Slashdot Mirror

There are plenty of other ways for them to get what they need in terms of technical assistance without wading through your fantasy.

If all else fails: I'm thinking of a number ....

Why is there no outcry about the under representation of girls for Selective Service?

https://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm

A legal resident is considered a US Person and has the same rights (and obligations) of a Citizen minus:
- The ability to vote in elections
- Working at some jobs that require citizenship (many federal/state)
- Certain benefits like social security (although they have to pay into it regardless)

More info here.

Also ironically, if the legal immigrant in between 18-25 and male he would have to register with the selective service and could be drafted into war should congress and the president authorize it.

You think that having US citizenship makes one somehow bound to the US?

Yes, it does.

And with regard to out of state voting, it's entirely possible to be registered to vote in one state, and then spend the rest of one's life in another state.

Possible but not legal; one is required to vote in the state they're resident in. Residency is defined differently in each of the 50 States you're generally required to actually maintain a residence there (i.e., own or rent some piece of property) and may further be required to spend a plurality or even a majority of your time at that residence.

Wake me up when women are required to register for Selective Service, and qualify to be shot or blown up against their will.
https://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm

WHO MUST REGISTER

Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male immigrants living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service.

just as soon as Congress changes the law to require both men and women to register with Selective Service. To this day, only men are required by law to register. Dual nationals, some non-citizens, conscientious objectors and even disabled men are all required to register, so I don't see why women shouldn't be as well.

Everyone should have one anyway.

Then the government should issue one to everybody. And what could be a better place than right here*? I figure it's the least they could do for what you're "offering" them.

*Jeeze! The propaganda is thick. Make sure not to step in it.

Yep, the very same Coleman that Galloway tore a third anus into to go along with his matching set of the one he defecates with, and the one he thinks with.

Coleman is worthless.

The only reason he is a senator is because of Wellstone's tragic plane crash. He was a strawman candidate in a no chance race.

If you can handle the sissification, read a couple of congressional daily reports:

• Coleman plays straight man to Hatch
• Barbara Boxers Coleman's ears in

If Coleman had any morals, he be investigating the Americans implicated in tthe Oil for Food scandal, but he is too much of a party hack to investigate family and cronies of the President.

Here's an example of Coleman's compassionate conservatism:

"United States Senator Norm Coleman said today that the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina offers an historic opportunity to revitalize the Gulf Coast, while providing for economic incentives that will ensure massive investment in intellectual, physical and technological infrastructure."

Coleman Press Release September 5, 2005

You say natural disaster, Coleman says "historic opportunity"; and he released this one week to the day after Katrina had hit New Orleans.

The same type of historic opportunity that made him a senator...

Of course in keeping with contemporary conservatism's rampant hypocrisy, their vaunted fiscal responsibility shines brightly by their funding this "massive investment in intellectual, physical and technological infrastructure" with the work product of the future. Norm shares another common trait with contemporary conservatives.

Coleman the chickenhawk

Coleman was born on August 17, 1949. That made him Grade A prime monkey-boy fodder for the Vietnam War, but Norm never served in the military. Judging from his appearance back then, he was on the antiwar side of the equation when it was his turn to march off to war.

"A lottery drawing - the first since 1942 - was held on December 1, 1969, at Selective Service National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. This event determined the order of call for induction during calendar year 1970, that is, for registrants born between January 1, 1944, and December 31, 1950.

[...]

The highest lottery number called for this group was 195; all men assigned that lottery number or any lower number, and who were classified 1-A or 1-A-O (available for military service), were called to report for possible induction."

Coleman's number would have been 154

Source: The Selective Service System website

-Don

Selective Service System Fast Facts

they're going to have to consider a draft. But they won't call it that... they'll want to call it something else.

They already DO call it something else - "Selective Service."

This is just the tip of the iceberg, too...soon this will be expanded to all americans eligible for military service..

Look, for whatever reason, the military was unable to get this info from the SSS, they had to go to a marketing firm in order to solicit their own citizens. Christ on a cracker, you think this is Orwellian? Military service was mandatory for a very long time in the US. It's mandatory in a huge number of countries, many of which you'd probably even consider liberal democracies.

