Reply
Tue 17 Aug, 2004 08:43 pm
Soldier Sues U.S. Military Over Extended Service
Aug 17, 4:15 PM (ET)
By Adam Tanner
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A decorated U.S. combat veteran filed a lawsuit on Tuesday asserting that the government can not prevent reservists from leaving the military when their enlistment periods end.
The suit against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other military officials, names the plaintiff only as John Doe. It says he served in the Marine Corps and Army for nine years on active duty and three years as a reservist.
"This lawsuit seeks to stop the forced retention of men and women who have fulfilled their service obligations," said attorney Michael Sorgen. "When their period of enlistment ends, they should be entitled to return to their families."
He called the suit the first of its kind.
The Army has issued "stop-loss" orders preventing tens of thousands of soldiers designated to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan from leaving the military if their volunteer service commitment ends during their deployment.
The Pentagon has relied heavily on reservists to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The order violates Doe's right to due process and the terms of his enlistment contract, and is contrary to law," the lawsuit reads. "The involuntary extension of Doe's military enlistment constitutes a serious infringement on his liberty protected by the Constitution."
The San Francisco-area man, who filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for Northern California, fought during the invasion of Iraq. Married with two young daughters, he is seeking a release from service when his Army National Guard term ends in December.
The suit names the plaintiff's commander as Capt. Kincy Clark, who heads Bravo Company of the First Battalion, 184th Infantry regiment based in Dublin, California. The unit reported for duty on Monday and is expected to train for several months before going to Iraq in February or March.
"We have some soldiers who are obviously not overjoyed about being deployed," Clark told Reuters by telephone. "I have had to look them in the eye and say 'hey, you are going."'
He added that reservists know when signing up that "stop loss" or extension of service is a possibility.
A spokesman for the California National Guard declined to comment.
The extension of service for U.S. soldiers has also become an issue in the presidential campaign.
"We will end the backdoor draft of the National Guard and reservists," John Kerry said in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in July.
The "stop loss" order means soldiers who otherwise could leave when their commitments expire will be compelled to remain until the end of a year-long overseas deployment and up to another 90 days after returning to their home base. Some may therefore be forced to remain in the military for months after they were scheduled to leave.
I think "nice try" but "deal with it."
Speaking as a veteran myself, it bugs me to hear people complain about the rules of the military for the reason stated in the article. You signed a contract understanding your responsibilities, commitment, and duty.
I felt horrible when I heard 40+ of my friends from 4ID at Fort Hood were held longer in Iraq and were held to the military due to stop-loss. Even more now that 1CAV has taken their place (my FI included). However, my friends who were DYING to get out ("tired of this crap," as they would say), they understood that the military needed them.
I don't think people understand how much it costs to train, prepare, deploy soldiers and their equipment. Then to attempt to switch out soldiers at a time of great need and/or in a middle of a mission that sometimes this "one" soldier (at the time) knows how to do.
Again, I understand the disappointment and frustration, but this should not blind someone towards reality. There are worse alternatives that I doubt the general public would want the government to use to get the manpower they need.
About time somebody did this.
As I remember my enlistment papers, my term of service was for a period of eight years (4 active, 4 reserve) but there was a little sentence that I recall ...
Eight years or longer as per the needs of the service. (Don't ask me the exact wording, I am trying to locate my 19 year old enlistment papers and will post the exact phrase when I locate them.)
I hope he wins. If he does then I'm gonna sue for the 6 months Clinton put me on Stop-loss.
I personally agree with most of the people in here. I am currently in the beautiful country of Iraq, participating in a war that I did not personally help start. But that fact of the matter is, the day that I was sworn into the United States Marine Corps, I knew that I had agreed to serve my country regardless of the risks or situations that may appear. So when a fellow service member decides that he doesn't like the the temperatures, and mortar attacks, or even being away from his family who eagerly await his homecoming,and then decides that he doesn't want to play anymore, all do respect to those reading this, but that's bullshit. Whenever any of us truly start feeling sorry for our selves and our situations, we only have to look to the man next to us to realize, that we, as individuals, aren't the only ones that have to withstand these hardships. We were not drafted by the government to come fight this war, we chose to ourselves. To speak personally, I have both a beautiful wife and a newborn son who are waiting for me back home. But under no circumstances would I EVER leave the men at my side now in order to do so.Not until the job is done. So just because a few men can't keep they're word as men, because they wish so badly to return home, doesn't mean that they're in the right. To myself, the unquestionably "right" thing to do, is to stay here( just like everyone else) to fight ( just as everyone else does), and above all else, to keep this man next to me alive as long as humanly possible (just like he will do for me). And I will do these things because when it finally does come time for me to leave, it won't be me by myself because I won a lawsuit, but it will be all of us because we each have earned.
_________________________________
- morning may be a long time coming, but eventually, it always gets here-
As I am a Vet also I agree with the you signed the papers, you knew what you were getting yourself into philosophy. However, I think the military would be better served if it would do what it takes to retain service members without resorting to a stop loss.
For example, instead of giving a $10,000 bonus to the kid who first enlists into a critical MOS, give it to the soldier who has been in that MOS for four + years and in his reelistment window. It seems to me it would be more of a motivating factor for that soldier to stay in the service.
Semper fi, you are the soul of the Corps.
When you hear folks back here crying and blaming all the ills of the world on America, know that those folks are the minority. You are doing what needs to be done. It is hard, but you are the best of us and can bear it. I believe you have the the best training and support possible today, and that your officers are mostly competent and as professional as you are.
Being in a combat zone is not fun, or glorious, but the brotherhood of arms is one of the closest our species is capable of. Be careful, and watch out for your buddies, we can't afford to lose you. Thank you for serving. I only wish we could pay you all what you are really worth to the nation.
RfromP, I like that idea of paying a $10,000 bonus to those in critical MOS who are overworked, underpaid and who must delay retirement that some have planned for years. We have in a few MOS's Sergeants who are effectively doing work of Captains.
I find it funny that the MAJORITY of those "in" the military know that they may gripe, but ultimately understand what their duty is, no matter the curveballs thrown.
However, the media and MANY of those who have NEVER served and know little about the military scream and protest "unfair" "support the whiner!"
This is just like "being gay in the military." MOST of my military friends (who have nothing against gays) understand WHY the military feels in time of war, having openly gay individuals will hurt the mission (and their own safety) than it would be beneficial.
These same military folks know that they have a CHOICE in joining and NO IDIOT signs unaware of the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy. If a gay individual does sign, they have NO REASON to openly gripe.
However, when this discussion is brought to other boards, it's in my experience, again a ...civilian vs. military debate. Wonder why... hmm. They defend this poor "victim." Pa-lease.
Why Republicans have to cast aspersions on dissenters, calling us "whiners" every time we get in a discussion, is one example of why discourse on these forums is not friendly. For every one calling me a whiner just because I don't fall into lock-step like a good little automaton - Phhtt! Razzberries to you.
I was in the military and I can truthfully say that freedom of thought for those in uniform is a myth. Even the dovish among them are far more hawkish than when they have been released from duty, or at least they are forced to act accordingly out of self protection. The administration has overextended the military through the quixotic quest for an Americanized middle east and now must face the music - instate a draft or simply hijack the ones who rightfully have earned the right to go home are the options, short of getting them out of Iraq. I believe they should honestly instate a draft if they are going to pursue this goal any further. It spreads the burden over the whole population, not just the ones already in uniform.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace