5 ms·

Automatic registration for US Military draft to begin in December

70 points by c420 6mo ago

ehasbrouck 6mo ago
This article takes for granted the success of this attempt to "automagically" identify and locate all potential draftees, and doesn't mention the practical difficulties, the opposition, or the legislative alternatives. Here's why this won't work and is such a bad idea, and why dozens of organizations have already issued a joint call to "repeal* the Military Selective Service Act instead of trying to step up preparations for a draft: https://hasbrouck.org/draft/automatic/ https://hasbrouck.org/draft/automatic/ and
superkuh 6mo ago
Automatic registration means young adults will not have the consciously confront the possibility. This will certainly decrease the number of people establishing the paper trail that they are contentious objectors.
- loloquwowndueo 6mo ago
  * conscientious, not contentious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector
- linkregister 6mo ago
  Conscientious objectors represent an exceptionally small proportion of the population as it is.
- halJordan 6mo ago
  The overwhelming majority of registrations are automatic through drivers licensing. It's well proven that a significant portion of men who are registered don't even know there is selective service
Aboutplants 6mo ago
I still don’t understand why, if they are having trouble with recruitment, they simply won’t raise the pay to entice more recruits? We have a seemingly unlimited budget for bombs but god forbid you pay for smart, qualified people willing to actually do the work. It is as simple as that and not anymore complicated
- chneu 6mo ago
  Because that isn't how a conservative free market works.
- linkregister 6mo ago
  This selective service policy change is unrelated to any prospective or ongoing military operations. Enlisted personnel typically out-earn civilian counterparts when tax-free allowances are accounted. Officers have accepted comparably low pay for the history of the U.S. armed services. Cited reasons include prestige, networking opportunities, and as a distant third, sense of duty to nation.
  - kstrauser 6mo ago
    > Enlisted personnel typically out-earn civilian counterparts when tax-free allowances are accounted. Citation heavily needed. When I was a junior non-com, my civilian colleagues made way more than I did, even including the (quite nice) military benefits, even when ignoring the fact that 80 hour workweeks are commonplace on deployment.
    - bryanlarsen 6mo ago
      Did you calculate pension benefits? That military pension should be worth millions since you can start earning it young in life and it's based on your highest pay during the career.
      - kstrauser 6mo ago
        It ought to be worth millions, given that you work your tail off, for significant less pay, and get that pay instead of the civilian 401(k) you could have. Let's look at an E-9 Master Chief, the highest enlisted rank. Their basic pay is $9267 a month[0]. If they're in for 30 years, and get the High-36 retirement plan[1], then they get 75% of that — $6950/mo — afterward. That's certainly not chump change. However, the kind of person with the drive, leadership skills, political savvy, and work ethic to become a Master Chief would rise to least a director or VP, or a senior VP, at a civilian company. So yes, their military retirement's quite good, but at a substantial opportunity cost. To be super clear, my main argument is that the military should earn more, especially for the sheer amount of work they put in. They earn it. [0] https://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/charts https://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/charts [1] https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Retirement/ https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Retirement/
owlninja 6mo ago
> But former President Jimmy Carter in 1980 reinstated the Selective Service in the event of a “national emergency,” where the registry could be used to “provide personnel to the Department of War and alternative service for conscientious objectors, if authorized by the President and Congress.” Department of Defense*
- lfuller 6mo ago
  I found that strange as well. Who were they quoting, given that the Department of War hasn’t existed since 1947 and as far as I know Jimmy Carter didn’t pretend that it still did.
  - PolygonSheep 6mo ago
    Is it just me or did the US get into a lot more foreign conflicts after they swapped "War" for "Defense" in the name?
    - jfengel 6mo ago
      Depends on the term. Things had been kinda quiet for the last couple of decades. We continue involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan but didn't start new ones. We even pulled out of those by five years ago. So yes, definitely, we did a lot more warring with the Department of War. Longer term, the "Department of Defense" got into an awful lot of wars from its name change in 1947. The Department of War might have more wars on a per-day basis in its short time under that name, but not a lot more. But really, the answer to your question is "yes". We decided we wanted to do a lot more war, and we branded the department to go along with it. I'd be really grateful if it stopped.
- frugalmail 6mo ago
  It was historically called "Department of War" then renamed to "Department of Defense" and of course, recently reverted to the original name.
  - Spooky23 6mo ago
frugalmail 6mo ago
I'm for this, but what happened to equal rights? What about women?
- ehasbrouck 6mo ago
  The way to make women ad men equal with respect to the draft is to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, as supported by many feminists: https://hasbrouck.org/draft/repeal.html https://hasbrouck.org/draft/repeal.html More on what femninists say about the dratt and draft registration: https://hasbrouck.org/draft/women/feminism.html https://hasbrouck.org/draft/women/feminism.html
  - tbrownaw 6mo ago
    That's one possible approach, sure. If you're willing to blindly trust the unknown future to be fundamentally kind and uncontended.
- khuey 6mo ago
  There was a lawsuit about the constitutionality of only requiring men to register back during the first Trump administration that won at the District Court level but lost on appeal in the Fifth Circuit. SCOTUS declined to take the case at the time because Congress was considering changing the Selective Service System. Then Congress ultimately did nothing, and the same people are now suing the government again in a different circuit.
- fiddeert 6mo ago
  It was always about all of men's privileges (on top of their own), and none of men's accountability.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
jjmarr 6mo ago
If you're a man that didn't sign up between 18 and 25, you permanently lose student aid in most states along with federal employment eligibility. Some even ban getting a driver's license. In practice, it's young men of lower socioeconomic statuses that are failing to register. This is due to lack of knowledge or presence in the system more than conscientious objection. e.g. Prison or being homeless. Many choose to get their life together in their late 20s and 30s, only to find out they can't get job training or student aid. These are legislatively mandated penalties and cannot be unilaterally removed by the current administration. There's no clause for late signups outside of that window. The only way out is to prove that you didn't know, which is difficult. There's about 40,000 people a year requesting the paperwork to appeal their loss of benefits. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/02/failing-register-draft-women-court-consequences-men/3205425002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/02/failin...
- ehasbrouck 6mo ago
  The burden of proof is on the government to prove that any violation of the Military Selective service Act was "knowing and willful". That's almost impossible without a public confession, signature on a registered letter, or testimony of an FBI agent who served an order or notice to register or report for induction. According to the Federal Office of Personnel Management, only 1% of cases of nonregistrants adjudicated by OPM result in denial of Federal employment. Almost everyone who appealed a denial got their job restored: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-02-07/pdf/2024-02402.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-02-07/pdf/2024-0...
  - linkregister 6mo ago
    Empirically, administrative hurdles are successful at reducing benefits claims rates. Florida found that understaffing their unemployment offices led to steep drops in unemployment benefits claims. The conclusion is only the most desperate people will tenaciously pursue benefits. Most will self-fund. The merits of such a system do exist. However, the public will withdraw political support for benefits if the number of covered individuals is very low.
worik 6mo ago
And it comes around again. Constant war is great (yea, nah) when you're winning. https://youtu.be/WOo13RnfaMc?si=zq58NDqm-9rdXHlL&t=17 https://youtu.be/WOo13RnfaMc?si=zq58NDqm-9rdXHlL&t=17
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
rascul 6mo ago
Conscription is slavery.
- clipsy 6mo ago
  This checks out: all the confederate flag wavers view conscription just like they view slavery: it's great when it happens to someone else.
bdangubic 6mo ago
just follow the Commander-in-Chief and get yourself some bone spurts - problem solved

