Posted on 04/06/2005 5:46:06 AM PDT by Crackingham
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. Santiago, 27, decided to take it to court.
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. Of the 4,200 citizen soldiers in the state's 81st Brigade Combat Team, the deployments of 412 were extended through stop-loss, according to National Guard officials.
Santiago's legal battle has attracted national attention but is most loudly trumpeted by groups opposing the war, adding a political dimension to what his lawyer says is ultimately a case about fairness.
In November 2002, the Army implemented stop-loss to ensure reserve units ordered to active duty would not lose key personnel. Army attorneys say the law gives President Bush the ability to "suspend any provision of the law relating to promotion, retirement or separation" of any soldier who is deemed essential to national security in times of crisis.
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.
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."
"...the Army had added 26 years to his enlistment..."
WTF? That seems pretty bizarre to me, does the army always do stuff like this? Or is this left over from April 1?
The USA has had a draft for nearly every major war we have fought in...
But I do agree with Santiago, a contract is a contract, and Santiago would be in jail if he reneged on his end...
If it does not have any such clause, then the government might have an additional law that permits it to do the same, but such a law should have been mentioned in the contract with the soldier.
If it was not, then the soldier has a case. The decision to extend someone for decades is a bit ridiculous BECAUSE they clearly have no need to extend for that length in one fell swoop.
They over-reached, imho, and have made their case look bad by virtue of that over-reach.
There's a point at which a contract becomes so one sided that it's no longer a 'contract', it's a bill of sale for a slave. It seems to me that - if this report is true - that's the case here.
>>the Army had added 26 years to his enlistment. The date was selected for "administrative convenience," according to court papers.<<
I thought we were going to be in Iraq only to get the country stable - 26 years - seems real long???
Anyway this guy must have some real skills in refueling to be kept this long.
If you want to have alook at every crack-pot, socialist, Anti-American, terrorist loving website in the world, Google the following: "Emiliano Santiago" He is their new poster-boy.
That said, I smell something. The military can't add 25 years on a person's contract. Somebody screwed up somewhere. Emiliano Santiago must be a kick-a$$ soldier. Nobody else seems to have been involuntarily recruited for 25 years. I think the 25 years is a mistake. The stop-loss is nothing new, however. We were aware of it during GW1.
Sensible comment.
I wonder if we have heard ALL the facts.
Knowing the media, I somehow doubt it.
Right before the start of the Iraq war, my husband (and everyone in his brigade) was stop-lossed until 2030. The military chooses a very far-off date so that they can essentially keep you as long as they need you.
Stop-loss is nothing new, and it's not a secret. Every soldier, active duty, reserves, or NG, knows when he enlists that stop-loss is a possibility. It's written in the contract. He should have paid attention to the fine print before he signed.
The man enlisted in 1996. He had 4 months to go before his enlistment expired in 2004 and he was sent overseas. He appealed to the Federal Courts and the judge basically told him that because of the needs of the Government, his enlistment was good until December 2031.
I would think a skill like surgery, or computer technology would be something so necessary that the Military would invoke such a drastic measure. But refueling?
I don’t know about his situation. I know my dad and two of his brothers were officers/pilots in the Air Force and Navy. (Two in AF, one in Navy.)
Even though he retired at 40, my dad always claimed the AF could call him up pretty much any time they wanted. Literally until he was 60 or something.
Now granted, they’d have to be in pretty rough shape to do it – and can’t do it under any circumstances now. But he claimed that unless he resigned his commission that is the way it was.
It's pretty standard. They put it that far out because if they just extended you for a year and then still needed you they'd have to extend you again, etc. They'll cut the release date back and let him out when they don't need him anymore.
No fair being logical.
This is the problem for me:
"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. "
He was already OUT of the military having served his entire term when they wanted to grab him again. That is simply not acceptable.
Believe it or not, yes this is considered 'normal'. I recently reenlisted indefinitely, so my contract 'expires' in 2038, when I am 60 years old.
You have it. Too often we sign contracts not knowing what they say or what they imply. All the same, the government is claiming too much. If it wants this much from him, then they should have the decency to call a national emergency sine die.
What is the statutory basis of this?
There is such a thing as a social contract. Besides, my understanding is that the national militia does not include anyone above the age of 50.
