I saw on 60 Minutes a guy who served a full 16 years, eventually retired, resigned his commission, and then five years later got a letter to report for duty. Another one on the program was disabled during his previous service, is in his fifties now, and was told he also has to report for duty although he was discharged due to his inability to run or lift more than 30 lbs, and another one on there was a 56 or 58 year old woman who completed her service in Vietnam and has been recalled.
That whole ‘so many years active and so many years out’ seems to mean squat. I’m wondering when my out-of-shape, obese, nearly 59 year-old, half blind, heart condition Vietnam Vet father will get a letter saying he has to show up. Of course I know what his reaction would be. He’d tell them to get fucked.
That’s the guy!
Seems like the military doesn’t give a damn what was in any contract, they’re going to grab as many bodies as they possibly can. Maybe after dadsix gets his letter, grandpasix will get one and they won’t take ‘He’s been dead for twelve years.’ as an excuse.
There’s winning and there’s winning. Even if there’s no chance of getting out based on the terms of their enlistment contracts, the existence of the suit itself is serving a purpose by informing the populace at large that stop-loss is happening. The inferences about how the war is going, and the likelihood of a front-door draft as well as this back-door one happening, are being made by people who might have been inclined to dismiss the problem before. Add that to such things as Rumsfeld’s comments that he hopes the troops can be withdrawn before the next election, the increased frequency of body-count reporting, and so forth and it may well be that some good will come of this effort, futile thought it may seem at first.
This isn’t a question of stop-loss, because that presupposes that the people we’re discussing are already on active duty. Stop-loss only affects people already actively serving.
No. It all depends upon the definition of the “duration” of the war. The war with Japan didn’t officially end until the San Francisco peace treaty which was in 1951 I think.
Any contract will have escape clauses in order to avoid disputes over what to do in case of unforseen, and unusual, circumstances. I’ll guarantee without ever reading one that the enlistment contract allows the government to pretty much do as it pleases in case of war or other national emergency.
I have a cousin who is a Navy recruiter. We didn’t get into the specifics, but I asked him about the stop-loss policy months ago, and how upset some people seem to be about it. “Well, they didn’t read the fine print,” was his terse reply. He only elaborated to say, “If they want to keep you, they’ll keep you. They’ll call up the discharged if they have to. There isn’t a damn thing these folks can do about it, because that’s what they signed up for, whether they were aware of it or not.” I’m guessing these guys, at best, have highly questionable recourse, and in all probability, do not have any. My cousin knows all the ins-and-outs regarding this stuff, and he dismissed objections to stop-loss out-of-hand. There must be some overpowering CYA language built into these contracts that can be summed up as “Extenuating circumstances give us the right to do whatever we please with you once you sign the papers.”
I don’t think this is accurate, cousin or not. I know I signed up for 8 years, and anyone who doesn’t know that when they sign is an idiot - it clearly states that a contract is for 8 years and it’s not even in fine print. I also know that Officers have different terms of contract than I did, but I wasn’t an officer so I can’t speak to that (perhaps someone else can).
What I do know, is that unless someone is currently on active duty and involuntartily extended or still under contract with the Individual Ready Reserve, the military has no right to force that individual into service. If someone is on active duty, you are right - they can legally stop-loss that person all to hell and back, and keep them for as long as they want. Same goes for IRR folks - if they are under contract, the military can call them back, regardless.
If the contract has expired, however, there is no way even the US military can make it still take effect, and they will loose civilian court cases if they try to make it so.
I have served my full 8 years, as per my contract, with honor and have been discharged. If they want to try to take me back they are going to have to come and get me, and I will fight as much as I am able. Because this is not legal treatment, this is press-ganging someone involuntarily into military service.
And I really feel pity for whichever commander or NCO they attempt to put over me, as they will definitely catch holy hell on a daily basis.
At least in my case, according to the Air Force Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, CO, who I just got off the phone with, I don’t even exist in their system so I am out out and not to be recalled.
It’s damn nice to be a private citizen, to be honest
IIRC, there is another legal argument against stop/loss and call ups from the Individual Ready Reserve that some soldiers are making, but was not mentioned in the article, to wit:
The national emergency was declared by Congress after 9/11, and specifically relates to the “war on terror.” It does not, the argument goes, therefore relate to the war in Iraq, for which Congress never declared a separate national emergency, and which is not part of the war on terror. Thus, stop/loss and IRR call-ups are legal if the soldier was going to be sent to Afghanistan, but not to Iraq.
I’ll try to find a link on this (not now, I’m going to lunch). IMO, this argument has a better chance than the contractual argument, if only because that legal argument sucks. Whether it would prevail… eh, probably not, but mebbe.
OK, I found an article, and it appears that the legal argument I mentioned in may last post is a bit more intriguing (and potentially more viable than I thought.
The gist is as follows: The Bush Administration is issuing stop/loss and IRR call-up orders on the basis of Executive Order 13223, issued on September 14, 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument is that E.O. 13223 is an invalid basis for the call-ups:
So there are two independent arguments here. First, the executive branch may not issue call-up orders without a declaration by Congress of the existence of a national emergency, which has not been done here (I was apparently wrong about that in my first post). Second, even if an Executive Order without Congressional action was sufficient, the Executive Order allowed for call-ups only to “respond to the contuing and immediate threat of further terrorist attacks,” which would not include the war in Iraq.
My take is that the first argument is pretty substantial. If the law indeed requires a Congressional declaration of a state of emergency before call-ups are allowed, and no such declaration has occurred, the call-ups look to be illegal.
OTOH, the second argument isn’t very good. The problem is that it would require a court to determine that the war in Iraq is unrelated to the war on terror. That is going to be a matter of opinion, and even if the Administration’s argument for a connection is weak, the courts traditionally defer to the executive on matters of military policy.
Only a slight hijack, but does anyone know how recruiting is going for the Reserves and National Guard? My guess would be its way down, since people can clearly see it’s more than one weekend a month and filling sandbags when the floods come.
And I’ll bet the sneaky bastards merely say in the enlistment disclosure that service shall be such and such and also be in accord with the Selective Service Act of 1948, the Uniform Military and Training and Service Act of 1951 and all applicable Executive Orders.
And what enlistee, of any age, is going to look up the references and any legal precedents concerning them?
But the policy is based on a federal statute that was not included in contracts signed by the soldiers when they enlisted. The lawsuit contends that that makes the policy a breach of contract because it extends soldiers’ length of service without their consent.