70 points by c420 6mo ago

This article takes for granted the success of this attempt to "automagically" identify and locate all potential draftees, and doesn't mention the practical difficulties, the opposition, or the legislative alternatives. Here's why this won't work and is such a bad idea, and why dozens of organizations have already issued a joint call to "repeal* the Military Selective Service Act instead of trying to step up preparations for a draft: https://hasbrouck.org/draft/automatic/ https://hasbrouck.org/draft/automatic/ and

superkuh 6mo ago

Automatic registration means young adults will not have the consciously confront the possibility. This will certainly decrease the number of people establishing the paper trail that they are contentious objectors.

loloquwowndueo 6mo ago
* conscientious, not contentious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector
linkregister 6mo ago
Conscientious objectors represent an exceptionally small proportion of the population as it is.
halJordan 6mo ago
The overwhelming majority of registrations are automatic through drivers licensing. It's well proven that a significant portion of men who are registered don't even know there is selective service

Aboutplants 6mo ago

I still don’t understand why, if they are having trouble with recruitment, they simply won’t raise the pay to entice more recruits? We have a seemingly unlimited budget for bombs but god forbid you pay for smart, qualified people willing to actually do the work. It is as simple as that and not anymore complicated

chneu 6mo ago
Because that isn't how a conservative free market works.
linkregister 6mo ago
This selective service policy change is unrelated to any prospective or ongoing military operations. Enlisted personnel typically out-earn civilian counterparts when tax-free allowances are accounted. Officers have accepted comparably low pay for the history of the U.S. armed services. Cited reasons include prestige, networking opportunities, and as a distant third, sense of duty to nation.
- kstrauser 6mo ago
  > Enlisted personnel typically out-earn civilian counterparts when tax-free allowances are accounted. Citation heavily needed. When I was a junior non-com, my civilian colleagues made way more than I did, even including the (quite nice) military benefits, even when ignoring the fact that 80 hour workweeks are commonplace on deployment.
  - bryanlarsen 6mo ago
    Did you calculate pension benefits? That military pension should be worth millions since you can start earning it young in life and it's based on your highest pay during the career.
    - kstrauser 6mo ago
      It ought to be worth millions, given that you work your tail off, for significant less pay, and get that pay instead of the civilian 401(k) you could have. Let's look at an E-9 Master Chief, the highest enlisted rank. Their basic pay is $9267 a month[0]. If they're in for 30 years, and get the High-36 retirement plan[1], then they get 75% of that — $6950/mo — afterward. That's certainly not chump change. However, the kind of person with the drive, leadership skills, political savvy, and work ethic to become a Master Chief would rise to least a director or VP, or a senior VP, at a civilian company. So yes, their military retirement's quite good, but at a substantial opportunity cost. To be super clear, my main argument is that the military should earn more, especially for the sheer amount of work they put in. They earn it. [0] https://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/charts https://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/charts [1] https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Retirement/ https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Retirement/

