Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Stopping Stop-Loss
The legal fight against "stop-loss"--the policy of keeping soldiers in the armed forces past their agreed enlistment time--hits the class-action level, via the Center for Constitutional Rights. Our own Tim Cavanaugh tackled this matter ahead of the curve, back in Dec. 2003.
|12.7.04 @ 1:28PM|#
"Supporting the troops" has always been defined as a desire to send them off to war, Brian. I don't see the contradiction.
|12.7.04 @ 1:33PM|#
Joe, I'm not certain, but he may have been talking about what
the "Support the Troops" type thinks of this lawsuit, not "stop
loss" in general. I don't think they have much problem at all with
stop loss.
In any event, stop loss is a back-door draft and if they can't do
this they'll have to reinstate the regular draft to fill their
ever-increasing troop needs.
Every day I just get more skeptical of this whole operation. We've
dug a deep pit and they've pulled the ladder out on us.
|12.7.04 @ 1:37PM|#
Yeah. I meant we're supposed to support the troops (a codeword for supporting the war and the president) but they're being difficult and gumming up the works with dastardly trial lawyers.
|12.7.04 @ 1:53PM|#
"Supporting the troops" has always been defined as a desire
to send them off to war, Brian. I don't see the
contradiction.
Is there anyway the Hit & Run admins can get us a rolleyes icon
of some sort?
|12.7.04 @ 2:02PM|#
Stop loss is always a possibility when you join the military. It's in your contract, and if you don't want to be subject to stop loss, it's easy to avoid. Don't join the military.
|12.7.04 @ 2:12PM|#
What Andy said.
Absolutely no one is forced to join the Army, although the smart
ones join the cavalry (we lend tone to what would otherwise be a
vulgar brawl). While all of the implications of the contract are
not fully explained to recruit (and some are not too bright),
recruits are not deceived. What could be more libertarian than
caveat pedes?
|12.7.04 @ 2:26PM|#
I just wonder what effect all this great publicity of the concern towards the welfare of soldiers will have on future recruitment efforts. Actually, I don't; I just say I do.
Luke|12.7.04 @ 2:42PM|#
Josh idiotically says,
"Stop loss is always a possibility when you join the military. It's
in your contract, and if you don't want to be subject to stop loss,
it's easy to avoid. Don't join the military."
How touching. How informative.
When I joined the Marine Corps in 1998, NO ONE knew or explained or
even mentioned this. Moreover, I know for a fact recruiters are
told to purposely not bring it up now. It's a deterrent to
recruiting and thus lowers numbers. True, stop-losses weren't
really a big deal when I joined, however I was subjected to a
couple after 9/11.
But what Josh and others who's compassion runs deep fail to
recognize is that the effects of a stop-loss can be truly far
reaching and deleterious for all involved. For example, I did 0811
Marine Corps artillery, but my old unit (I got out on 8 June) was
recently converted to an infantry unit. There are some similarities
between the two types of combat arms, but not enough to make any
real difference in a combat situation. So how does the stop-loss
affect this? When the warning order was issued this past November,
my unit was effectively locked into a stop-loss. Even though
several NCOs were scheduled for discharge in December, they must
now lead junior Marines into combat in Iraq in a job they have
little to no experience in.
My guess is if you or a loved one were trapped in this situation,
claiming "you should've known better" would be the last thing on
your mind.
Yes, ultimately those of us who sacked up and actually joined the
military are responsible for our own fates. But anyone who thinks
the recruiting process allows for appropriate time for evaluation
of the contract is mistaken. Compound that with the recruiters'
duplicity and (in many cases, but not mine) an improper education
and what you have is a nasty problem.
This stop-loss is bad for the troops in terms of MOS efficiency,
bad for mission accomplishment in Iraq, bad for long-term
recruiting and enlisted retention, and awful for morale.
The last thing we need are freeloading (and self-appointed experts
who, ironically, are woefully ignorant) civilians counseling us on
the proper mindset to adopt. I believe we have a right to complain
and defend ourselves against undue demands especially considering
we're the ones actually doing the difficult work.
Besides, if you really want to demonstrate how enlisted Marines and
soldiers should behave, I believe your local Marine recruiter would
be more than willing to speak with you.
raymond|12.7.04 @ 2:43PM|#
Stop loss is always a possibility when you join the
military. It's in your contract,
Their lawyers
must be lying then.
"This (case) is unique because (Qualls) volunteered for a specific time, " said James Klimanski, an attorney involved in the case. "There's nothing in (the Try One) contract -- even in the fine print -- that calls for the involuntary extension under this circumstance," he added, calling stop-loss "a backdoor draft that the Bush administration is imposing on American service members."
