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."
Just another DNC plot by, scarykerry,dashole,fangledrangel,muddywaters, shrillary,ghostlypelosi,unlevined,unactionjackassason,and babysnorklekennedy.The usual suspects with their disruptive anti-american agenda.This must be halted and a example made of this individual. The communists want to see America fall, but it won't happen on our watch. Bush/Cheney 2004
FUBAR!
It's particularly nauseating that this fellow also uses as his excuse that the war in Iraq isn't justified. RIght, every enlisted man's opinion about the reasons for the war or the danger to the country are as valid as the President's.
Sounds like a real idiot.
I am just a 50 year old, dumb, white woman but I thought you are the property of the United States Government regardless of what branch of service you were in. Is it different for the Guard? Or the California Guard?
Does this have standing in a federal court? Asking because military justice is handled by the military, wondered if this is the same.
Can the federal court even take this case? If the federal court took this case and ruled in this guy"s favor, how would this stand on appeal because seems to me, dumb white woman I am, it would be infringing on the separation of powers by interfering with the President's request and the granting of that request by Congress to declare war or use military force.
At a news conference in San Francisco, Marguerite Hiken, a leader of the fiercely antiwar National Lawyers Guild Military Law Task Force,
IOW, more legal whores.
He's an adult. Someone who has been treated for post-traumatic stress syndrome should know better than re-enlist, knowing the possibility of deployment exists.
Sounds like he wanted something for nothing.
He should be proud of his prior service in Iraq, as we all are. My disgust has nothing to do with his prior service. It doesn't give him a free pass to escape obligations he was fully aware of.
"But the bottom line is whether a soldier's enlistment contract contains an explicit extension authorization or cites relevant law that grants extension authorization."
I heard a short analysis of his suit which indicated; the power to extend enlistment contracts need to be in either (1) a time of war (declared by Congress), or (2) in a time of 'national emergency' (again a formal declaration must exist), and that this extension is in violation of those particulars. I'm not sure about the contract specifics or the suit, I'm working on partial-at best information which is being filtered by both sides.
I would hope there is someone here that knows more about the specifics concerning the legal issues involved.
Suck it up, buttercup. You take the emperor's coin, you do the emperor's bidding.
Stop-loss has been used a number of times in the last few presidencies to my recollection. I was in Korea during Gulf War I, and stop-loss was in effect then for soldiers in the Gulf and in Korea.
Stop loss by specialty was used in Bosnia and Kosovo and also in the last few years up until now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
My guess is that it's used so often and so frequently because it's a legitimate authority. After all....Bosnia/Kosovo was absolutely not a national emergency by any stretch of the imagination.
I'd suggest we look at the Congressional authorization of Sep 18, 2001. I'm guessing there's more than enough ammunition there to keep anyone in service for an extended period of time.
Sounds like a crybaby to me, but it could just be he's sick of being in the military. Of course, he re-enlisted, so... he signed a contract of some type...
Tough call on this one.
One of Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" soldiers, perhaps?
It sounds like Mr. Doe needs some more experience moving holes.
Kerry/Edwards '04...vote for us or we'll sue you!
Whoops, tough shiite their buddy..
I hope your comment was in jest.
The guy put in 9 years active duty in the Army and Marines, then he enlists in the National Guards. Sounds like he served his time and his country. Why is the government breaking their contract? Sounds like he might have a case. You do have to have a signed contract right?
The guy put in 9 years active duty in the Army and Marines, then he enlists in the National Guards. Sounds like he served his time and his country. Why is the government breaking their contract? Sounds like he might have a case. You do have to have a signed contract right?
Gee, imagine that... Another Demorat traitor.
Yes, and when you sign a contract with the National Guard, it is the same type of contract. The oath is more inclusive, because it also includes allegiance to the state he signed on the dotted line for.
I.E. - My wife was in the Michigan Air National Guard for 21 years. She retired in August of 2001. She was the only person left in her position who knew anything about alert force procedures (since they disbanded most of the Northern Tier Alert missions). 9/11 happened and the second phone call she received was from her old boss - "Can you come out and help us?" She worked for nothing on 9-11. Worked as a civilian - for 1.5 years and finally un-retired. She helped her group rebuild their primary mission - with a rousing success. Anyway - if they wanted to - even though she had 21 years in, she could have been forced into un-retirement at the time - because of the papers she signed to retire.
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.