Next Time Vote Libertarian, Reason #22189:

Democrats to Propose Universal Mandatory Draft

Charlie Rangel's done this twice before. Last time the Republicans actually called his bluff by bringing it to a vote, resulting in a 3-432 vote in the US House. However, over twenty other Congresspersons- all of whom except Cynthia McKinney will be back in Congress next year- sponsored the bill, so don't think this is going away.

Rangel's proposal is to demand mandatory military service- or such "public service" as the government should designate- from every person between ages 18 and 42 in the United States. You wouldn't get to choose your service- indeed, you might not even get PAID for your service- but for two years, you would be subject to involuntary servitude to the federal government of the United States.

And the biggest steaming pile of bullshit about Rangel's proposal- he claims that the United States is less likely to go to war with a draftee army than an all-volunteer army.

Starting January 3, Rangel will be chairman of the Ways and Means Committee- the one man in Congress who effectively determines who gets how much money and how high taxes are going to be. It can be said that the only persons with more power in the federal government would be the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States.

This isn't your tax dollars at work; this is YOU at work, without your consent and at the order of government bureaucrats.

So tell me, which was the lesser of the two evils again...?

Next Time Vote Libertarian, Reason #22189:

Democrats to Propose Universal Mandatory Draft

Charlie Rangel's done this twice before. Last time the Republicans actually called his bluff by bringing it to a vote, resulting in a 3-432 vote in the US House. However, over twenty other Congresspersons- all of whom except Cynthia McKinney will be back in Congress next year- sponsored the bill, so don't think this is going away.

Rangel's proposal is to demand mandatory military service- or such "public service" as the government should designate- from every person between ages 18 and 42 in the United States. You wouldn't get to choose your service- indeed, you might not even get PAID for your service- but for two years, you would be subject to involuntary servitude to the federal government of the United States.

And the biggest steaming pile of bullshit about Rangel's proposal- he claims that the United States is less likely to go to war with a draftee army than an all-volunteer army.

Starting January 3, Rangel will be chairman of the Ways and Means Committee- the one man in Congress who effectively determines who gets how much money and how high taxes are going to be. It can be said that the only persons with more power in the federal government would be the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States.

This isn't your tax dollars at work; this is YOU at work, without your consent and at the order of government bureaucrats.

So tell me, which was the lesser of the two evils again...?

Well, at least SOMEONE over there has a little sense...

Update on Rangel's proposed draft: incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that the Democratic Party in the House will not seek, nor does she herself support, a new universal draft as per Charles Rangel's proposal.

Find the actual quote towards the end of this article about the future in Iraq.

If I were Pelosi, I'd try to find some other person to chair Ways and Means... because you don't reward people who give you headaches like this by giving them more power.

Well, at least SOMEONE over there has a little sense...

Update on Rangel's proposed draft: incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that the Democratic Party in the House will not seek, nor does she herself support, a new universal draft as per Charles Rangel's proposal.

Find the actual quote towards the end of this article about the future in Iraq.

If I were Pelosi, I'd try to find some other person to chair Ways and Means... because you don't reward people who give you headaches like this by giving them more power.

... and we'd have a fine view of the forest if it weren't for all the damn trees.

Hussein trial "fundamentally unfair", says Human Rights Watch

Well, yes. But consider:

(1) Saddam Hussein's trial was conducted under the laws of Iraq as they were under his rule. Courtroom procedures, standards of evidence, etc. were as he had wanted them when he was in charge. Yes, these standards are probably unjust- but he's being hoist by his own petard here.

(2) Saddam Hussein deliberately sabotaged his own defense. By using his every appearance in the courtroom as an opportunity to give speeches denouncing the court, denouncing the American occupation, denouncing even his own defense attorneys on occasion, he made it impossible for his counsel to give any coherent defense. In America, the trial would have been declared a mistrial... and Hussein would not have been permitted into the courtroom on the retrial.

(3) Saddam Hussein's insurgent followers sabotaged Hussein's defense. By threatening everyone involved with the trial- including the people trying to defend the former dictator- the terrorist Sunni insurgents organized by former Baathist government members and military officers severely crippled any attempt anyone could have made at a fair trial.

(4) It is politically impossible for Hussein to be tried in any other fashion. Hussein must be tried by Iraqis. Otherwise- if Hussein is taken before the World Court or into American courts to face war crimes charges- any possible result short of settng Hussein free would be tainted by accusations of "victor's justice."

No, there's no hope of a fair trial for Saddam. There's also no doubt that he started two wars, ordered the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own subjects, and committed graft and peculation on a truly massive scale. There's further no doubt that Hussein is uninterested in any fair trial- either as defendant or as ruler.

And there's definitely no doubt, based on his past history, of what Hussein would do if he were ever set free. He's an ongoing threat to the lives and freedom of other people- a mass murderer on an appalling scale. He's the exact type of person that America retains the death penalty for. When the civil war in Iraq comes- which will be not later than one month after the final US withdrawal of occupation troops, probably a lot sooner- a live, imprisoned Hussein will in short order become a freed Hussein with the probability of returning to power. He is just too dangerous to risk his ever re-entering society again.

Fair trial? Probably not.

As fair as any trial he can ever get? Almost certainly.

Fair sentence? Oh yes, yes indeed.

... and we'd have a fine view of the forest if it weren't for all the damn trees.

Hussein trial "fundamentally unfair", says Human Rights Watch

Well, yes. But consider:

(1) Saddam Hussein's trial was conducted under the laws of Iraq as they were under his rule. Courtroom procedures, standards of evidence, etc. were as he had wanted them when he was in charge. Yes, these standards are probably unjust- but he's being hoist by his own petard here.

(2) Saddam Hussein deliberately sabotaged his own defense. By using his every appearance in the courtroom as an opportunity to give speeches denouncing the court, denouncing the American occupation, denouncing even his own defense attorneys on occasion, he made it impossible for his counsel to give any coherent defense. In America, the trial would have been declared a mistrial... and Hussein would not have been permitted into the courtroom on the retrial.

(3) Saddam Hussein's insurgent followers sabotaged Hussein's defense. By threatening everyone involved with the trial- including the people trying to defend the former dictator- the terrorist Sunni insurgents organized by former Baathist government members and military officers severely crippled any attempt anyone could have made at a fair trial.

(4) It is politically impossible for Hussein to be tried in any other fashion. Hussein must be tried by Iraqis. Otherwise- if Hussein is taken before the World Court or into American courts to face war crimes charges- any possible result short of settng Hussein free would be tainted by accusations of "victor's justice."

No, there's no hope of a fair trial for Saddam. There's also no doubt that he started two wars, ordered the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own subjects, and committed graft and peculation on a truly massive scale. There's further no doubt that Hussein is uninterested in any fair trial- either as defendant or as ruler.

And there's definitely no doubt, based on his past history, of what Hussein would do if he were ever set free. He's an ongoing threat to the lives and freedom of other people- a mass murderer on an appalling scale. He's the exact type of person that America retains the death penalty for. When the civil war in Iraq comes- which will be not later than one month after the final US withdrawal of occupation troops, probably a lot sooner- a live, imprisoned Hussein will in short order become a freed Hussein with the probability of returning to power. He is just too dangerous to risk his ever re-entering society again.

Fair trial? Probably not.

As fair as any trial he can ever get? Almost certainly.

Fair sentence? Oh yes, yes indeed.