All the repub candidates have expanding the size of the military as one of their top things to do

[MiniMe]

Where do they think all these new troops are going to come from?? They can't even meet their recruiting goals now. It seems like the only way to pull that off is the draft. How else can they meet their recruiting goals plus add 100,000 troops?

[Ian David]

1. You WANT to join your local draft board before it fills-up with conservative Repukes.

That's my own, personal opinion.


See:


LOCAL BOARDS

A Selective Service Local Board is a group of five citizen volunteers whose mission, upon a draft, will be to decide who among the registrants in their community will receive deferments, postponements, or exemption from military service based on the individual registrant's circumstances and beliefs.

How Local Board Members are Appointed
Local Board members are appointed by the Director of Selective Service in the name of the President, on recommendations made by their respective state governors or an equivalent public official. If you are interest in serving as a Local Board member, you may apply on-line for an application package. Some requirements to be a board member are that they be:

*

U.S. citizens
*

at least 18 years old
*

not a retired or active member of the Armed Forces or any Reserve component
*

live in the area in which the board has jurisdiction
*

be willing to spend enough time at the position.

During Peacetime
The Board Member program is one of the primary components of the Selective Service System. Over 11,000 volunteers are currently trained in Selective Service regulations and procedures so that if a draft is reinstated, they will be able to fulfill their obligations fairly and equitably. Board members undergo an initial 8-hour training session and then participate in annual training in which they review sample cases similar to real-life situations.

During a Draft
Registrants with low lottery numbers will be ordered to report for a physical, mental, and moral evaluation at a Military Entrance Processing Station to determine whether they are fit for military service. Once he is notified of the results of the evaluation, a registrant will be given 10 days to file a claim for exemption, postponement, or deferment. At that time, board members will begin reviewing and deciding the outcome of the individual registrant's case. They may personally interview the registrant and persons who know him to gain a better understanding of his situation. A man may appeal a Local Board's decision to a Selective Service District Appeal Board.

More:
http://www.sss.gov/fslocal.htm

[jody]

3. "not a retired or active member of the Armed Forces or any Reserve component". Who is better

qualified to sit on a draft board?

I don't believe the exclusion is backed by law and if it is, congress should remove that exclusion.

[Thothmes]

7. The exclusion is in fact part of the law that governs the draft boards.

[jody]

9. OK, but please cite the law that excludes retired military, 50 USC 460 does not.

50 USC 460 (b)(3)

No member of any local board shall be a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, but each member of any local board shall be a civilian who is a citizen of the United States residing in the county or political subdivision corresponding thereto in which such local board has jurisdiction, and each intercounty local board shall have at least one member from each county or political subdivision corresponding thereto included within the intercounty local board area.

Since when are retired military personnel not considered civilians?

Retired military personnel certainly are not subject to the UCMJ as any active duty military person would be.

Why not also exclude retired civil service personnel or former elected officials?

[Thothmes]

12. The requirements for Board membership

were posted on the Selective Service web site two years ago. It plainly specified no active duty or retired military member need apply for appointment to a draft board. I made an assumption, maybe mistakenly, that the specific requirements were supported by law. I do know that enlisted personnel and officers that retire with 20 years of service can be recalled for ten years after their retirement date. This is may have something to do with the stated exclusion that I saw on the Selective Service web site.

[jody]

17. OK, but the exclusion is an administration policy not fully supported by law because it includes

retirees with more than 10 years of retirement time.

[jmowreader]

14. Retired military personnel are considered "members of the Armed Forces"

Only "members of the Armed Forces" have access to base services, medical care and so on. Military retirees have access to all this, plus can be recalled in accordance with the needs of the armed forces (as is happening in this war--there are photos of 60-plus-year-old retirees walking around Iraq with rifles at sling arms). So, basically, retirees can't serve on draft boards because they're still in the Army.

Troops who got out before 20, otoh...they aren't in the army anymore, so they can be on draft boards.

So...ya think if a bunch of us veterans got on local draft boards, drove the streets in search of cars with "W: The President" (or worse, "W: STILL The President") decals on the back windows, ran the tags and drafted all their kids, the war would end or a law banning all veterans from serving on draft boards would be passed?

[jody]

18. Retired military personnel are not subject to the UCMJ. I cited 50 USC 460 (b)(3) that says

"No member of any local board shall be a member of the Armed Forces of the United States".

IMO the Selective Service System policy of excluding retired military from draft boards is an affront to the entire group.

[jmowreader]

19. Retired military personnel ARE subject to the UCMJ

Article 2 of the UCMJ follows:

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.
(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.
(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.
(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.
(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.
(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.
(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement t which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

Will retirees normally be punished under the UCMJ? No, not unless they do something directly related to the military--issuing a bunch of bad checks in the PX, maybe. But they ARE subject to it.

I believe the logic behind excluding retired military is they'd be too likely to draft guys who don't need to be drafted (face it: the LAST fucking guy I'd want for a battle buddy is George W. Bush) just because they had served themselves. Or they would sit there thinking "this guy will get his whole outfit killed, this guy would get his ass beat every day, this guy wouldn't kill anyone, this guy's room would look like a hurricane blew through it..." and not draft anyone because they wouldn't want to serve with any of those assholes.

[jody]

20. I'm quite familiar with the UCMJ and the passage you cite. Do you think a military retiree can be

court martialed for "Contempt toward officials. Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct"? (see 10 USC 888)

I know DU has a number of retired officers and they frequently use contemptuous words against Dubya and the other officials listed in Art. 88.

[jmowreader]

23. I know they CAN be, I doubt they WOULD be

I mean, Dipshit might decide one of these days to round up a few retirees who are saying bad things against him and throw the book at them to shut the rest of us up. There certainly are no shortage of candidates, and it's legal for him to do it.

However! Contemptuous speech isn't the issue here. I thought we were discussing why retirees can't be on draft boards.

[jody]

24. "I know they CAN be". Please cite at least one case where a military retiree has been court

martialed under the UCMJ without recalling that person to active duty. The UCMJ became law in 1950.

I've read cases where retired military personnel have been recalled to active duty for various reasons including court martial. Upon reactivation, they are no longer retired.

I said in #9 "Retired military personnel certainly are not subject to the UCMJ as any active duty military person would be."

I reiterated that statement in #18 and you replied in #19 "Retired military personnel ARE subject to the UCMJ".

I used the UCMJ to show that military retirees are not part of the "Armed Forces of the United States" as used in 50 USC 460.

I know of no case where a military retiree has been court martialed without recall to active duty or being a member of some other group subject to the UCMJ. If you can cite such a case, I'll concede that point to you.

[jmowreader]

25. How about this one?

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1987/sg870341.txt

Clifford W. Overton v. United States. Supreme Court case.

The facts of this case: Overton was a member of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, a service made up of enlisted Marines who served between 20 and 30 years in the Corps and requested transfer to "inactive duty status." IOW, they're retired sergeants. This asshat stole a bunch of audio-video gear from the Subic Bay Naval Exchange to sell on the Philippine black market, got caught and got court-martialed without being transferred to active duty status.

Read, please:

3. Before trial, petitioner moved to dismiss all charges on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, since he was on inactive duty status. The trial judge denied the motion (2 Tr. 22). The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review affirmed (Pet. App. 8a-14a). The court ruled that petitioner could validly be court-martialed since he "has never left the Naval Service but instead has merely been 'transferred' (in the exact words of the statute) from one component to another -- not retired, not discharged, not separated -- and continues to receive 'retainer' pay in return for his membership in the Fleet Marine Reserve" (id. at 13a). Relying on decisions from this Court and its own precedents, the Court of Military Appeals also upheld the constitutionality of Article 2(a)(6), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 802(a)(6), as applied to petitioner's case (Pet. App. 4a-6a).

Good 'nough?

I think we should drop this. It's getting us nowhere, and we're WAY off from where we started. I looked upthread and noticed that this is about military retirees not being allowed to serve on draft boards. I pointed out that retirees are still considered, by Federal Law, part of the service. You started bringing up the UCMJ--the UCMJ specifically says retirees are subject to it. Then you went off on all these tangents about courts-martial and all this other good stuff...completely irrelevant to the substance of this discussion, which is that military retirees aren't allowed to be on draft boards.

That's it and that's all and I'm going to another thread, thanks.

[jody]

26. Have a great day. n/t

[Toots]

2. I think the Democratic candidates are also for expanding the military

The USA spends more on military than all other countries combined and yet not a peep about cutting Defense Spending from any Democratic Candidate.. Why is that?

[B Calm]

4. As a veteran I have witnessed the waste of tax dollars by the military

first hand. Expanding the military is not conservative by any means.

[jody]

5. All services are operating equipment which is worn out and must be replaced.

Catastrophic Failure

The Secretary of the Air Force, Michael W. Wynne, reports the average age of an Air Force aircraft in 1973 was eight years but today is 24 years and headed toward 26.5 years in 2012. The problem goes well beyond the F-15 to include most of the major aircraft types—bombers, tankers, and transports no less than fighters.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Problems first emerged in the 1989-93 presidency of George H. W. Bush. In his four years as Pentagon chief, Dick Cheney—now Vice President Cheney—curtailed USAF’s F-15 program, postponed the F-22 fighter, terminated the B-2 bomber at only 20 aircraft, and cut the C-17 airlifter.

A get-well aircraft modernization was supposed to begin in the late 1990s, but it was again delayed by a widespread post-Cold War desire to reap a “peace dividend” by cutting defense spending. The Clinton Administration bought a few F-15s and F-16s for attrition reserve, but it also reduced the planned F-22 program from 648 to 339 aircraft and further delayed it.

