<< Front page News March 5, 2004

Draft isn’t what it used to be
Possibility of Iraq draft discussed in lecture

Executive director of the Center on Conscience and War J.E. McNeil gave a lecture titled “A Discussion of Conscientious Objection to War and the Specter of a New Draft” Friday as part of a two-day draft counselor training program. The program was organized by Oberlin Young Friends and sponsored by OPAL, the Oberlin chapter of the ACLU, the Office of Chaplains and the Oberlin Friends’ Meeting.

McNeil’s discussion focused on the rising possibility of a new draft and on alternatives for those who would seek to avoid it.

“Rumors from Congress state that the administration is polling Republican members on the possibility of a draft,” according to a Center on Conscience and War press release.

“The military will probably do targeted drafts of medical professionals, computer specialists and police officers before expanding it to the general population,” McNeil suggested.

Many options available during the Vietnam era are no longer viable. Educational deferments will no longer be applicable except to finish out the current semester or year for seniors. Canada has significantly tightened immigration requirements, and there is “not as much winking,” meaning that the Canadian government will no longer look the other way, McNeil explained.

Gender requirements that have traditionally been applied may no longer apply to a new draft either, McNeil said.

Congress must amend the Military Selective Service Act in order to initiate a draft and many of the more recently introduced bills that attempt to do so include women. In Rostker v. Goldberg (1981) the Supreme Court ruled that women could be excluded from the draft because Congress had “carefully considered” the matter and concluded that “since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy, men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft.” McNeil’s response to this ruling is that “Jessica Lynch has disproved that.”

Homosexuality is also very unlikely to work as a draft-avoidance tactic. McNeil believes the military applies the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy only when doing so serves its interests, such as providing an excuse to discharge an individual with past disciplinary problems.

Under the terms of the Military Selective Service Act, an individual “who, by reason of religious training or belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form” may be a Conscientious Objector (C.O.). The word “religious” includes moral and ethical beliefs, according to the Supreme Court decision in Welsh v. Tarr (1970). This does not include those who make a distinction between just and unjust wars, nor those who oppose participation in a war based on what McNeil called the “three P’spolitical, pragmatic or practical reasons.”

McNeil suggested that people who plan to apply for C.O. status in the event of a future draft begin to arrange for that possibility by preparing documentation of their eligibility, including answers to the questions on the application for C.O. exemption, because under one of the two possible draft timetables, eligible draftees would be notified only two weeks before mobilization (under the other timetable, there would be a six month lag time).

“You won’t want to be doing it then,” McNeil declared, “unless you work really well under pressure”

Students who wish to speak with a draft counselor on campus or to learn more about conscientious objection can email oyf@oberlin.edu or access the Center on Conscience and War website at www.nisbco.org.


 
 
   

The Review News Service: News, weather, sports and more, in your ObieMail every Sunday and Wednesday night. (Click here to subscribe.)