From Draft NOtices, January-March 2012
— Rodrigo de la Rosa
Throughout history, human lives have been improved by technology in many ways. Tools facilitated hunting, the wheel increased the speed of travel, and the industrial revolution greatly increased the production of goods. Thanks to globalization, we now have ease of communication throughout the world via cell phones, computers and the Internet. Because of these desirable improvements, we tend to believe that more technology makes a country superior to others — for example, a first-world country has more advanced technology than third-world countries. No matter where we live, people enjoy the benefits that technology has brought us. But while we look at technology in a positive manner, we should also take into consideration some negative ways in which it has been employed.
One of these is the increasingly widespread use of automated machinery. It was first primarily used for manufacturing such products as cloth, automobiles, washing machines and sealing products. It has greatly increased the efficiency of production and has saved money for companies because fewer workers are needed. As our technology expands, automated machinery has spread into other sectors such as educational institutions, hospitals and the military. Automated warfare is now a key component of the U.S. military, with its new line of unmanned war machines like the Predator, armed with hellfire missiles, or the ATVs that are loaded with heavy-duty firearms and missile launchers.
Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD)
- Rick Jahnkow
- Articles Archive
- Hits: 2593
Counter-recruitment and School Demilitarization Activism: From Past Victories to the Challenges Ahead
From Draft NOtices, January-March 2012
— Rick Jahnkow
Counter-recruitment and school demilitarization work in the U.S. has gone through several cycles of expansion and contraction during the last few decades. The first expansion was during the early 1980s when it was supported by a small number of national organizations, such as the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), War Resisters League, Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO) and National Lawyers Guild. Most grassroots activities at the time were carried out by chapters of these organizations and a number of independent community peace groups (including COMD and, eventually, Project YANO).
Many counter-recruitment organizers in the 1980s came from the Vietnam-era anti-draft movement, so it was common for them to include draft counseling information as they also worked to counter the presence of military recruiters in schools. This dual emphasis was encouraged by the return of Selective Service registration in 1980 and the government’s various efforts to coerce young men into compliance. Frequently, organizers saw no distinction between the issues of recruiting and Selective Service registration, which had both positive and negative consequences. It was positive in the sense that fear of a possible return to the draft fueled more youth-focused organizing and helped increase awareness of recruiting and militarism in schools. But on the negative side, the frequent focus on Selective Service kept many activists from fully comprehending that economics had become the primary factor driving the militarization of young people, and that draft counseling was not an effective approach to the problem. Another negative consequence was that as concern about conscription diminished in the late 1980s, the overall level of counter-recruitment work also fell considerably.
From Draft NOtices, October—December 2011
—Kathy Gilberd
On September 20, lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) service members and veterans, as well as their many supporters, held parties and events around the country to commemorate the official repeal of the military’s policy commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). Just what is the impact of this change?
DADT was the latest in a long line of policies prohibiting homosexual conduct (in reality, prohibiting homosexuals) in the military. DADT was itself a small victory, since it (1) prevented military officials from asking about military members’ sexual orientation without cause and (2) allowed LGB members to serve as long as they were silent about their orientation. The policy reduced the number of anti-gay witch-hunts and mass investigations that had accompanied prior policies, and also reduced the number of involuntary discharges. But DADT allowed members to be discharged for simply stating that they were gay, or using words or even gestures to that effect. In addition, homosexual acts and marriages were grounds for discharge under DADT, and the policy was so broadly defined that even a kiss or hug was often sufficient for discharge. Under this policy more than 13,000 service members were discharged.
The repeal of DADT means that service members may be open about their sexual orientation, coming out to their co-workers or chains of command. They may marry (in states where that is permitted) and may be open about their partners, even bringing them to military events. Romantic and sexual activity should only be penalized, in theory, if the same heterosexual conduct is prohibited. Because of the “Defense of Marriage Act,” however, many spousal benefits will be unavailable to the partners of LGB soldiers; the Pentagon says that some benefits issues are still being worked out. Harassment of LGB soldiers, though not clearly defined, is not to be accepted — offenders will be told that their conduct is not appropriate. The repeal is unclear about disciplinary action to be taken against harassers.
Ninth CIRCUIT COURT RULING: CONFRONTING MILITARISM BY USING EQUAL ACCESS TO HIGH SCHOOLS
When the military comes to your local high school, you have a legal right to give students an opposing view. This has been the position taken by federal district courts in Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois and two federal appellate courts. The most broadly-worded decision came from a case that COMD took to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1980s. Here is the background:
