Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2004/06/not-even-working-draft.html
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
NOT EVEN A WORKING DRAFT. The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1228331,00.html
is putting out more horseshit, and naturally it's passed on throughout the internet.
On the same day that Ashcroft was terrifying his countrymen, I was emailed by an American student friend. He too is terrified. "The US legislature," he wrote, "is trying to bring back the draft asap. Check it out at www.congress.org. For some reason no major news networks or printed media in this country are carrying this story. If these bills go through, the only thing between me and military service is my asthma."
He's right. There is pending legislation in the American House of Representatives and Senate in the form of twin bills - S89 and HR163. These measures (currently approved and sitting in the committee for armed services) project legislation for spring 2005, with the draft to become operational as early as June 15.
Draft-dodging will be harder than in the 1960s. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "smart border declaration", which, among other things, will prevent conscientious objectors (and cowards) from finding sanctuary across the northern border. There will be no deferment on higher-education grounds. Mexico does not appeal.
All this has been pushed ahead with an amazing lack of publicity. One can guess why. American newspapers are in a state of meltdown, distracted by war-reporting scandals at USA Today and the New York Times. There is an awareness in the press at large that the "embedding" system was just that - getting into bed with the military and reporting their pillow talk as "news from the frontline". The fourth estate has failed the American public and continues not to do its job.
Wow, that sure is alarming! Damn good thing we have foreign correspondent "expert" of the Grauniad, John Sutherland, to warn us Americans of this insidious danger that will, soon after the election, no matter if Kerry or Bush wins, be putting millions of young Americans into danger of losing their life!
Except it's all complete bullshit, checkable in under two minutes.
The bills are "pending" in the well-known sense of "pending" which means "not pending." The bills have "approved" in the well-known sense in which "approved" means "not approved."
Plug "S 89" into Thomas, the obvious first step in checking status of a bill: Thomas.
Note this is Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings' much discussed bill, introduced on January 7, 2003. Not exactly a recent development. This is the old, old, old, attempt to be anti-war by saying we should have a draft, pushed by Hollings, Rangel, and others. Not "the Bush Administration." The vaguely leftish Democrats.
Click on Bill Summary & Status:
What's the Committee status?:
Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.163
Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
No co-sponsors. Referred to committee the day of introduction. Died there. On January 7th of 2003. This is alarming? This is news? This is "the Bush Administration"? No to all three.
How about the House Bill, HR 163?:
H.R.163
Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (14)
Related Bills: S.89
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
As I said, it's Rangel's bill. The well-known tool of the military-ndustrial complex and Bush lackey. Who are the evil right-wing co-sponsors?
COSPONSORS(14), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]
Do I really need to say anything?
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Bills are easily checkable. But not by the top top experts of the Grauniad.
ADDENDUM: I'd not quite realized until a careful second reading, but it appears that John Sutherland is guilty of something that's at least close to borderline plagiarism -- copying text without noting that he is doing so, or simply rewording some of it -- of the Congress.org site he did link to. But linking is not the same as noting that you are adopting text without credit. Compare and contrast. Congress.org:
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 [....]
Sutherland:
There is pending legislation in the American House of Representatives and Senate in the form of twin bills - S89 and HR163. These measures [...] project legislation for spring 2005, with the draft to become operational as early as June 15.
Congress.org:
These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.
Sutherland:
These measures (currently approved and sitting in the committee for armed services)....
Congress.org:
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005.
Sutherland:
A $28m implementation fund has been added to the SSS budget.
Congress.org:
The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.
Sutherland:
The Pentagon is discreetly recruiting for 10,350 draft board officers and 11,070 appeals board members nationwide.
Congress.org:
if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
Sutherland:
If, as Rumsfeld promises, Iraq turns out to be "a long, hard slog", who will do the slogging?
Congress.org:
College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in.
Sutherland:
Draft-dodging will be harder than in the 1960s. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "smart border declaration", which, among other things, will prevent conscientious objectors (and cowards) from finding sanctuary across the northern border.
And so on. Sutherland just rewrote the Congress.org piece, for much of his. And they're both nonsense.
ADDENDUM: Snopes has now addressed this tripe.