It is not uncommon for the Army to stop loss soilders with critical MOSes like SF, EOD, MI or the like. But they usually do that before the soilder ETS from service.
This whole wording is kinda wrong.
"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."
It should have been "finished his eight year commitment and ETSed from the Army. However he was brought back from the his Civilian life and his new term reset until 2031."
The article didn't state that. So I have my questions about it. It is true that once you serve Eight years your done. One other tidbit to think about is all those soilders who were Stop Lossed, myself included, is fact normally you would have a bonus for those years, like a reenlistment. So the Army isn't required to pay you for extra years your stop lossed, reenlistment wise.
As far as I know it's all administrative. Once your tour is up, and you have completed terminal leave, you are done.
For those like me with indefinite reenlistments, Once I hit my twenty years I can submit my retirement paperwork at any time.
"If the USA is not at war with another country there is NOT a need to keep military members beyond their enlistment."
Since when did "need" become a factor. The military owns the soldiers, it does what it wants.
I'm not so sure his enlistment was complete. Most enlistments are for 6 years active guard/reserve and 2 years IRR. If he was in his 2 year portion, he can get called up as he is under contract.
If he was truly done with his eight years, that is another story, btw it has been done before.
When we deployed to Bosnia we were put on stop-loss about a year before, then when we came back home (9/11/01) well, you all know history. Stop loss since 9/11 for MP's. We had several guys who had contracts expire BEFORE shipping to Bosnia. Oh well, it's the gov't what can you do.
BS, a person signs a contract for services when joining the military, not a contract to be a slave until the military says otherwise.
Thanks all for your replies!
Jim, I agree with you the guy might be justifiably upset, but if he's just upset about this long time out judging from the rest of the replies he's worried about nothing, it's become plain to me that you might be called back, that I knew about, just didn't know about these strange lengths of time.
Pentagon's 'Stop-Loss' Policy UpheldApril 6, 2005
By OCE Public Information OfficeA three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today rejected an appeal by a soldier seeking to challenge the Pentagon's "stop-loss" policy. Following oral arguments this morning in Seattle, the panel issued the following two-sentence notice:
The appellant’s urgent motion for injunction pending appeal, which seeks to enjoin his deployment to Afghanistan, is DENIED.The notice was posted on the Court of Appeals web site, www.ca9.uscourts.gov.The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. An opinion or opinions will follow in due course.
The appeal was brought by Army Sgt. Emiliano Santiago against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others. The Oregon man had two weeks left on an 8-year contract when he was ordered to Afghanistan for a year-plus deployment.
The panel consisted of Senior Circuit Judge William C. Canby of Phoenix, and Circuit Judges Richard C. Tallman of Seattle and Johnnie B. Rawlinson of Las Vegas. The case originally was heard by Senior District Judge Owen M. Panner of Portland.
Oral arguments were heard during a special sitting at the University of Washington School of Law's Magnuson/Jackson Moot Courtroom in William H. Gates Hall. The courtroom, which seats approximately 140 persons, was reportedly filled by interested citizens and law students. A video feed to an overflow courtroom also was employed.
The case drew extensive media coverage. The panel granted media requests to videotape the arguments. C-SPAN served as the pool camera, providing a feed to PBS's "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" and to a local Seattle television station, King 5 News.
Do I need to do the Emily Litella "Never mind" now?
"BS, a person signs a contract for services when joining the military, not a contract to be a slave until the military says otherwise."
Really? What about men who are drafted? Do they willingly serve, or are they slaves? Men who join are also slaves. If you think about it you will understand why this must be so. You cannot order a free man on a suicide mission. He will refuse. Only slavery allows the military to treat men as assets to be expended in warfare just like guns and ammunition.
Tell that to the men on the beaches during WW II.
Free men fight for, and give their lives for, their country during times of war.
During times of, "peace keeping missions", or even when we go into a country, with or without the auspices of the U.N., to rid it of an evil dictator contracts for allotted amounts of time should be kept.
If the military needs more people let them find a way to recruit more people. Don't screw the ones that have kept their committment.
During times of, "war", when we have actually declared war on another country, are in the throes of battle after battle, there mey be a need for limited stop-gap.
This is not such a situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.