Well, okay, maybe I’m exaggerating… but why bother with a draft when the U.S. Government seems to think it owns every citizen who’s ever served in the military, no matter how long ago?
This is just flat-out WRONG.
This sounds more like a bureaucratic snafu than anything else.
Yes, it sounds like a clerical foul-up. On the other hand, last go round I was enlisted (Spec 5). Now with a degree and all, maybe I can be a General? Scary thought. :eek:
When you are a commissioned officer, you remain an officer unless you officially resign the commission. That’s the contract that he signed. I see no issue here.
:rolleyes:
Haj
Sure it is, but the thought of a swiftboat vet reunioun tour on the Euphrates has a certain appeal. It’d give those codgers one last chance to earn their purple hearts.
If it’s a SNAFU then why is the Army defending the suit?
That was my thought. If I realized my department was responsible for this kind of craziness, I’d drop it like a hot piranha, lest it get into the news.
Too late now.
From here:
Miyasato enlisted straight out of high school and is dsecribed in the article as having “served as an Army petroleum supply specialist and a truck driver during the war.”
They may be using “specialist” in the generic sense, but my guess is we’re talking about an actual enlisted-level “specialist”. I have seen nothing in any article that says he was an officer.
So, do you think it’s OK for enlisted men to be slaves forever? Did they sign a contract saying that?
No, their contract does not say that.
Of course not. I read an article about this last night and thought it said he was an officer. If he’s was enlisted, it definitely does not apply. My mistake.
Haj
bnorton: This sounds more like a bureaucratic snafu than anything else.
According to the article, it is part of a procedure apparently called “involuntary activation”:
I guess the “involuntarily” part applies to the soldiers, not to the Army, who are presumably doing this on purpose. In any case, activating Reserve members who still have contractual obligations to the military is one thing, but Miyasoto doesn’t seem to be in that category.
Another thing that bothered me was the tone of Miyasoto’s lawsuit:
WTF?!? If he’s not contractually obligated to the military, who cares what he thinks about the war or whether his going to Iraq would be a hardship for his family? ISTM that all he should have to say is “I don’t want to and you can’t make me.” If the guy served his country and fully discharged his military obligations, then he doesn’t owe us or the Army any excuses for not returning to the service.
If there’s any kind of expectation that ex-servicepeople should let themselves be shanghaied into extra service above and beyond the terms of their contracts just because the military could use them…well, it’s not slavery, but it sure as hell is not in keeping with the idea of a volunteer military.
I really doubt there is any such expectation. Given the sheer amount of people who’ve been in and out of the military, it speaks well for the “system” that out of all of them, there has only been this one screw-up. It will probably be settled real fast. Don’t start looking for press gangs yet.
Well, my complaint was not that I thought he was actually going to be pressed to serve, but that the wording of his lawsuit implies that he owes the Army some kind of excuse (“my family and business would suffer”) for refusing to do something that he’s got absolutely zero obligation to do.
You’re right. He does not owe any excuses or reasons to anyone. He has nothing to apologize for.
Just 'cause we’ve only heard about this one doesn’t mean there haven’t been others. From the link i provided in my last post:
IANAL etc. but in taking paralegal courses and learnign how to write these things, part of what we learned was to throw in everything and see what sticks. If the “I fulfilled my contract” argument doesn’t fly then the “hardship” argument might. There is also the PR aspect to consider. “I support the war but this would destroy my family’s lives” plays better in the court of public opinion than “I don’t support this war.”
Are there any other reports of this happening?
Well, the quote posted by mhendo says there are 4,166 ex-soldiers who received mobilization orders in July and 843 of them didn’t show. Presumably 3,323 ex-soldiers are either involuntarily back in the service or embroiled in their own legal battle.
This article, appears to be on the same batch of people, 1/3 of Fmr Soldiers Fail to Report to Duty and this one, 843 ex-soldiers fail to report for Army duty. I can’t find any other cases, was this the first group of ex-soldiers brought back into active status?
Slate did an explainer column on the Individual Ready Reserve a while back. From their explanation, it sounds like this guy is free and clear.