6/1/2004 06:58:58 AM|permanent link| | Links To This Post | 3 comments
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
NOT EVEN A WORKING DRAFT. The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1228331,00.html
is putting out more horseshit, and naturally it's passed on throughout the internet.
On the same day that Ashcroft was terrifying his countrymen, I was emailed by an American student friend. He too is terrified. "The US legislature," he wrote, "is trying to bring back the draft asap. Check it out at www.congress.org. For some reason no major news networks or printed media in this country are carrying this story. If these bills go through, the only thing between me and military service is my asthma."
He's right. There is pending legislation in the American House of Representatives and Senate in the form of twin bills - S89 and HR163. These measures (currently approved and sitting in the committee for armed services) project legislation for spring 2005, with the draft to become operational as early as June 15.
Draft-dodging will be harder than in the 1960s. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "smart border declaration", which, among other things, will prevent conscientious objectors (and cowards) from finding sanctuary across the northern border. There will be no deferment on higher-education grounds. Mexico does not appeal.
All this has been pushed ahead with an amazing lack of publicity. One can guess why. American newspapers are in a state of meltdown, distracted by war-reporting scandals at USA Today and the New York Times. There is an awareness in the press at large that the "embedding" system was just that - getting into bed with the military and reporting their pillow talk as "news from the frontline". The fourth estate has failed the American public and continues not to do its job.
Wow, that sure is alarming! Damn good thing we have foreign correspondent "expert" of the Grauniad, John Sutherland, to warn us Americans of this insidious danger that will, soon after the election, no matter if Kerry or Bush wins, be putting millions of young Americans into danger of losing their life!
Except it's all complete bullshit, checkable in under two minutes.
The bills are "pending" in the well-known sense of "pending" which means "not pending." The bills have "approved" in the well-known sense in which "approved" means "not approved."
Plug "S 89" into Thomas, the obvious first step in checking status of a bill: Thomas.
Note this is Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings' much discussed bill, introduced on January 7, 2003. Not exactly a recent development. This is the old, old, old, attempt to be anti-war by saying we should have a draft, pushed by Hollings, Rangel, and others. Not "the Bush Administration." The vaguely leftish Democrats.
Click on Bill Summary & Status:
What's the Committee status?:
Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.163
Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
No co-sponsors. Referred to committee the day of introduction. Died there. On January 7th of 2003. This is alarming? This is news? This is "the Bush Administration"? No to all three.
How about the House Bill, HR 163?:
H.R.163
Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (14)
Related Bills: S.89
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
As I said, it's Rangel's bill. The well-known tool of the military-ndustrial complex and Bush lackey. Who are the evil right-wing co-sponsors?
COSPONSORS(14), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]
Do I really need to say anything?
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Bills are easily checkable. But not by the top top experts of the Grauniad.
ADDENDUM: I'd not quite realized until a careful second reading, but it appears that John Sutherland is guilty of something that's at least close to borderline plagiarism -- copying text without noting that he is doing so, or simply rewording some of it -- of the Congress.org site he did link to. But linking is not the same as noting that you are adopting text without credit. Compare and contrast. Congress.org:
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 [....]
Sutherland:
There is pending legislation in the American House of Representatives and Senate in the form of twin bills - S89 and HR163. These measures [...] project legislation for spring 2005, with the draft to become operational as early as June 15.
Congress.org:
These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.
Sutherland:
These measures (currently approved and sitting in the committee for armed services)....
Congress.org:
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005.
Sutherland:
A $28m implementation fund has been added to the SSS budget.
Congress.org:
The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.
Sutherland:
The Pentagon is discreetly recruiting for 10,350 draft board officers and 11,070 appeals board members nationwide.
Congress.org:
if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
Sutherland:
If, as Rumsfeld promises, Iraq turns out to be "a long, hard slog", who will do the slogging?
Congress.org:
College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in.
Sutherland:
Draft-dodging will be harder than in the 1960s. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "smart border declaration", which, among other things, will prevent conscientious objectors (and cowards) from finding sanctuary across the northern border.
And so on. Sutherland just rewrote the Congress.org piece, for much of his. And they're both nonsense.
ADDENDUM: Snopes has now addressed this tripe.
6/1/2004 06:58:58 AM|permanent link| | Links To This Post | 3 comments
