Reply #12: What is the difference, they just will just issue stop loss orders

[nolabels]

Can we say coercion

Damn this letter was a hard to find a link to.

Claim that stop-loss orders are illegal

Are you a member of Bushs "shanghaied" army? Well listen up the following story is for you. The current act of forcing you to stay active through the use of a stop loss order is apparently wrong in more ways than one...

06-16-2004

Getting Screwed By Stop Loss?

CALL FOR PLAINTIFFS TO CONTEST MILITARY "STOP-LOSS" ORDERS
A group of San Francisco attorneys are seeking military service-members who'd be interested in participating as plaintiffs in a legal action contesting the Department of Defense's policy of using "stop-loss" orders to prolong military enlistments indefinitely. Their prospectus follows...


We are looking, ideally, for a service-member from the San Francisco / Northern California area, or whose unit / station is based in this area, who has had their separation, retirement, or maximum active duty period suspended by stop-loss. They may file using a "John Doe" pseudonym if they wish to keep their identity confidential.

The ideal plaintiff, for various reasons including their own interests, would be someone who already has served in Iraq, but who is in the U.S. at present and has yet to be shipped back overseas. However, we can try to work with someone currently overseas.


We know that a legal challenge to stop-loss is going to be tough and may not survive a motion to dismiss by the government, but we feel it is important to present the arguments and see what the courts (and public) think about it. We intend to argue that:

1) Stop-loss violates statutes prohibiting involuntary extensions of enlistment without a declaration of war or national emergency by Congress;

2) The statute granting presidential authority to suspend laws on separation and retirement anytime reservists are serving on active duty unconstitutionally delegates congressional authority to "raise armies" by allowing an involuntary 'draft' of combat veterans at the whim of the executive (and military);

3) Stop-loss is arbitrary and capricious, because the asserted justification is based on false information (or information has been withheld), and therefore violates the due process rights of service-members and the Administrative Procedures Act;

4) Stop-loss breaches service-members' enlistment contracts.

We are aware that there are legal counter-arguments for each of these theories, but they each have a foundation in law, and as importantly, many service-members and their families have arrived at these conclusions without need for legal analysis and thus seem to be based on "common sense."

Interested service-members should contact Marti Hiken or Josh Sondheimer:


JOSHUA SONDHEIMER
Attorney at Law
Law Offices of Michael S. Sorgen

Email: [e-mail]
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]


MARTI HIKEN
Co-Chair, Military Law Task Force
National Lawyers Guild

Email: [e-mail]
Tel: [phone]
(snip)
http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/archives/2004/06/attenti...