Not in the US.

There is absolutely no legal compulsion to have any form of ID in the US. At least at the federal level. It's possible that certain states have their own requirements.

That said, there are many situations where you are required by law to show ID in order to perform an activity. You named two of them: purchasing alcohol or cigarettes. Using authority granted under certain provisions of the Patriot Act, the TSA has issued secret regulations, that among other things, require passengers to show ID to board airplanes. This may also apply to passengers boarding Amtrak trains - I'm not sure on that though. You must have a driver's license in order to drive. I believe that federal laws requires employed US citizens to have a Social Security number so that Social Security deductions may be made from paychecks. Men in the US between the ages of 18 and 25 must register with the Selective Service, but no ID is required to register.

You do not need an ID to live in the US, or travel in the US by bus, bicycle, or foot.

And at least in Minnesota, you do not need ID to register to vote or to vote.

(I misspoke earlier when I said that Minnesota requires ID to register to vote. This is not true. If you register at the polls, the normal procedure is to show ID and proof of residence. You may, however, have an already registered voter from your precinct vouch for you. If you register by mail or at city hall prior to the election, no ID is required. The form requires you to provide driver's license number, state ID number, or last 4 digits of Social Security number. You may also write NONE if you don't possess any of the former.)

According to the Selective Service website the amount of kids "smart" enough to not register is about 6%.

And if that college is university is state run that number drops to 0%. Registering is mandatory if student is going to a school that's public.

Sorry, most (if not all) of those evil glossy pamphlets come from the Selective Service database, which all males are required to register with when they turn 18.

Pretty much if you're in college, the G.O.V has your number.

Bush does NOT want a draft.

In the last debate Bush boasted that his administration had increased the number of Pell grant recipients. But nowhere have I heard in the media the fact that in order to be eligible to receive Pell, males must register with the Selective Service.

So if the gov't ever does need recruits, they could just starting pull names from the list rather than instigating a full-blown draft board.

Bush may not want a draft, but then again, politicians do change their mind.

Okay, maybe I should have included the entire paragraph:

"(1) ACCESS TO STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION- Notwithstanding section 444(a)(5)(B) of the General Education Provisions Act and except as provided in paragraph (2), each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings."

So yes, this contact information is being shared for recruiting purposes. They don't need this info for drafting purposes. That's what Selective Services is for.

The only truly bad thing would be if they are sharing other information (like the test scores and grades you mentioned) with Armed Services. But I can't find evidence that they are.

Further, except in times of great conflict, the United States, like all liberal democracies, has avoided compulsory military service, opting instead for a fully civilian-controlled volunteer army

Define "great conflict"? If you look at every war the United States has fought we've used compulsory military service in at least half of them -- going all the way back to the Civil War.

And give the Democrats who purposed this some credit. Even if the rich people's children found ways to avoid service (this is not a sure thing anymore -- in theory almost anybody is eligible -- student deferments won't work anymore) the "masses of society" would be compelled to serve. Do you really think the general American public would stand for a war if they themselves would have to go and fight it? Why do you think there was so much political opposition to Vietnam?

whatever.

Most of the soldiers and personnel I've talked to believe in the cause.

One of the ugly truths in life is that you're ultimately responsible for your own actions, propaganda and chain of command nonwithstanding. Note who is taking the fall for the clearly unjust aspects of the "War on Terror." It starts as the bottom.

According to the Selective Service website, these articles are false.

Excuse me? You know nothing about me. You couldn't even be bothered to check my extensive posting history -- had you done that you would have seen numerous posts opposing the Iraq war and the current administration. If that's buying into "the whole pack oflies and propaganda" then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

I believe that most "crises" that America has faced recently and ones we will face in the so-called "War" on terrorism are almost entirely caused by the actions of our own military and political leaders

Did I say the current event was a crisis? Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that in the event that a draft was ever reinstated it would likely be a life or death situation for our country. Then I went on to point out the reason why I think this is so: Mainly the fact that if we currently had a draft then the idiots who are currently in charge would not be able to launch these unjustified wars (Iraq -- not Afghanistan -- that was completely justified) because the public wouldn't stand for it. That was the lesson of Vietnam. Whereas with the current all-volunteer force most of the public doesn't really have a stake in it. The rich people who are in charge certainly don't have a stake at all. With a fair draft system (read the Selective Service website) like we currently have they would have a stake in it. Do you think Bush would be so gung-ho to take us into Iraq if his daughters had to go?