owlninja 6mo ago

> But former President Jimmy Carter in 1980 reinstated the Selective Service in the event of a “national emergency,” where the registry could be used to “provide personnel to the Department of War and alternative service for conscientious objectors, if authorized by the President and Congress.” Department of Defense*

lfuller 6mo ago
I found that strange as well. Who were they quoting, given that the Department of War hasn’t existed since 1947 and as far as I know Jimmy Carter didn’t pretend that it still did.
- PolygonSheep 6mo ago
  Is it just me or did the US get into a lot more foreign conflicts after they swapped "War" for "Defense" in the name?
  - jfengel 6mo ago
    Depends on the term. Things had been kinda quiet for the last couple of decades. We continue involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan but didn't start new ones. We even pulled out of those by five years ago. So yes, definitely, we did a lot more warring with the Department of War. Longer term, the "Department of Defense" got into an awful lot of wars from its name change in 1947. The Department of War might have more wars on a per-day basis in its short time under that name, but not a lot more. But really, the answer to your question is "yes". We decided we wanted to do a lot more war, and we branded the department to go along with it. I'd be really grateful if it stopped.
frugalmail 6mo ago
It was historically called "Department of War" then renamed to "Department of Defense" and of course, recently reverted to the original name.
- Spooky23 6mo ago

frugalmail 6mo ago

I'm for this, but what happened to equal rights? What about women?

ehasbrouck 6mo ago
The way to make women ad men equal with respect to the draft is to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, as supported by many feminists: https://hasbrouck.org/draft/repeal.html https://hasbrouck.org/draft/repeal.html More on what femninists say about the dratt and draft registration: https://hasbrouck.org/draft/women/feminism.html https://hasbrouck.org/draft/women/feminism.html
- tbrownaw 6mo ago
  That's one possible approach, sure. If you're willing to blindly trust the unknown future to be fundamentally kind and uncontended.
khuey 6mo ago
There was a lawsuit about the constitutionality of only requiring men to register back during the first Trump administration that won at the District Court level but lost on appeal in the Fifth Circuit. SCOTUS declined to take the case at the time because Congress was considering changing the Selective Service System. Then Congress ultimately did nothing, and the same people are now suing the government again in a different circuit.
fiddeert 6mo ago
It was always about all of men's privileges (on top of their own), and none of men's accountability.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]

jjmarr 6mo ago

If you're a man that didn't sign up between 18 and 25, you permanently lose student aid in most states along with federal employment eligibility. Some even ban getting a driver's license. In practice, it's young men of lower socioeconomic statuses that are failing to register. This is due to lack of knowledge or presence in the system more than conscientious objection. e.g. Prison or being homeless. Many choose to get their life together in their late 20s and 30s, only to find out they can't get job training or student aid. These are legislatively mandated penalties and cannot be unilaterally removed by the current administration. There's no clause for late signups outside of that window. The only way out is to prove that you didn't know, which is difficult. There's about 40,000 people a year requesting the paperwork to appeal their loss of benefits. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/02/failing-register-draft-women-court-consequences-men/3205425002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/02/failin...

ehasbrouck 6mo ago
The burden of proof is on the government to prove that any violation of the Military Selective service Act was "knowing and willful". That's almost impossible without a public confession, signature on a registered letter, or testimony of an FBI agent who served an order or notice to register or report for induction. According to the Federal Office of Personnel Management, only 1% of cases of nonregistrants adjudicated by OPM result in denial of Federal employment. Almost everyone who appealed a denial got their job restored: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-02-07/pdf/2024-02402.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-02-07/pdf/2024-0...
- linkregister 6mo ago
  Empirically, administrative hurdles are successful at reducing benefits claims rates. Florida found that understaffing their unemployment offices led to steep drops in unemployment benefits claims. The conclusion is only the most desperate people will tenaciously pursue benefits. Most will self-fund. The merits of such a system do exist. However, the public will withdraw political support for benefits if the number of covered individuals is very low.

worik 6mo ago

And it comes around again. Constant war is great (yea, nah) when you're winning. https://youtu.be/WOo13RnfaMc?si=zq58NDqm-9rdXHlL&t=17 https://youtu.be/WOo13RnfaMc?si=zq58NDqm-9rdXHlL&t=17

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

rascul 6mo ago

Conscription is slavery.

clipsy 6mo ago
This checks out: all the confederate flag wavers view conscription just like they view slavery: it's great when it happens to someone else.

bdangubic 6mo ago

just follow the Commander-in-Chief and get yourself some bone spurts - problem solved