US Troops in Iraq sue over extended tours

[a_unique_person]

source (http://www.theage.com.au/news/Iraq/Soldiers-sue-over-extended-tours/2004/12/06/1102182223307.html)



Eight US soldiers, prevented from returning home from Iraq and Kuwait despite reaching the end of their military service, are suing the US Government.

The men are among thousands of soldiers blocked by an army policy that has barred them from leaving Iraq even though the terms of enlistment they signed up for have run out. Each of these eight soldiers, separately, has taken the extraordinary step of seeking legal help.

With legal support from the Centre for Constitutional Rights, a liberal-leaning public interest group, lawyers for the eight men were to file a lawsuit last night in federal court in Washington challenging the Army policy.

Earlier this year the US Army instituted the policy for all troops headed to Iraq and Afghanistan, to avoid bringing new soldiers in to fill gaps left in units by those who would otherwise have gone home when their enlistments ran out.

If a soldier's unit is still in Iraq or Afghanistan, that soldier cannot leave even when his or her enlistment time runs out.

The US has been required to lift the number of troops in Iraq as insurgency has widened.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

National guardsmen who received orders to report for duty in California and Oregon have taken the policy to court, but the newest lawsuit is the first such challenge by soldiers already overseas.

[The Fool]

Aren't they traitors or something?

The simple solution would be to send them to Gitmo. They could be held indefinitely outside the reach of the annoying Judicial system. This could become a key phrase in recruiting drives "Iraq or Gitmo, take your pick" Problem solved, no draft required.

[Grammatron]

Isn't it in their contracts that they can be deployed for as long as needed?

[Tmy]

Anyone catch 60 minutes last night? THere was a story about the back door draftees and how many of them are old and out of shape, and aint showing up for duty.

Turns out that part ofthe contract that said they can draft you back whenever is this little fine print blurb that cites a regulation. Pretty much deceptive business practice. Except its the govt and not business.

[Magyar]

Even better (did anyone catch last nights 60 min?)
They are recalling people who have served in access of 8 years and have met ALL of their obligations.

Appearantly there is a 6 letter reference in your papers to an article that says EVEN if you met ALL your obligations, IF you DO NOT resign your commision you can still be called up. Appearently this is happening to a number of people. 60 Min had one guy that had 16 years plus, is dissabled AND had resigned his commission because he knew about this backdoor and they are STILL calling him up! DOD told him that they had no records of his resignation and that he should just show up and then they'll work it out. THe catch is if you report, you have awknowledged your commitment and you lose all your rights!

But there is NO draft!

[Zep]

I feel strongly for the guys still out on patrol in the Middle east. It's a long way to keep carrying that can for the man...

[Upchurch]

Is the label "all volunteer army" still applicable?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Is the label "all volunteer army" still applicable?

I know it's a rhetorical question, but yes.

[shecky]

Hey, sometimes it sucks to be a soldier.

[Luke T.]

My contract when I joined the military said the military basically owned me for 8 years, even though I was on a 4 year enlistment with a 2 year extension which came with advanced electronics training.

If you end up doing a full 20 years like I did, the military then owns you for an additional 10 years, during which time you are in the Inactive Reserve.

It's all there in black and white in the contract.

A lot of kids just sign the paperwork without actually reading it when they join up.

I don't see how the guys who are suing could possibly win. We're talking contract law here.

[Luke T.]

Oh, and I just want to add that involuntary extensions ("backdoor drafts" my ass) are not unique to this war. I knew many a sailor involuntarily extended during the peacetime Clinton years, including me. I was involuntarily extended six months past my retirement date from January to June 2000.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I know it's a rhetorical question, but yes.


If you get a letter that says "show up or else" is that really voluntary?


In the 60 min story there really wasnt a simple black n white explanation of how they own you. It was kinda shady. id think twice before signing up .

[Magyar]

Luke,

Not having served in the US military I am not familiar with the terms and agreements of standard induction, but the 60 minute story(s) seem to indicate different stories.

I agree with you, if you sign a contract and you don't know what you signed up for it's no one elses fault. But this seems to be a bit different! We're talking about people who DID read the fine print, understood the regs, abided by them, met all requirements and now are being told "too bad, we've changed the rules".

Doesn't this qualify as at least some form of draft?

[Donks]

Originally posted by Tmy
If you get a letter that says "show up or else" is that really voluntary?


I might be wrong, but I believe the "voluntary" part refers to signing up. Once you voluntarily sign up, either for active duty or the reserves, you do what you are told (within regulations).

[Tmy]

That 60 min story made the Army look like shady used car salesman. Shoudlve read the fine prints fine print!

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Donks
I might be wrong, but I believe the "voluntary" part refers to signing up. Once you voluntarily sign up, either for active duty or the reserves, you do what you are told (within regulations).


I voluntarily signed up for selective service! DOH!

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Magyar
Luke,

Not having served in the US military I am not familiar with the terms and agreements of standard induction, but the 60 minute story(s) seem to indicate different stories.

