Pentagon's "stop-loss" policy on trial here

Emiliano Santiago, an Oregon National Guardsman, finished his eight-year enlistment last June.
But four months later the Army wanted to ship the Pasco resident to Afghanistan and reset his military termination date to Christmas Eve 2031.
.....
His lawsuit, Santiago v. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, will be heard today in a special sitting of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle.

It will be the highest court review of the Army's "stop-loss" policy, which affects about 14,000 soldiers nationwide.
.....
In legal briefs, Santiago's legal team blasted the Pentagon's policy.
"Conscription for decades or life is the work of despots. ... It has no place in a free and democratic society," the team wrote.

"If the government can break its promises to young men and women like Santiago, then the bedrock of our all-volunteer army — trust in the government's promises — will crumble."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002232453_stoploss06.html

is so clearly correct. How could a court overlook it?

From the article:

Santiago, whose unit refuels helicopters, learned the Army had added 26 years to his enlistment. The date was selected for "administrative convenience," according to court papers. Most guardsmen extend their commitment from three to six years.

It's inconceivable they could extend his military duty to 2031. That would NEVER have happened at ANY time in our national past.

It's a miracle more people haven't heard about this. Thanks for the post.

On edit: I forgot to mention, the article says he has ALREADY served 8 years. How many military men serve more than 34 years? If they did, shouldn't it be VOLUNTARY?

And I doubt poor Santiago has any hope of moving that far up the ladder.

The basic message to the troops is make a fuss and you'll NEVER get discharged.

And, yes, intimidation from Rumsfeld, the guy that authorized torture techniques because he stands rather than sits at a desk, is probably defined as convenient.

With this on billboards all over the country, the Guard and Reserve could look forward to never meeting their recruitment goals. Antiwar groups should undertake that advertising.

our ETS dates were set to 2031. On returning they went back to what they were before. I have no idea why the Army is using this date for deploying troops. I think this guys issue is that he's still being carried in the IRR.

Legally, Stop-Loss has to be reviewed every single anniversary year from it's original date of enforcement.

3 months before a deployment/PCS/ETS...and 3 months after a deployment/ETS...if you're caught in stop loss, chances are you will not PCS...and even if you do, the stop loss applies to your next duty station as well...

The 3 months in/out comes in this way:

Say a soldier is scheduled to get out in July 2005, but orders to deploy come down in June...1 month away from the soldier's ETS date...well, stop-loss has him (since it applies to 3 months prior to the deployment or ETS date)..now, the army can let him get out...but they don't have to legally.


Now, let's say you just got back from deployment, have 5 months to go until your ETS date...but orders come down to deploy in the 2nd month after your return (within that 3 month window)...Stop-Loss has got you again...because it's still 3 months out/3 months in...Even though you now have 3 months to go before you ETS, orders that came within the 3 month window of Stop-Loss prevent you from ETS'ing. So you have to deploy...and your ETS date is put on hold for a year. (which just happens to be the length of your deployment)...

all the DoD/Pentagon has to do every year is say..gee, stop-loss is needed..and stop-loss gets renewed ...



the judge in this case is claiming it applies to the soldier because at the time the soldier was "active" when the orders came down...and it's the 3 months in/out that is the basis for that claim...

from the article

"In December, District Court Judge Owen Panner ruled in favor of the Pentagon, saying the Army's mobilization alert in April 2004 was tantamount to an order to active duty two months before Santiago's discharge. "

Oh, that outlandish, way in the future, date is SOP anytime Stop-Loss is put into practice...it's just CYA for the DoD...in theory, Stop-Loss can be indefinite... and if deployments orders are timed right, a soldier can serve for years beyond their ETS date...

the thing is...that 8 year obligation is a contract and one that was being upheld until they last few years...now the government is changing all that and effectively drafting those who have fulfilled their contracts. They are really screwing the guard and reserves with this the most but active duty is also being harmed by it.

Solly Mack...tx for the explanation, and wondering how you know about the 3 months before and 3 months after mechanism. Not challenging your statements, just looking for sourcing, as this is a major part of my own message when I speak out as a military family.

We have 2 close loved ones in our family; both served already in Iraq, extended tours of 15 months. Both are now under orders for 2nd deployment to Iraq + told they are Stop Lossed. Both were to make decisions about re-enlistment in March. Since they were already told they are under orders for 2nd deployment + stop loss orders, they know they will be back in Iraq and that their original enlistment will end while in Iraq. With the Stop Loss orders already before they have actually even redeployed, they know they will be serving in Iraq beyond their original enlistment.

So if they choose not to re-enlist, it's off to Iraq anyway + under Stop Loss orders; less the bonus. If they choose to re-enlist, it's off to Iraq anyway + Stop Loss + an additional 6 more years committed to military. Means to me No Choice, and an involuntary entrapment.

I keep trying to explain this reality to various reporters and media when I am called for interviews; and I keep meeting with people trying to tell me what they know rather than being willing to hear what is, in fact, the situation as I know it to be for my own 2.

Oh, and a btw, this doesn't apply just to my own 2, as it affects the entire 1st Armored; approximately 10,000 under orders to deploy to Iraq + Stop Lossed. For many it will be 2nd deployments, for others 1st deployments to Iraq. Meantime the media reports that a number of 1,400 that are Stop Lossed; and I'm saying right, yeah...for now, for today, and in a few short months that number will be approximately 10,000. Unlikely media will report it that way as more likely they will be given creative explanation for how it all works and the number crunching will show a much less number.

So if my 2 do re-enlist, then it would appear 'voluntary', and if they do not, it will be appear as part of their original enlistment, and a year from now when they are extended beyond their enlistment, it may appear as stop lossed.

But appearances aside; here is the reality for my 2 and 1st Armored = your choices are deployment to Iraq and Stop Loss, better sign the re-enlist papers, cause you are going anyway, and at least if you re-enlist you'll get the bonus...happy days in combat in Iraq, cause you aren't getting out. Military will keep you through retention (re-enlist) or Stop Loss, but you aren't getting out.

Your loved ones are caught in the classic stop-loss trap. It's happening to everyone. Re-enlist or don't re-enlist, you're still going. Bonus, no Bonus..they still "got" you.

There's a plan in the works to not offer a BONUS to any MOS already on Stop-Loss when it's their turn to re-enlist. Just completely remove a Bonus from the table if you're already under Stop-Loss and your ETS date comes around and the retention officer starts calling. The thinking being, you're not re-enlisting under "normal" circumstances...since they got you anyway with Stop-Loss.

Even with no Stop-Loss, they get people when they are in a foreign country and they come up for re-enlistment. You can either re-enlist.. or ETS from that country...and they give you only 10 days upon return to the US (if you do opt to ETS) to go through the transition process...to include finding a new job and moving your family. Which is why many doing hardship tours will re-up just to ETS while CONUS .... after 6 more years down the line ...6 years more to the military.

The "catches" make it a very IN-voluntary army.

Thanks Solly, you've confirmed for me what I have put together in my own mind upon hearing about my 2 loved ones situation.

New question then; When any soldier signs their 'contract' is it worded in such a way that they could begin to know that Stop Loss and extensions are a possibility? In other words, how would a 17, 18 - 20 something year old begin to know about the ramifications if it is not spelled out (written out) clearly? On what basis of words in the contract can military then enforce Stop Loss, extentions, etc... is it one of those loose definitions that reads something like 'as needed' or as 'the President, CIC, so orders' ????

How the blazes can any kid know what he/she signed up for unless there is clear language in the contract?


Or is it as I perceive, lack of concrete information in the contract, and once signed, THEN they learn of all these back-handed 'options' ?

"agree to follow any and all military rules and regulations..."

In other words, NO...they do NOT outline what all those military rules and regulations are prior to signing on the dotted line.

Most people learn about Stop-Loss the hard way...after they're hit by it.

http://www2.kval.com/x30530.xml?ParentPageID=x2649&ContentID=x49844&Layout=kval.xsl&AdGroupID=x30530

An Oregon National Guard soldier who claims his tour of duty was involuntarily extended by the so called "Stop Loss Policy", lost his battle in federal court Wednesday.

Emiliano Santiago filed a lawsuit in December against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Santiago served eight years in the National Guard and then had more years of service tacked on.

The military's "Stop Loss Policy" temporarily prohibits soldiers from retiring or quitting when their enlistment is up. Last June when Santiago's eight year contract expired, the military extended his enlistment.

A federal attorney claims Santiago's contract did not promise he would be released on any certain date, and stressed that the soldier is critically needed.

...more...

:(

use the word "contract", since the govt and military can change the terms at any time.

The guy has to be back with his unit in 2 days.

What makes this worse is that the poor guy is in the national guard! That is supposed to be a domestic force, there to serve in times of national emergency. I hope that potential recruits will hear about this and think twice about joining.

No good deed goes unpunished!

Poor bastard...

while these fascist, dictator wannabe crooks are anywhere *near* the levers of power.

"We can do what we want, when we want, where we want, to whomever we want... and to hell with the consequences!"

I showed this to my hubby, and when he saw the date (2031) he said "No, that's gotta be wrong"... I wish it were, for Mr. Santiago's sake (and his family's)! :(

Glad to have you here :hi:

Sorry, I am ranting here, I think, but I am so disappointed in the turnout in support for Santiago yesterday and the judges quick decision. A few weeks earlier in Seattle, on March 19th, 2nd anniversary of Iraq war at Seattle Center, there was a crowd numbered at 5,000 who turned out to protest the war in Iraq. I was a speaker at that rally, last one on the panel and talked of my own 2 loved ones and 2nd deployment to Iraq. I also indicated that protests might not be working too well and then I pointed out the Resolution to WA Gov. Gregoire to bring home the Natl Guard; to sign it and add address and mail to her office.

There was some local media reporting on the rally, and my name was referenced in a couple of the newspaper articles. Particularly, by Geov Parrish in his article 'The Road Home' at Working for Change and again in the Seattle Weekly titled 'The Credibility Gap'. The Seattle Times carried an article that had a fair amount of focus on me as a military family and the kinds of concerns military families have with loved ones deployed.

Less than one month later, the turnout in Seattle in support of Santiago at his trial numbered around 30-50. I recognize folks get tired and weary, yet here was an opportunity to show support for one brave individual soldier who was challenging the policy using legal means. In other words, he didn't desert, rather was attempting to use proper channels. And the support for him was.............??????

I don't understand, really. Likely this post will generate some less than kind remarks, but why is this not an issue of concern that politicals can get behind as a means of forwarding their own political agendas? Obviously I do have an agenda, a very personal one, as I want my own 2 brought home, and on larger scale want the troops brought home. Why doesn't this message break through and resonate on a larger scale?

Not criticizing, but I need to know, I need more information as I continue to try to develop my own strategies in being a military family that does speak out. What will be the catalyst that turns the American public to care enough about our troops entrapments and find the means to make themselves heard? Is there really no road home for our troops? Sometimes I think that should an all-out draft occur, then there would be sufficient reaction on the part of the American public to get some clear and definitive exit strategies in place. But I don't want to see more young caught up in this quagmire and carnage and I wonder daily to myself 'what's it going to take to bring them home'.

I think if people really knew what was going on there would be blood in the streets. Also, if the media was doing its job there would have been another 5,000 at the rally for Santiago. I would never have known about his case if I had not been logging on to DU, Truthout, etc...

I blame our complicit MSM for burying or ignoring VERY important stories like this. Unbelievable.

:kick: back to the top

All 2 sentences of it.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/87B9301D275DF33E88256FDB00700215/$file/0535005o.pdf?openelement

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EMILIANO SANTIAGO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of
Defense; LES BROWNLEE, Secretary of the
United States Department of the Army
(Acting); RAYMOND BYRNE, Acting
Adjutant General of the Oregon National
Guard; DAVID DORAN, Captain,
Detachment One, Company D, 113 Aviation
Unit Commander,
Respondents - Appellees.

No. 05-35005
D.C. No. CV-04-01747-OMP

ORDER

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, Senior Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 6, 2005
Seattle, Washington

Before: CANBY, TALLMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
FILED
APR 06 2005

CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

The appellant’s urgent motion for injunction pending appeal, which
seeks to enjoin his deployment to Afghanistan, is DENIED.

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. An opinion or
opinions will follow in due course.




Counsel Listing
H. Thomas Byron, III
Department of Justice
Washington, DC
For the Appellees
Steven Goldberg, Esq.
Goldberg, Mechanic, Stuart and Gibson, LLP
Portland, OR
For the Appellant

or sees kids that may consider enlisting in the NG.

http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/111295454268540.xml

excerpt:

He sued in federal court. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against him, as The Oregonian's Mike Francis reported.

This ruling was correct. Under the terms of enlistment, the Army can extend soldiers' tours of duty under certain emergency circumstances. If federal judges forced the Army to bend the rules and ignore the "stop-loss" policy for Santiago, a few thousand other weary or reluctant soldiers might ask the courts for similar treatment.

Still, the Pentagon isn't making many friends with its stop-loss policy. More than 12,300 full- and part-time Army soldiers have been held beyond their service commitments, as Francis reported. One was Spc. Eric McKinley, a 24-year-old bakery worker and Guardsman from Corvallis. He was killed by a bomb in Baghdad last June, two months after his service was supposed to end.

Today, the Army National Guard is stuck in a Catch-22. It can't recruit and retain enough people to take the place of citizen-soldiers such as Santiago. But the Army can't let go of Santiago until someone volunteers to take his place.

...more...