Luke|12.7.04 @ 2:46PM|#
Correction, it wasn't Josh. My mistake. I believe it was
Andy.
Apologies, Josh.
|12.7.04 @ 2:53PM|#
I have a copy of my enlistment contract at home, I'll pull the relevent part out. (I was in the USN from 91-95)
|12.7.04 @ 3:15PM|#
Andy'll quote the contract for you but I'll offer the following
...
I don't know if the ARNG "try one" contract includes the wording
but I would imagine that the federal government has a strong case
because once ARNG units are federalized they come under federal
military law.
As an example, ARNG troops do not fall under the UCMJ at all times
until federalized.
This is hardly a draft. It can be bad for morale and future
recruiting and retention but soldiers I know don't see stop loss as
that unreasonable (more Joes and junior officers than NCOs and
career officers have a problem with it, though).
Once you take the king's coin ...
On the other hand, if you want to say "we're at war" and mobilize
your reserves you might want to declare war and have everybody in
for the duration. Rumsfeld and some generals thought they were real
clever using only a few divisions to conquer Iraq (and dismissing
the local forces of order) until it turned out that we did not then
and have not since controlled the country. If we had controlled the
country from the beginning with a big force, subsequent drawdown
and demobilization would have been much easier.
I'm sympathetic to Luke's arguments about poorly educated young men
getting rooked by recruiters. Joe does get screwed. Still, that's
an argument for Joe getting a better education or for recruiters
being required to explain the more unpleasant aspects of service,
not for not using stop loss.
|12.7.04 @ 3:19PM|#
Their lawyers must be lying then
raymond, when the attorney for one party says that the other party
is wrong, that's not evidence. It's not even interesting
information. The government's lawyers say that it was part of the
contract and the plaintiffs' lawyers say it wasn't; it is a given
that at least one of the sides is either mistaken or actively
lying.
Anyway, if Klimanski is right, and stop-loss was in fact not part
of the contract, then it would indeed be wrong to keep those
soldiers past the point at which their contract expired. But it's a
bit silly to assume that Klimanski's telling the truth.
When I joined the Marine Corps in 1998, NO ONE knew or
explained or even mentioned this.
Isn't the relevant question whether or not it was in your contract,
not whether or not they told you about it?
|12.7.04 @ 3:36PM|#
There are a couple forms of stop-loss at hand here:
The first being that which keeps a recruit in the active/active
reserve component longer than was orginally specified. All
enlistment contracts are for eight years. Contracts differ on the
amount of active(six years in the reserves, two or more on active
duty) versus inactive ready reserve(IRR) time. It clearly states in
the contract that Uncle Sam won't release you until those eight
years are up. There has also been some controversy about IRR
members not showing up when called...
The second type of stop loss is clearly illegal in that it is like
the case above Raymond mentioned and another one which I believe an
Arkansas national guardsman had in which the military tries to keep
you beyond the orginal eight year commitment due to you being in
theater when your contract ends. For example your contract(all
eight years) is up on December 2nd 2004 but your unit is not
redeploying home until March 2nd 2005. Even though your contract
states you no longer have an obligation the Service makes you stay
with your unit until they come home.
In the case of those bastard officers like myself. The military
owns you until you resign your commission in writing or you turn 62
whichever comes first. This isn't as simple as writing a letter and
you are out. In most cases officers owe four to six years after
they come out of a service academy, OCS, or ROTC. Additionally
there may be other contractual obligations for aviation service.
After that obligation is up an officer can resign his commission in
writing, recently though there have been several cases of the
resignation letter being lost (imagine that), and several officers
being recalled to active duty due to what thye say was a paperwork
error.
In most cases the fine print of the eight year contract is not
explained to a recruit until after they have already made up there
mind and by the time they have signed the twenty other things
leading up to it they aren't paying attention anymore. Of course as
was stated earlier stop-loss can be avoided by not joining the
military at all.
Given the level of sophistication of our military today a
traditional draft would never work so the best method to keep troop
levels at 100% is to keep those you already have or to draft people
out of specific fields who already have the training.
("longest post ever", comic book guy)
|12.7.04 @ 3:40PM|#
Trooper J:
The ARNG "try one contract" is just for one year.
This is a one year contract for soldiers coming off active duty or
who have prior service experience but have been out awhile...
