I'm a 45-year-old, disabled female who will be called to duty???

[frankly_fedup2]

(snip) Because of "The Universal National Service Act of 2003.

S89 in the Senate and HR163 in the house.

<http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr163.html>

In June, 2005, this administration (if reselected)plans to make every person between the ages of 18 and 49 in this country eligible for the "new" draft-no deferments, no exceptions. Those over 49 will be put to work (30 hours per week) in HOMELAND security on neighborhood watch, for anything that these folks think might be unnatural or suspicious. (end)

<http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/June/26%20o/In%20the%20Eye%20of%20the%20Storm%20By%20Jim%20Kirwan.htm>

I have but one question . . . how they gonna make me???? I don't think so Mr. Bush. This ALONE should turn Republicans against this administration. This sounds like Europe in the 1940's or something???

[richmwill]

1. Try to get me there, Bush...

I'll burn my draft card on the White House lawn if they try to draft me. I'm disabled, too- what good would I be, holding a gun in my wheelchair?

[skooooo]

2. only after alot of street riots...

...if it gets that bad, we won't even recognize this country anymore.

[jayavarman]

3. I'm certainly against a draft but . . . . is this for real? What's up?

You state that"In June, 2005, this administration (if reselected)plans to make every person between the ages of 18 and 49 in this country eligible for the "new" draft"

But when I clicked on your link to see whats up I see: "Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services."

Looks like it was sponsored, not by the administration, but by 6 Democratic representatives. . . .

What's up with this? Are they SERIOUS??

[eyesroll]

6. The idea behind this was to spread the burden, so people would think

twice before going to war in the first place, knowing their kids wouldn't be exempt. (I should add that these Dems know it'll never pass.)

I agree, bad idea, but it comes from the right place, at least.

[frankly_fedup2]

7. I didn't read it all. However, it had to be passed by the . . .

majority.

I do not even remember hearing anything about this. Do any of you???

More research is obviously needed here.

Sorry I had such a knee-jerk reaction to this article and posting the bill without reading it all. I just skimmed it.

Better dig a little deeper. Anybody else with any info???

[BiggJawn]

4. So what happens when I spend 30 hours a week...

Reporting local ReTHUGlicans and the Fundy church down the street for "suspicious activities"?

[eyesroll]

5. This info is wrong

Not that this is great, but SB 89 and HR 163 cover men and women, 18-26. The Al Jazeerah article is wrong (and I found no references, in a cursory search, anywhere for mandatory draft up to 49 and neighborhood watch for those over 49.)

In fact, the Orator link brings up the bills (which I verified through the Thomas server):

SB 89
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:@@@L&summ2=m&

HR 163
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@L&summ2=m&

Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense. Requires induction into national service by the President. Sets forth provisions governing: (1) induction deferments, postponements, and exemptions, including exemption of a conscientious objector from military service that includes combatant training; and (2) discharge following national service.

Amends the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the military registration of females.

[kiahzero]

8. That's not the real Al Jazeera

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

[eyesroll]

10. Yikes -- I didn't even notice that.

Yet another problem with the info. Thanks.

[eaprez]

9. Thats not correct.

I don't see that in HR163 (haven't read S89 yet....Here is the link to Congressional Bills for that session:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/BillBrowse.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&wrapperTemplate=BillBrowse_wrapper.html&billtype=hr

[hughee99]

11. I guess now

we are seeing the downside to the Americans with Disabilities Act...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

12. Incorrect information. The bill currently states an age range of 18-26...

...but the head of the Selective Service System has recommended that the high end of the range be increased to 34.

The first link you posted is a correct link to the correct content of H.R.163...this bill is in committee in the House. The identical Senate bill, S.89, is also in committee in the Senate.

The second link is bogus as is the information you posted from that site.