I still fail to see how my previous statements can be seen as buying into a pack of lies and propaganda. Please explain that to me -- or just maybe you were the person moving the argument to the level of insults.

they realize that the US system gives then NO VOICE in what is happening and they realize that they are being used to ends far beyond their control

I guess all those elected representatives on all levels of Government (local, state and Federal) count for nothing then. You do have a voice. People who think they don't have a voice and give up (by moving to Canada or even worse: not bothering to vote) are the true enemies of any democracy.

For the record I wouldn't go if they reinstated a draft for Dubya's oil wars in Iraq. But I would go if I believed our way of life to be threatened or in danger. And I would have the courage to stand up for what I believed in -- running away to Canada is the cowards way out. Mod me flamebait instead of debating me -- you only prove me correct.

... but the US Selective service doesn't even require you to REGISTER for the draft until you're 18, which not so coincidentally, is voting age in the US. And we're not actually DRAFTING anyone of ANY age.

I am not sure that free speech necessitates privacy. For instance what if one is a pacifist and objects to all war not just war with Iraq? What does one do to avoid being compelled to serve in the millitary and commit what would be, at least for them, immoral acts?

In the United States one may declare that they are a contentious objector http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm and thus avoid being compelled to military service. However, this critique of the government's policies must be public. While the draft is not currently in operation, a contentious objector must state their reasons for being an objector publicly if they were or are drafted.

Does that mean that the right to free speech is restricted? Free Speech does not mean freedom from consequences associated with what you say. I am a contentious objector, and I must believe that even if that fact ever negativly impacts me I cannot change my convictions. I will accept the ramifications of holding to this position.

What if Iraq launches a chemical weapon on Israel? We have to go in and support them, because the US (most of the time, to my knowledge) backs our allies. History repeats, and the World War I scenario happens again.

What if the US goes in after Saddam? We (possibly) will set up a puppet government and anger people in the Middle East, but it seems the Iraqis like the idea of self-rule, even if their comrades are holding automatic weapons...

Either way everyone loses, because lives are lost, but I don't want to be drafted to fight a war.

What about the SSS? Does that qualify as mandatory? The penalties for not registering can be severe, even though you may not be jailed for it.

What about the SSS? Does that qualify as mandatory? The penalties for not registering can be severe, even though you may not be jailed for it.

By selective service I refer to the Selective Service System. The draft doesn't currently exist.

If legislation requiring a national ID card is passed, I for one will not apply for it.

The type of penalties you would face might be similar to those faced by men between the age of 18 and 26 who fail to register for the draft:
Failure to register or otherwise comply with the Military Selective Service Act is upon conviction, punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both. In addition, federal and certain state laws require registration as a prerequisite for obtaining student financial aid, job training, government employment, and U.S. naturalization.

The loss of liberties from a national ID card, though onerous, are many times less than the loss of liberty entailed by being drafted. If the draft is constitutional, I can't see how a national ID card wouldn't also be constitutional.

In fact, the loss of privacy involved in filing income tax forms every year is at least as great as that of a national ID card. Conceivably the same sort of restrictions on the disclosure of tax information would apply to the ID card.

If there is a national ID card and if it sustains a Supreme Court challenge and if you don't want to go to jail for 5 years, you might want to consider immigrating to Canada, which has a long history of accepting refugees from the United States.

Can legally vote.

Can legally drink in some states.

Can legally own and operate a firearm in some states.

Can get married.

Can voluntarily join the military. (although the comment about the draft stands. see link. as long as the government is tracking people, if there's a significant conflict, there may be a draft. If, for example, China invaded Japan...)

I don't need an excuse to blast age limits like this one. It's one thing to stop 10 year olds from drinking. It's another thing entirely to say a 17 yr old can't look at Mortal Kombat alone.