However, a soldier who enlisted under it and was kept longer than
his enlistment recently lost a stop loss case in California.
|12.7.04 @ 3:44PM|#
to be a bit more clear. Your first military service contract is always for eight years. Contracts which are signed later may be for less time. Officers do not have contracts after they meet their intial service obligation.
raymond|12.7.04 @ 3:46PM|#
Well, Dan, as I said, I'm sure the lawyer has got it all wrong
and that when he affirms
Doe's standard enlistment contract, in a section intended to summarize relevant "existing United States Laws," indicates that involuntary extensions of service are permitted only under the following conditions: 1) during a period of declared war; 2) during a war or national emergency declared by Congress; or 3) where a servicemember is not assigned to, or participating satisfactorily in, a unit of the Ready Reserve and has been ordered to active duty. �None of these conditions apply.
it's not relevant or even interesting.
Sorry I brought it up.
Isn't the relevant question whether or not it was in your
contract, not whether or not they told you about it?
Do you know a lot of 18yo kids?
Tim Cavanaugh|12.7.04 @ 3:57PM|#
On the other hand, if you want to say "we're at war" and
mobilize your reserves you might want to declare war and have
everybody in for the duration.
This is an interesting point. A formal declaration of war would be
a reasonable triggering mechanism for stop loss (as well as-go
ahead and hate me-conscription if necessary), ensuring that there
will be a definite end to your service without tying the state to a
particular date. Which brings us back to a first principle: That
the framers intentionally made declaration of war a hard thing to
get, and that Harry Truman is rotting in hell for ushering in the
age of police actions, war powers, use-of-force authorizations, and
all the other methods they've found to bastardize the concept of
"Letters of Marque and Reprisal."
Trooper Jones is to be commended not only for his service but for
acknowledging that a) stop-loss is indeed part of the contract, b)
recruiters have an ethical responsibility to make that clear to
enlistees, even if they don't have a legal responsibility, and c)
there is a doing-the-right-thing dimension at work here that
doesn't disappear because of Josh's eyerolling or Dan's kneejerk
dismissals. (Whether there's much of a legal dimension is another
matter, though I'd doubt it.)
Luke|12.7.04 @ 4:16PM|#
Perhaps the Marines I served with had particularly bad
recruiting experiences.
Officers, so I've been told, do not have the same problems with
dishonest recruiters/recruiting practices that the enlisted do.
There are a number of reasons for this (education and smaller need
for numbers chief among them), but the more important point is that
officers rarely take seriously the claim that we the enlisted were
duped.
An argument to consider is not simply that recruiters stretch the
truth or try to play games of misdirection, e.g. "who cares about
stop-losses when you're getting money for college?", the point is
they will outright lie. Recruiters are notorious for saying that
stop-losses don't won't affect your MOS (and that they can get it
guaranteed in writing), it's merely a formality, there's no chance
they'll EVER call you back from the IRR, etc.
In fact, a law was passed (the year escapes me) because Marine
volunteers were signing up for MOS's like cooks or admin or supply
and were told they were infantry upon reporting to basic training.
This sort of bait-and-switch is patently unethical and unfair.
Given that, is there really a significant difference between this
and what the Marines from my old unit now fighting as grunts with
no training face?
People generally ask "and you believe those military rectuiters?"
The long and short is despite certain gut-instinct hesitations
about the validity of some of their promises, it's difficult for a
young man or woman who admires the Marine Corps (or Army or
whichever service) to not take seriously a recruiter in full-dress
uniform bearing down upon them. They are quite literally enchanted
at times and when not spellbound, certainly motivated by some
respect-based fear. A third party present during the recruiting
process is enormously beneficial.
I really am not trying to be a blame shifting dbag here. My larger
point is that the process, as its set-up now, allows itself to
abused by both recruiters and eager volunteers alike.
As we have seen, disorder and misfortune (aside from legal
wranglings) often arise from such a mix.
|12.7.04 @ 5:11PM|#
it's not relevant or even interesting
That's correct. You're quoting a man who is being paid to,
regardless of what the evidence may be, do everything legally
possible to make people believe that his side is in the right. Only
an idiot would accept his claims at face value. You can quote him
all you like; it won't change the fact that it's remarkably
unintelligent to just assume that a plaintiff's attorney is being
honest with you.
Do you know a lot of 18yo kids?
If your point is that many 18 year olds tend to do things without
considering the consequences, I agree. That's not relevant, though;
they are capable of informing themselves and making rational
choices, even if many of them don't do so. I'm sure Luke's right
and the recruiters try a bunch of bullshit lines to get people to
not see what they're signing up for. But the world is full of
people trying to sell you a line of bullshit, and it's not as if
it's impossible for an 18-year-old to realize that.
