posted on August 18, 2004 06:57:10 AM
It is about time those serving our country stand up against the lies and broken promises from the government.
SAN FRANCISCO -- A California Army National Guard soldier challenged the military's so-called "stop-loss" program in federal court, claiming the Pentagon's plans to keep as many as 20,000 U.S. Army personnel beyond their time of service is illegal.
It was the first lawsuit challenging extended military service following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
The soldier's complaint Tuesday comes as the Army is struggling to find fresh units to continue the occupation of Iraq. Almost every combat unit has faced or will face duty there or in Afghanistan, and increased violence has forced the deployment of an additional 20,000 troops to the Iraq region, straining units even further.
The move allows the Army to keep units together as they deploy. Units with new recruits or recently transferred soldiers would not perform as well because the troops would not have had time to work together, the military said.
The soldier who is suing the military has more than a decade of service with the U.S. Marine Corps, including combat in Iraq and Somalia. Last year, after returning from Iraq, he left the Marines and made a one-year commitment to the California Army National Guard.
But he recently was notified that it was extended by as much as two years, and that he could soon be heading to Iraq for another tour of combat -- all of which is against his wishes.
The soldier's attorney likened the Pentagon's move, as did Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, as a "backdoor draft." The guardsman's attorneys did not include the decorated serviceman's name, age or hometown on the lawsuit to protect his family's privacy.
"It's not that John Doe is a coward by any means," said the sergeant's San Francisco attorney, Michael Sorgen. He said his client, who was also ordered to stay in Iraq last year beyond his enlisted commitment, suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, and his deployment has been put on hold.
Sorgen said the soldier's enlistment contract does "not authorize Doe's involuntary retention in military service under the present circumstances." He said he could be involuntary retained in the military during a time of war or national emergency, but "Congress has not declared war or a national emergency," Sorgen said.
Lt. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman, said as many as 20,000 soldiers are affected, which she said was necessary for a cohesive military with seasoned personnel.
"When soldiers consider serving next to one that they've known, they know the person's strengths," Hart said, adding that it was "understandable" that some soldiers might balk at the extension of their duty. "It's much safer and comforting to know you are serving a war with someone you can count on."
She said the plan is "authorized by a statute, and allows the military services, the Army in this case, to retain those experienced, trained and skilled manpower personnel."
It is the second such challenge to the military's stop-loss program. A Georgia soldier lost a lawsuit against the Pentagon in a Georgia federal court during the first Gulf War.
Marguerite Hiken, chairwoman of the National Lawyer's Guild Military Law Task force, said the group has received "thousands" of calls from soldiers who say the recall is disrupting their civilian lives and businesses. She said the callers ask "Why doesn't the Army live up to its contract?"
The legal issue surrounds a Sept. 14, 2001, order President Bush issued days after the terror attacks, which authorized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to ready the armed forces "to respond to the continuing and immediate threat of further terrorist attacks on the United States."
Sorgen said Iraq now cannot be "considered to pose a threat of terrorist attacks upon the United States." He said Iraq, "if it ever did" pose such a threat, now has in interim government "put in place with U.S. assistance, and Iraq is again considered a 'sovereign' nation."
The lawsuit notes the Sept. 11 commission's report said there was no "collaborative operational relationship" between terrorists and Iraq plotting attacks against the United States.
No court date has been set.
The case is Doe v. Rumsfeld, 04-3361.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on August 18, 2004 08:35:58 AM
But...but... logansdad...I'm just all confused....didn't some Bush person say that invading Iraq was going to be a cakewalk?
They'd throw candy and flowers at us?
You mean it's STILL going on...you mean our young people are STILL being maimed and slaughtered ?
You mean the "PLANS" didn't work (or the lack of "PLANS" ?)
You mean the Bushies couldn't even plan their morning dump so our kids are being killed?
How convenient for the Republicans our young are still being killed
....now they can use the stupid and totally illogical argument about "not changing horse in mid-stream".
WHY NOT?
If the horse is just standing there taking a leak then
GET ANOTHER HORSE and get the HELL OUT OF THE STREAM!!
posted on August 18, 2004 10:11:50 AM
Words befitting a women. Now do you understand why women get no respect. When you talk like a male then be treated like one.
posted on August 18, 2004 10:22:39 AMstand up against the lies and broken promises from the government.
If you take the pay, you do as they say. This wimp apparently has forgotten his enlistment contract, THAT HE SIGNED, allows the government to extend his contract AT WILL.
posted on August 18, 2004 10:24:50 AM
Libra, How many times do I have to remind you this is 2004 NOT 1904.
YOU may have narrow, bigoted "rules" for men and women but I believe in equality.
Libra READ your statement!
"Words befitting a women. Now do you understand why women get no respect. When you talk like a male then be treated like one."
Does this make any sense at all?
Where's YOUR respect for men?
You treat them less respectfully than women?
Why?
You don't respect a woman (SINGULAR: WOMAN)
because she has an opinion?
There's a law that dictates how women SHOULD talk and how men CAN talk?
You'll use what what person says (in this case me) to show disrespect to all women?
Are we cattle that you lump us all as one?
Should we be allowed the vote and the right to own property?
( I just threw this in to make you feel at home since you live so far in the past)
posted on August 18, 2004 10:32:34 AM
No I respect women who can make their point without using all the trash they can find.
Someone talked about Margaret Thatcher, Now how long would she have kept her position if she talked the way you do. The same with, someone you can relate to, Hillary Clinton.
Yes it is 2004, congratulations you got something right for a change, and to get respect you need to be respectful.....
posted on August 18, 2004 10:35:29 AM
If you take the pay, you do as they say. This wimp apparently has forgotten his enlistment contract, THAT HE SIGNED, allows the government to extend his contract AT WILL.
He can't have it both ways.
Why should the government play by different rules than the rest of corporate America? If the guardsman was working for IBM and they kept lying to him, he could leave at anytime. It is called "Employment at Will". The employee can leave at anytime or get fired at anytime.
How would you like it if your were employeed by IBM and hired under the assumption you would be working 40 hours a week. Then after a year your employer states 40 hours isn't good enough anymore, you need to work 60-70 hours a week until we tell you otherwise.
The military always wants their cake and eat it to. I can give another example of what I mean but I do not want to turn this into "another gay thread" so I won't state my opinion.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on August 18, 2004 10:42:22 AM
Libra again says,
"No I respect women who can make their point without using all the trash they can find.
Someone talked about Margaret Thatcher, Now how long would she have kept her position if she talked the way you do. The same with, someone you can relate to, Hillary Clinton."
If YOUR vice-president Cheney can tell someone to F---Yourself! on the floor of the senate and get away with it WOMEN can,too!
Libra, men are NOT some special entity that can say and do anything while women must follow some prehistoric rules of conduct.
Those days are over! Or SHOULD be!
Besides if you think Thatcher or Clinton have never used foul language you're as naive as i know you are.
