Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Appeals court OKs forced military extensions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 07:22 AM
Original message
Appeals court OKs forced military extensions
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsN...

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. military has the right to keep soldiers in the service beyond their original contracted time by issuing so-called emergency stop-loss orders, a U.S. appeals court said on Friday.

The U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals said the military acted within its rights when it ordered Emiliano Santiago, an Army National Guard sergeant, to remain in the service after his eight-year contract expired as his unit was being mobilized for active duty.

Santiago, now in Afghanistan, had argued stop-loss orders could only apply to reserve units on active duty.

The San Francisco-based court disagreed, backing the "plain language" of federal law authorizing the executive branch to "implement a stop-loss policy in order to prevent retirement or separation of reserve members who are essential to national security."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 07:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. How kind of the court to wait on releasing their decision
for the Friday evening news dump. Yeah, once you sign that paperwork, you are owned, lock, stock, and barrel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. But the new "15 month" enlistments has been reported on all week
How nice.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Wouldn't the stop-loss policy apply to these? Makes the short enlistment
period kinda meaningless, then, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Unless the contract has a specific exemption from stop loss.
Bring a magnifying glass and read the tiny print.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. As with any contract it would be smarter to let an attorney look it over
Be the best 50 bucks someone could spend. Even when I can read the fine print on a contract I never understand what it means.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
just a girl Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. That's assuming the people signing up are smart enough to read the news.
Most of them will probably be surprised when they find out that 15 months really meant 15 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
6. I bet recruiters love that news
Here sign up for only fifteen months...honest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patricia92243 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
7. I thought this had been done some time ago and soldiers were already havin
having to stay in Iraq beyond their sign-up..What is new about this one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Some were fighting it in the courts. They lost their case yesterday n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
9. The "legal authority" (entitlement) is NOT a 'right'.
This repeated and pervasive erosion of the concept of 'rights' is an appalling corruption of political thinking in this country.

The military is a creature of law, legitimately subordinate to the rights of The People. The military, as an organzaiton and creature of law, has no 'rights' -- only an entitled authority under law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Not Any More
Once you are in the military, you have no rights, not even the
right to get out of the military at the end of your enlistment.

Once they start up the draft, nobody will have any rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1monster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
10. The Bush Admin. is destroying the military in this country...
Edited on Sat May-14-05 12:46 PM by 1monster
How many years after the Vietnam War did it take for the military to begin to repair the damage to itself and have a reasonable number of people enlist?

The military did horrible things to draftees, while doing protecting the "regular" or career minded soldiers as best they could. How long was that remembered? How badly did the military hurt itself?

Now, not only the military, but the Congress, the President, and the Courts are actively taking away the few rights soldiers retain after signing up to protect their countries, they are taking away the benefits and prileges that military service once gave citizens for signing up. There is no plus side to military service any more that I can see. (Why should one lose one's Constitutional rights because one signed up to PROTECT those Constitutional rights? Oh the irony!)

How long before young people will even consider military service when it begins to sink in that if you sign up for four or eight or twelve years, you are in reality signing up for a possible life time of servitude?

Those laws will have to be changed. A contract for four or eight or twelve or twenty years should be for no longer than the contracted amount of time. If the person and the military entity BOTH want to renew or extend the contract, fine, and again only for a specified time. However, if one party (especially the person) does not want to extend the contract, it should not be allowed for it to be extened.

Even if that scenario became law, how long before people will trust the military enough to enlist?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pathwalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
12. Effing activist Judges.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 30th 2014, 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC