched in stone at this point.