When President George W. Bush arrived in 2001, USAF was poised for a long-deferred fleet recapitalization. Then, Bush’s Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, enamored of military transformation, restrained aircraft modernization once more. After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began to soak up defense dollars.

[tuckessee]

6. Ron Paul doesn't.

In fact, he's the only candidate who advocates bringing ALL the troops home from EVERY country.

Have any of the Dems explicitly stated they will cut military funding, close overseas bases & stop the imperial, interventionist foreign policy that creates the need for such a large military?

[txaslftist]

21. Thank you.

And hell no. No Democratic candidate has said they will close down our overseas empire now that the Soviet threat has ended. Only ONE candidate has said he will do that.

I take that back.. Kucinich may have also suggested it.

[salin]

8. and they have no plan to pay for this - they all keep talking about "lower taxes"

It is all fantasy land.

[Liberal In Texas]

27. They think by cutting "entitlements" all of a sudden there will be all kinds of $

to pay for more military. Plus, haven't you heard? Lowering taxes causes the economy to do so well that we collect more revenue from all those people doing so well. You know, just how it's working out so well now. And how it's working in Iraq with their brand new economy and brand new government. And how it worked so well in Chili after the CIA overthrew Allende. etc. etc.....
(I hope I don't need a sarcasm smiley.)

[Honeycombe8]

10. I agree it needs to be grown. But like you, when one of them was talking

about how the current admin. had failed by not increasing the military troops, I thought...now where has this guy been the last 5 years? They've done everything they can to entice new troops, even offering $10,000 bonuses for officers.

Ignoramuses. It crossed my mind that I wondered if the candidate knew he was basically saying that there would have to be a draft, if it really IS necessary to grow the troops.

I can't recall which one made that stupid statement. Romney, maybe? Or Ghouliani?

[MiniMe]

11. Both I think

I really wanted somebody to ask them where they expected to get the soldiers, especially since joining under a repub administration would mean going to Iraq. I think that a dem administration would have an easier time growing the military once they bring our troops home.

[PVnRT]

13. It's called "pandering"

They're trying to one-up each other in re-assuring the jock sniffers that they aren't a bunch of sissy girly-men when it comes to the military. There are voters out there in Republican-land who honestly do believe that the military is too small (since it was "gutted" by Clinton).

[dysfunctional press]

15. this is about the only thing that ron paul is kinda correct about.

we need to bring A LOT of the foreign-based troops home- why do we still have troops in japan and germany? isn't the cold-war supposedly over?

the switch-over to the "war on terra"(dumbya is actually correct in his mis-speak, we ARE waging a war on the planet) at the end of the cold-war is a lot like the switch to marijuana as the enemy of the people after prohibition ended- all those elite elliot ness type squads still needed jobs after prohibition ended, and the police forces had grown accustomed to all the extra prohibition-era funding and equipment...so the dea and drugs as the new enemy took the place of alcohol.

same thing going on militarily- the brass and the contractors are used to being the best and first fed hogs at the taxpayer trough- but without an actual enemy the fear of an actual enemy, they're liable to lose their place in line.

[jmowreader]

16. *I* think the military is too small!

During the Cold War, the Army's active duty endstrength--boots on the ground on September 30--was 786,000. After the Cold War ended, Dipshit's daddy decided to reap the "peace bonus" by slashing the military without waiting to see what the post-Cold War geopolitical environment was going to be, and chopped endstrength to between 480,000 and 525,000--the numbers vary depending on who you talk to.

Well...we know what happened. Somalia went to shit, the Balkans went to shit, the Middle East went to shit and we didn't have enough army, with new-enough weapons, to deal with all of it. Remember in the 2000 campaign when Shrub said he was going to fix the Army because "two whole divisions would have to report, 'not ready for duty, Sir'"? What we didn't hear was Rufus T. Bush singing "the country's army must be fixed and I know what to do with it, if you think 10th Mountain's screwed up now just wait till I get through with it!"

Assuming there is no illegal war going on, an active duty endstrength of around 650,000 is probably exactly right. The Soviet threat is no longer there, but you've still got little brush wars that pop up occasionally, Kim Jong Il's still an asshole, and the Middle East will remain a problem indefinitely. That strength would also allow the military to turn the "10th Humanitarian Division" joke we used to crack in the 10th Mountain (we kept getting deployed on all these missions of mercy--Florida, Somalia, like that) into a reality by equipping and training one full division for disaster relief operations.

Ron Paul is also wrong about the need to pull all the troops back from overseas. If nothing else, it's the best recruiting incentive we've got.

[txaslftist]

22. Our overseas presence is also the best recruiting incentive Al Qaida's got.

And the brush fires in Somalia, Kosovo, N. Korea etc etc etc are none of our damn business.