Tim Cavanaugh|12.7.04 @ 5:26PM|#
But the world is full of people trying to sell you a line of
bullshit
Yes, and few of them have the full powers of the state to detain,
imprison and (as recently as WWII) kill you if you make a wrong
decision.
|12.7.04 @ 5:28PM|#
I got extended unvoluntarily in 1966 ,Pleiku , SVN.
My orders were stamped "convience of the Government".
Weren`t any Lawyers hanging around to complain to.Kinda hard to
leave when "they" got all the transportation monopolized.
|12.7.04 @ 7:24PM|#
Yes, and few of them have the full powers of the state to
detain, imprison and (as recently as WWII) kill you if you make a
wrong decision.
So far as I'm aware the power of the state that applies here is
their power to punish people who refuse to honor voluntary
contracts -- which is one of the few powers that libertarians agree
the government should have. I am not aware of any sort of blanket
right to tear up a contract, months or years after the fact, when
you discover you don't like the provisions it contains.
|12.7.04 @ 7:34PM|#
"Their lawyers must be lying then."
I see I'm a little late to this one, very cute raymond. Next time I
sign anything I'm getting a fucking lawyer.
raymond|12.8.04 @ 12:40AM|#
Next time I sign anything I'm getting a ...
lawyer.
I wouldn't bother. He'll only break your heart.
-------
Only an idiot...
You use this argument quite regularly, it seems to me. Do you have
a lot of success with it in the real world?
The brief gives the terms of the contract. Since I was unable to
find the "Try One" contract itself online... Oh well. I've already
apologised to you for that.
But the world is full of people trying to sell you a line of
bullshit...
And they use legal contracts to do it, too.
On an earlier version of this thread, I mentioned "bonded labour".
Nobody responded (It was late in the thread, and my already famous
idiot-ness probably made responding seem like a waste of time), so
I'll revisit the idea.
("You" here refers to all those who have, in the past week,
defended things like torture and stop-loss. You have all melted
together into a blur in my tiny little mind.)
You have argued that the Declaration of Independence is utopian pie
in the sky, and that there is no such thing as a fundamental human
right.
You have argued that the Constitution is not worth the paper it's
written on.
You have argued that the State is the source of any "rights" we
might possess.
You have argued that a contract is a contract and so is binding in
all cases whatsoever.
You have argued "that it is advantageous for us that one man should
die for the people, that the whole nation not perish."
So enlighten me.
Some idiot Indian peasant borrows 50 rupees because his family is
starving, not realising that the terms of the contract are such
that he will be paying off this loan till he dies. (And that by
contract his descendants will also be liable.)
Since "the world is full of people trying to sell you a line of
bullshit, and it's not as if it's impossible for an [Indian
peasant] to realize that", and since property is like WOW and this
peasant's labour is property legally owned by the lender, do you
defend the practise of bonded labour?
And if you do not, why do you defend the practise of bonded labour
when it comes to soldiers?
After having served 12 months, some of which included a rotation in Camp Taji, an area 15 miles north of Baghdad notorious for being a target of suicide attacks against U.S. troops, Qualls discovered that his service had been extended against his wishes. A pay stub from the period recorded his Expiration Term of Service as "December 24, 2031." (UPI)
December 24, 2031.
HEY! He'll be home for CHRISTMAS!!!
gaius marius|12.8.04 @ 4:37PM|#
This stop-loss is bad for the troops in terms of MOS
efficiency, bad for mission accomplishment in Iraq, bad for
long-term recruiting and enlisted retention, and awful for
morale.
all legality aside -- because legal wrangling won't keep a
volunteer army a viable proposition -- the DoD should think about
how they come out here in the view of their potential recruiting
base.
given all this -- the duplicity (real or perceived, it matters not
a jot) of recruiters, the foaming-mouth foreign policy -- you
cannot argue that recruiting will get easier, or that the quality
of recruits will increase or even remain level.
how desperate need one be to want to be affiliated with rumsfeld's
operation?
gaius marius|12.8.04 @ 4:40PM|#
That's not relevant, though; they are capable of informing
themselves and making rational choices, even if many of them don't
do so. I'm sure Luke's right and the recruiters try a bunch of
bullshit lines to get people to not see what they're signing up
for. But the world is full of people trying to sell you a line of
bullshit, and it's not as if it's impossible for an 18-year-old to
realize that.
indeed, mr dan, even in your nihilistic outlook, the problem
remains that they might do just that -- and the irrational opinion
they may retain en masse is that the army can in no way be
considered an option.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245