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."
Stop-loss used to be called "the duration plus six months".
This guy needs to suck it up and drive on. When you raise your right hand and do solemnly swear, your @ss belongs to Uncle Sam. Remember what US Army stands for? Uncle Sam Ain't Released Me Yet.
I was caught up in stop-loss in Korea in GW 1 too. I landed up doing two years there, at Camp Hovey. I liked it.
roger...he needs to dial 1-800-wha-aaaa- I was up at Pelham when you were at Hovey...good duty there, too...
He would know his tour and length of service is at the pleasure of the president. Joining the Guard and then finding some terms and conditions of service unacceptable reveals his primary motive to join was to collect the extra check and eventually receive a nice retirement---not serve his country.
Now when his country needs him, he whines?
No sir, he owes us his quiet service.
If he was not prepared to deploy for gawd-knows-how-long, he should have resigned.
This whiner rolled the dice and found serving for himself was trumped by service for country.
We were there together. I was at Casey, same time.
"We were there together. I was at Casey, same time."
If you meant camp Casey in Suadi, i know it well. It was named after the platoon commander that struck that ground. I know because I was in his platoon. We were out there for a week before anybodyelse arrived.
With all that said, if someone has done ten yrs, and they want to go home to thier kids, I say let em. If the military is so hurting then quite waiting til after the election and inact the draft.
LOLOLOL
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.
The DNC talking point of "Iraq was't involved in 9-11, no business going there, no WMD, Bush lied, yadayadayada". It's about the ANYONE-BUT-BUSH agenda from the Left, and this boob from the Bay is nothing more than a useful idiot.
You all did not notice where this is taking place. It explains it all, don't you think?
Whereas I can agree with most of the sentiments expressed by the people on this thread, let me caution you about something.
If you sit home safe and happy because men like this go and risk their lives for your safety and happiness, and then you begin to ridicule and disparage them because they don't want to go back. Then you (IMHO) are no different than the 60's radicals that called our men Baby Killers and spit on them in the airports.
This doesn't make a person want to go serve their country. This doesn't make them comforable that you are supporting them from home. This doesn't make some of these folks willing to re-enlist.
The reason it doesn't is because they begin to view you as being ungrateful for the things they have sacrificed. If this kind of attitude prevails, then there will come a time in this country when young men will be asked to fight and a great many of them will tell you to piss off.
Again, I agree, the man signed the contract and he should do his duty, regardless of whether or not he's already served. He's still under orders.
But let's not be so quick to degrade and disparage. For every one of these men that doesn't want to go back (I'm sure there are many more than this one), there are hundreds who ARE willing to go take his place.
Just some thoughts from a middle aged Jarhead.
I have already served 26 years as of the 28th of this month.
I am being stop lossed until god only knows when.
Do you think I knew that at 17 years old?
What about the 98 percent of americans who don't serve one day in the armed forces?
The still live under the liberty provided by others?
They have no obligation?
You re-upped, didn't you? It's not like you enlisted but once.
And as long as you draw 'retired' pay, you are subject to recall. "Retired pay" is actually maintenance pay to keep you on the rolls.
And if you have been in 26 years, you have to be either a Sergeant Major (E-9) or a Colonel (at least)(O-5). Otherwise you would have been RCP'ed.
Lawyers are sooooo on my sh#t list right now. My husband and I own our own business. Almost a year ago, a drunk driver climbs into his employer's brand new (still had the paper tags) welding truck and takes off down a highway. Our employee, driving one of our transport trucks, just so happens to be coming down the highway in the opposite direction at 2:30 in the morning. The drunk driver crosses the median and smashes that brand new welding truck almost head on into our Peterbilt truck pulling a transport. Due to some quick manuvering by our driver (as quick as you can while driving an 18-wheeler and pulling a transport trailer) a straight-out head-on collision was avoided.
Our driver was bruised and shaken, but not seriously hurt. The drunk, after getting cut out of the welding rig was halo-flighted to a trauma hospital and resided there for the next 6 months.
Well, guess who's getting sued?
Oh my! I am TRULY sorry! I hope it backfires miserably on the drunk driver, but I'm glad your driver wasn't killed.
After looking over the replies, I did some googling.
Quick time-lime:
1792 - 1861 Only Congress had the power to call up the militia. Lincoln's order in 1861 for 75,000 state militia was probably unconstitutional, so far as they served outside their respective states.
1865 - 1903 Congress enacts Posse Comitatus to limit the Presidents use of the Army in "peacetime"; no biggie since Congress still guarded its power to declare war.
1903 - 1916 The Dick Act places the state militias firmly under the regular forces as reserves.
1916 - 1920 National Defense Act gave the President authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. Also gave the National Guard a representative in the General Staff.
1933 - present National Guard Mobilization Act made the National Guard of the United States a component of the Army at all times, which could be ordered into active federal service by the President whenever Congress declared a national emergency.
So up till 1916, he would've appeared to have case.
Under current law, based on the Sept. 24 declaration, the the Executive has the power to mobilize the NG for the duration.
Game over, Sgt. John Doe.
I guess not everybody saw "Private Benjamin".
:-)
To me it is real simple...drunk gets behind wheel of vehicle. Drunk runs into truck. Drunk gets ticketed for DWI. Case over. Never should have been a case in the first place.
AND there are witnesses that were following him that had called into 911 and they even tried to stop him, but apparently like a moth to light, a severely intoxicated driver "goes towards the light" and that light was the headlights on our truck!
Lawyers cause me to say really nasty words. :)
I never would have imagined that there would be some way for us to get sued because our law abiding driver was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oh, the crap that clogs our justice system...
Now I get it! Gee, it's been a while...
Sorry about that, ladtx! :o)
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.