Posted on 04/06/2005 5:46:06 AM PDT by Crackingham
Emiliano Santiago, an Oregon National Guardsman, finished his eight-year enlistment last June. But four months later the Army wanted to ship the Pasco resident to Afghanistan and reset his military termination date to Christmas Eve 2031. Santiago, 27, decided to take it to court.
His lawsuit, Santiago v. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, will be heard today in a special sitting of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle. It will be the highest court review of the Army's "stop-loss" policy, which affects about 14,000 soldiers nationwide. Of the 4,200 citizen soldiers in the state's 81st Brigade Combat Team, the deployments of 412 were extended through stop-loss, according to National Guard officials.
Santiago's legal battle has attracted national attention but is most loudly trumpeted by groups opposing the war, adding a political dimension to what his lawyer says is ultimately a case about fairness.
In November 2002, the Army implemented stop-loss to ensure reserve units ordered to active duty would not lose key personnel. Army attorneys say the law gives President Bush the ability to "suspend any provision of the law relating to promotion, retirement or separation" of any soldier who is deemed essential to national security in times of crisis.
Santiago, whose unit refuels helicopters, learned the Army had added 26 years to his enlistment. The date was selected for "administrative convenience," according to court papers. Most guardsmen extend their commitment from three to six years.
In legal briefs, Santiago's legal team blasted the Pentagon's policy.
"Conscription for decades or life is the work of despots. ... It has no place in a free and democratic society," the team wrote.
"If the government can break its promises to young men and women like Santiago, then the bedrock of our all-volunteer army — trust in the government's promises — will crumble."
"...the Army had added 26 years to his enlistment..."
WTF? That seems pretty bizarre to me, does the army always do stuff like this? Or is this left over from April 1?
The USA has had a draft for nearly every major war we have fought in...
But I do agree with Santiago, a contract is a contract, and Santiago would be in jail if he reneged on his end...
If it does not have any such clause, then the government might have an additional law that permits it to do the same, but such a law should have been mentioned in the contract with the soldier.
If it was not, then the soldier has a case. The decision to extend someone for decades is a bit ridiculous BECAUSE they clearly have no need to extend for that length in one fell swoop.
They over-reached, imho, and have made their case look bad by virtue of that over-reach.
There's a point at which a contract becomes so one sided that it's no longer a 'contract', it's a bill of sale for a slave. It seems to me that - if this report is true - that's the case here.
>>the Army had added 26 years to his enlistment. The date was selected for "administrative convenience," according to court papers.<<
I thought we were going to be in Iraq only to get the country stable - 26 years - seems real long???
Anyway this guy must have some real skills in refueling to be kept this long.
If you want to have alook at every crack-pot, socialist, Anti-American, terrorist loving website in the world, Google the following: "Emiliano Santiago" He is their new poster-boy.
That said, I smell something. The military can't add 25 years on a person's contract. Somebody screwed up somewhere. Emiliano Santiago must be a kick-a$$ soldier. Nobody else seems to have been involuntarily recruited for 25 years. I think the 25 years is a mistake. The stop-loss is nothing new, however. We were aware of it during GW1.
Sensible comment.
I wonder if we have heard ALL the facts.
Knowing the media, I somehow doubt it.
Right before the start of the Iraq war, my husband (and everyone in his brigade) was stop-lossed until 2030. The military chooses a very far-off date so that they can essentially keep you as long as they need you.
Stop-loss is nothing new, and it's not a secret. Every soldier, active duty, reserves, or NG, knows when he enlists that stop-loss is a possibility. It's written in the contract. He should have paid attention to the fine print before he signed.
The man enlisted in 1996. He had 4 months to go before his enlistment expired in 2004 and he was sent overseas. He appealed to the Federal Courts and the judge basically told him that because of the needs of the Government, his enlistment was good until December 2031.
I would think a skill like surgery, or computer technology would be something so necessary that the Military would invoke such a drastic measure. But refueling?
I don’t know about his situation. I know my dad and two of his brothers were officers/pilots in the Air Force and Navy. (Two in AF, one in Navy.)
Even though he retired at 40, my dad always claimed the AF could call him up pretty much any time they wanted. Literally until he was 60 or something.
Now granted, they’d have to be in pretty rough shape to do it – and can’t do it under any circumstances now. But he claimed that unless he resigned his commission that is the way it was.
It's pretty standard. They put it that far out because if they just extended you for a year and then still needed you they'd have to extend you again, etc. They'll cut the release date back and let him out when they don't need him anymore.
No fair being logical.
This is the problem for me:
"Emiliano Santiago, an Oregon National Guardsman, finished his eight-year enlistment last June. But four months later the Army wanted to ship the Pasco resident to Afghanistan and reset his military termination date to Christmas Eve 2031. "
He was already OUT of the military having served his entire term when they wanted to grab him again. That is simply not acceptable.
Believe it or not, yes this is considered 'normal'. I recently reenlisted indefinitely, so my contract 'expires' in 2038, when I am 60 years old.
You have it. Too often we sign contracts not knowing what they say or what they imply. All the same, the government is claiming too much. If it wants this much from him, then they should have the decency to call a national emergency sine die.
What is the statutory basis of this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.