I agree with you, if you sign a contract and you don't know what you signed up for it's no one elses fault. But this seems to be a bit different! We're talking about people who DID read the fine print, understood the regs, abided by them, met all requirements and now are being told "too bad, we've changed the rules".

Doesn't this qualify as at least some form of draft?

You didn't serve in the military and I did not see the 60 minutes story, so we have a bit of an impasse here. :)

I've gotten real comfortable with civilian life. Hot showers. Excellent home cooked meals. A warm bed with a beautiful woman next to me every night.

If the military called me up to change my status from "Fleet Reserve" to "Active Duty" I'd be pretty pissed, too. :D

But I'd have no choice. They'd have me dead to rights. Sure, I'd bitch about it. A lot. But not to 60 minutes. :)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
I voluntarily signed up for selective service! DOH!

And if they call you up on that piece of paper, that would be a real draft.

[Zep]

Vague fine print + room for legal "interpretation" = legal fees galore + delays galore + sad plaintiff


I really don't think those guys have a hope, and they are shooting themselves in the foot. Not because their case in not strong, just that the US government can muster more legal firepower over a longer period of time than they can possibly hope to overcome. Eventually, after a loooooong and drawn out case, they will lose. Then they will have to START to serve the time they WOULD have served if they had not begun these legal actions, i.e. they will be worse off.

Is it possible to send US$1M via wire service to another country?

[crimresearch]

I think the guy who received papers extending his service until 2031, or the one who who is disabled after 16 years, but is being ordered onto active duty, probably figure they have no choice but to fight this.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I think the guy who received papers extending his service until 2031...
2031? Maybe that's the timeline they're thinking of for exiting Iraq.

[TragicMonkey]

Backdoor draft got you down? Trying to get out of the military but they don't want to let you go?

Tell them you're gay.

As long as discrimination is legal, might as well make it work for you.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Backdoor draft got you down? Trying to get out of the military but they don't want to let you go?

Tell them you're gay.

As long as discrimination is legal, might as well make it work for you.
Do they really accept your word for it just like that, or do you have to provide ehm.... Evidence? :p

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Do they really accept your word for it just like that, or do you have to provide ehm.... Evidence? :p

That would make an excellent scenario for a pornographic movie, with characters named Private Parts and Sergeant Shaft.*


*It would be in very bad taste to mention Colin Powell. Why does he pronounce his name that way???

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I think the guy who received papers extending his service until 2031, or the one who who is disabled after 16 years, but is being ordered onto active duty, probably figure they have no choice but to fight this.

Do you have a link to anything about these two examples?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Do they really accept your word for it just like that, or do you have to provide ehm.... Evidence? :p

When I was in nuclear power school, some of the fellas who couldn't hack it just went to Medical and claimed to be gay. Medical just took their word for it, and out of the military they went!

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Do they really accept your word for it just like that, or do you have to provide ehm.... Evidence? :p

Whats would suffice? A collection of Liza Manelli records? An autographed picture of Cher??

Woudlnt be a hoot for the military to challenge someones gays ness. Now what if the war became so unpopular that everyone just started claiming they were gay. Woudl they dump dont ask tell?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
Whats would suffice? A collection of Liza Manelli records? An autographed picture of Cher??

Woudlnt be a hoot for the military to challenge someones gays ness. Now what if the war became so unpopular that everyone just started claiming they were gay. Woudl they dump dont ask tell?

I see designer uniforms and pink tanks...

"Rainbow Coalition forces redecorated another mosque in Iraq today..."

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Do you have a link to anything about these two examples?

The wire service stories on Qualls, the only named plaintiff of the 8, cite the December 2031 date...I'm guessing it is an EOS.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041207/ts_nm/iraq_military_lawsuit_dc_3

I didn't see the 60 minutes story, but apparently other posters did, since the 16 year disabled vet is mentioned above in this thread.

The point isn't that these snafus don't ever occur, the point is that an individual in the military who trusts the military to look out for them and make everything all right is possibly going to be disappointed. Those two cases seemed to be more about correcting somebody's snafu and less about protesting the overall stop-loss policy.

You aren't suppposed to have to resort to lawsuits, and Congress, and the media to get proper treatment, but occasionally one has no choice, at which point Zep's observation about the futility of suing the Army becomes moot...every now and then some poor SOB has no choice ( which is not the same as saying that any particular claim against the miltary has merit).

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tmy
<SNIP>...Woudlnt be a hoot for the military to challenge someones gays ness. Now what if the war became so unpopular that everyone just started claiming they were gay. Woudl they dump dont ask tell?

"...Eight soldiers stationed in Iraq and Kuwait are filing a lawsuit against the Army's stop-loss policy while 12 former soldiers forced out of the military are filing a lawsuit against the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy."


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/07/1451252

The military has absolutely no problem contradicting itself... :D

I'll bet that there are people who are gay who were denied discharges, and people who are not gay who were forced out.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by crimresearch
"...Eight soldiers stationed in Iraq and Kuwait are filing a lawsuit against the Army's stop-loss policy while 12 former soldiers forced out of the military are filing a lawsuit against the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy."


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/07/1451252

The military has absolutely no problem contradicting itself... :D

I'll bet that there are people who are gay who were denied discharges, and people who are not gay who were forced out.

Thanks for the link.

Geez, this site is running slow today!

Anyway, a military person can't sue the government. So the plaintiffs have a hell of a lot of precedents to overcome.

I saw this in the article:

A recent pay stub for Qualls, who is on home leave from Iraq, indicated his last day of service would now be Dec. 24, 2031.

I saw a heck of a lot of typos on my pay stub (LES) when I was in the military that were a royal pain in the ass to get fixed, but this one's a real winner.

It does raise an interesting question, though. If someone's original End Of Service date is involuntaritly extended, that block on the LES still has to be filled in. So what do you put in there? In my case, when I was involuntarily extended, I knew exactly what date I had been extended to.

If these current extensions are open-ended, that is a very bad thing.

It raises another interesting question, too. If your predecessors had weakened the military to an enormous degree, and your nation is faced with a genuine threat, what do you do? Surrender?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It raises another interesting question, too. If your predecessors had weakened the military to an enormous degree, and your nation is faced with a genuine threat, what do you do? Surrender?

You define "genuine threat" in a more realistic manner, involving "is this going to hurt my country" as opposed to "there's this country I don't like very much."

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
You define "genuine threat" in a more realistic manner, involving "is this going to hurt my country" as opposed to "there's this country I don't like very much."

Agreed.

I don't imagine the military drawdown would have abated if 9/11 hadn't occurred. At some point, our country was going to find itself coming up short. But that always happens between wars. We get caught with our pants down.

World War II we had a real draft.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Thanks for the link.

Geez, this site is running slow today!

Anyway, a military person can't sue the government. So the plaintiffs have a hell of a lot of precedents to overcome....

...I saw a heck of a lot of typos on my pay stub (LES) when I was in the military that were a royal pain in the ass to get fixed, but this one's a real winner.

It does raise an interesting question, though. If someone's original End Of Service date is involuntaritly extended, that block on the LES still has to be filled in. So what do you put in there? In my case, when I was involuntarily extended, I knew exactly what date I had been extended to.

If these current extensions are open-ended, that is a very bad thing.

It raises another interesting question, too. If your predecessors had weakened the military to an enormous degree, and your nation is faced with a genuine threat, what do you do? Surrender?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who is finding the site very slow.

The 'Feres doctrine' that a service member can't ever sue isn't absolute...when the military tried to stretch it's immunity to service members on leave who were struck by a drunken military employee on a public highway, they lost (Brooks v. United States, 337 U.S. 49)...
so really bad behavior by the military can be heard by a court...

And the situation of a civilian who is not on duty claiming a tort against their re-activation would certainly seem to fall under Brooks.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I don't imagine the military drawdown would have abated if 9/11 hadn't occurred. At some point, our country was going to find itself coming up short. But that always happens between wars. We get caught with our pants down.

World War II we had a real draft.

And the funny thing is that if the war is truly necessary, the population tends to see that and starts volunteering. It's the political wars, or wars "to protect our interests" that don't muster much popular support of that level.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I see designer uniforms and pink tanks...

"Rainbow Coalition forces redecorated another mosque in Iraq today..."

Rumor has it that GW didnt want UN involvement cause he found those UN powder blue berets to be " a little fruity".;)

Man, If my phone company played contract games like the military, Id call teh locla TV watchdog lady!!!

As it is Ive heard many vets tell people not to trust recruiters.

The problem with the War on Terror is that its a war against a vauge enemy. A war against a concept. It really has no ending. THese people cant sit back and say "once we beat X the war will be done and I cant go home."

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
As it is Ive heard many vets tell people not to trust recruiters.



Every once in a while, a friend will tell me their son is thinking of joining the military. I tell them all the same thing. "Do NOT let your son walk into a recruting office unless I am with him!"

I have all but outright forbidden my own teenage son from joining the military.

[Mason]

Just a bit of light reading for those who haven't seen one up close yet...

Enlistment Contract (http://www.dior.whs.mil/forms/DD0004.pdf)

Of particular note are items 9 and 10.

In a nutshell, you sign for 8 years, they own you for 8 years. If there's a war, they own you until six months after the war is over. If the POTUS decides that he needs you, they own you until the POTUS decides otherwise. Simple.

It isn't a long contract, and there isn't any fine print. It's all there in full sized font, plainly stated for you to read. Heck, these terms are all spelled out in a single page. I could see drifting off after a few pages of fine-printed legal jargon, but this is one page of simple english that a third grade student with "special needs" could understand.

Yeah, you sign thinking that all of these scenarios are never going to happen, and when it does happen it can suck, but the bottom line is that the military upheld their end of the contract, now it's time for these soldiers to uphold theirs.