Jan, Thanks for the response...
> http://www.rense.com/general52/fgult.htm I read the site, and it linked to a CNN story: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/29/mandatory.military/ Notice that the date on the CNN piece is 30 Dec '02. > A link to the article about the passed but yet > unsigned draft bill. I followed another link from the site to Congress.org: http://congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=S.89&congress=108 According to that site, a more complete summary of the bill is found at: http://congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=S.89&congress=108&size=full According to *that* page, the status of the bill as of 7 Jan '03 was that it was "Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services." So my question to you now is...where did you get the information that stated that this draft bill had been "passed"? Were you trying to say that it has been "passed" or agreed to by any legislative body? If so, which one? Or do you mean, "passed" in the sense of passing the sports section to the guy in the stall next to you? I'm just being facetious, and I really am genuinely interested to know where you're getting your information that this proposed legislation has been voted on and passed by legislative body. > Problems with electronic voting; FYI I'm familiar with some of the issues regarding electronic voting...what I'm not seeing is the connection between that and this draft issue you raised. Thanks, Harlan _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
