Posted on 08/18/2004 3:35:17 AM PDT by dread78645
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 17 - A member of the California Army National Guard filed suit in federal court here Tuesday challenging the Bush administration's so-called stop-loss policy, asserting that his pending deployment to Iraq "bears no relation to the threat of terrorism against the United States."
Under stop-loss, military personnel can be prevented from leaving the armed forces upon completing their enlistment terms. The plaintiff in this case, identified as John Doe to protect his privacy, is believed to be the first soldier to challenge the legality of the policy's application to deployment in Iraq.
The soldier is described in the suit as a sergeant from the San Francisco Bay Area who completed more than nine years of active service in the Army and the Marine Corps, including combat duty last year in Iraq. He then joined the California Army National Guard last December, the suit says, under a program that allows veterans to enlist for one year. On July 6, however, he was informed that his enlistment had been extended by two years and that his unit was mobilizing for duty in Iraq, the suit says.
"Doe's active-duty service kept him separated from his family for extended periods, and his service in Iraq has caused him to suffer post-traumatic stress syndrome," the suit states. "Doe's return to civilian life has allowed him to re-establish his family life and to attempt to recover from this combat trauma."
Since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Army has invoked stop-loss to extend the tours of more than 45,000 soldiers. Opponents have criticized the policy as a "back-door draft,'' while military officials say it allows them to keep units together for the sake of cohesion instead of incorporating transfers or recruits.
A spokesman for the California National Guard said the unit at issue in the suit was mobilized on Monday in Dublin, Calif., near San Francisco, and was expected to be deployed to Iraq after six months of training in Texas. (The plaintiff has been temporarily excused from the training, the suit says, because of his treatment for post-traumatic stress syndrome.)
The spokesman, Lt. Col. Doug Hart, declined to comment on the suit but did defend the stop-loss policy.
"The option is put into law so that the military can provide national security," Colonel Hart said. "This is something that Congress has approved, and it is a tool that the president and the military can use if they need to."
But the suit asserts that President Bush's executive order of Sept. 14, 2001, which authorized the deployment of Reserve and National Guard troops to active duty, was intended to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States resulting from a "continuing and immediate threat." The suit says the change of government in Iraq removed the threat there.
"Iraq no longer poses any threat of terrorism against the United States, if it ever did," the petition states. "In March of 2003, the United States led an invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power."
At a news conference in San Francisco, Marguerite Hiken, a leader of the fiercely antiwar National Lawyers Guild Military Law Task Force, said the stop-loss program was a major source of phone calls from unhappy and despondent soldiers to her organization's hot line.
"Are the number of calls increasing? Yes," Ms. Hiken said. "Are they more intense? Yes."
Michael S. Sorgen, a lawyer for the plaintiff, described him as "very loyal, patriotic and brave." But, Mr. Sorgen said, he wants to remain anonymous because "there might be some people who see this wrongly as an unpatriotic act."
Having served 20 years active duty and spending a year in Viet Nam...I find it hard to feel too much sympathy for this guy!
Unbelievable. Excuse me while I go toss.
When you enlist, the fact that Uncle Sam can retain or deploy or reactivate you anytime through the 4 years of inactive reserve, and in emergency may call up those it discharged. My enlistment papers said something to that effect. But this guy thinks he's something special and of course the lawyers came running.
My idea is --OK. Let him go home. BUT FIRST: he has to pay back all the money the DoD spent on his sorry behind. All of it.
And the lawyers can pound sand.
A former Marine?....what a dumba$$...why did he join the Guard!!....
We're already familiar with how the left gains its objectives today through adjudication rather than the legislative process.
Leni
He knew what he was getting into.
I have never understood these people either. I was only in seven and a half years during the seventies and I didn't have any combat service. The thing is that my name was on the contract and I held my hand up and took the oath of enlistment. When you do that you have accepted what comes down in your orders "No Arguing". The ones that really get me are the ones that want college money and don't think they may ever have to pay anything back for it. The good part of this is those wonderful people serving in Iraq now who get wounds that would bring them home and they say "No I'm Staying". God Bless the Best of the Best and tell the whiners to shove off.
The real source of the problem. Find a soldier with a bitch (easy) and capitalize on it. Follow the money and the agenda. It's Bush's fault.
Lawyers are the scourge of the earth.
He doesen't owe us anything. He's the one that enlisted and took the oath of enlistment like myself and many others have!
I'm just a bit baffled by this story - although I'm not that familiar with the US military so I'm wondering if there's something I'm not getting here.
Look... I can understand the guy to an extent. I served in my own country's military for over twenty years, and if I found myself called to service again, I'd be rather annoyed - I'd go, of course, but I can understand why the guy might be upset.
But what's baffling me is why he joined the California Army National Guard. If he felt he'd already done his duty and shouldn't have to go back again, why would he have done that?
Is there some esoteric reason that somebody might have done this?
I imagine all was well in his world while he was taking the paycheck for "one weekend a month, two weeks a year" and planning for that nice retirement check. However, now that the commitment has come he wants out. And in America, if you want out of a commitment you find a lawyer and sue.
Gag!
Everyone wants to live in America, but no one wants to pay the rent.
Unless this guys enlistment has expired, and the President has the authority to extend it, he is under contract to serve at the will of the Commander in Chief. He signed the papers, he got the bennefits, he has to pay the price. And to directly answer your question, he took my tax money and yes, he still owes me.
HOORAAAHHHHH
I don't think he owes "us" anything. But the contract he signed says that he may be called back to duty, or even kept from leaving in times of National Defense needs. "The Many outweigh the needs of the few or the one"
But the bottom line is whether a soldier's enlistment contract contains an explicit extension authorization or cites relevant law that grants extension authorization.
If so, then, tough luck. You signed it.
If it doesn't, then this man should be permitted to exit service. Congress then should pass laws granting that extension authorization because it is in the national interest for the President to have that authority to keep units together or keep certain skills in time of war or other crisis.
The guy signed an enlistment contract in the reserves. Such contract allows the government to call you for the duration. Period.
In case you want to know about benefits/rewards of this contract, the guy stayed in the reserves because after 10 years active duty, with 10 years in the reserves and he can retire and draw pay and benefits at age 62.
I presume he went to a doctor who was (prescribed by his lawyer.) PTSD, many soldiers I know have had it and recovered, including myself. This individual should hang his head in disgrace, but probably is a democrat. Our retirement checks come in handy each month for not being a quitter like this clown/fool. I know!! he forgot the meaning of, Duty, Honor and Country. Everyone likes a winner and no one likes a quitter.Bush/Cheney 2004
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.