Honesty and Stop Loss

Sent the following out to every Washington State Representative and Senator whose address I could find as well as the governor and others in authority.

Then sent it to every U.S. Senator and Representative whose address I could find as well as the Pentagon, Rumsfeld, and the Bush administration.

Dear Senator/Representative

I want to write and encourage you to explore legislation at the state or national level that requires a formal presentation of the Stop-Loss Pentagon policy as it is applied to enlistment contracts into the Guard, Reserves and active-duty of all military organizations.

When one buys a house or car the signing includes an assortment of paperwork that involves among other things a paper trail of full faith and disclosure. The idea is that the buyer or borrower is required to formally declare and acknowledge that he/she has had all the implications of the contract explained and understands them.

The issues brought up in the recent Santiago vs. Rumsfeld case magnify that - among other things - those who sign on the bottom line are generally in or just out of high school with limited experience in the world of employment, self-sustenance and dealing with the consequences of decisions which may or not be decisions of the moment driven by impulse.

As it is, our high schools have become something you and I never had to deal with in our lives - mandatory attendance and presence in what is literally shark-infested waters where military recruiters enjoy open-season with unrelenting aggressiveness towards our children at school.

I am employed as a social worker for the state of Washington. Last month I had occasion to interview a young man a year out of high school - a young man still considering college, trade school or immediate employment. I asked him how often recruiters contact him.

He did not hesitate. "2-3 times a day every day."

Recruiters hiding behind the No Child Left Behind and preying on families who are very poorly informed about opting out of recruitment efforts are more and more becoming the public face of a desperate and cynical Pentagon that appears more and more to be the senior hucksters trying to maintain unreasonable quotas at the expense of truth.

A "read-this-before-you-sign" requirement with its implied session of "truth-in-lending" would give greater credence to those who defend Stop-Loss with the disingenuous "They knew what they were getting into."

Further, it would remove some of the sense of victimhood presented by these young soldiers as well as the sense among their families that the soldier AND the family have been HAD.

Such legislation is very much in harmony with current tenets of American capitalism that facilitate aggressive marketing and public disclosure. It would also, I believe, help to inculcate among those who do understand Stop-Loss and go ahead and sign the enlistment contract a sense of genuine sincerity and appreciation of what they are laying on the line.

It would help the signing to become almost the commencement moment of an act of patriotism genuine in its purpose.

Again, I encourage you to work within your legislative houses to draw up and pass something that goes way beyond the simple and shallow "Support the Troops" bumper stickers and that involves recruits and their families more fully in such an important participative moment at a time of national emergency.

Otherwise, Stop-Loss as currently administered and justified is a simple and fraudulent deception with deadly consequences.

I'd be happy to discuss this with you at your convenience.

Arthur Ruger
Bay Center, WA

Read more

Explaining Stop Loss practices : Emiliano Santiago v Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld lawsuit April 2005, Seattle, WA

Yesterday the 9th circuit district Federal court heard and ruled on Emiliano Santiago's lawsuit challenging his Stop Loss and orders to deploy to Afghanistan with his unit. Apparantly it was a 'no brainer' for the judges as they took only a couple of hours to come back with a denial. Friday, this week, Santiago is off to Afghanistan.

The particulars are that he is Oregon National Guard, completed his 8 year contract BUT got Stop Loss orders a couple months before his contract expiration date. Effect; he's 'extended' for as long as the Stop Loss is in effect. And since no one seems to know who calls the shots on how long a stop loss can involuntarily keep soldiers in combat, be they active, Reserve, National Guard or IRR; it would seem that any enlistment is of indefinite duration now. I will be having more to write on the Santiago trial, but am borrowing a nifty explanation I read today for how the Stop Loss works.

Stop-Loss gets you 3 months out and 3 months in

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.

Democratic Underground Forums - Pentagon's "stop-loss" policy on trial here


Article at Seattle Times;

Pentagon's "stop-loss" policy on trial here
Wednesday, April 6, 2005
By Alex Fryer
Seattle Times staff reporter

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.


Pentagon policy blasted
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."

Although the National Guard has failed to hit recruitment targets recently, an Army spokesman said stop-loss was not designed to buttress thinning ranks.

"Bottom line is that stop-loss has nothing to do with increasing the number of people in the Army and everything to do with effective units," said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman.

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.

What's more, Panner determined that since other members of the Army National Guard had been serving on active duty since October 2001, the stop-loss policy extends to Santiago and every other citizen soldier.

Santiago appealed, and the three-judge panel is expected to rule in several months.

The case could go before the entire 9th Circuit or end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unless the appeals court grants an injunction, Santiago, an electrical engineer, is scheduled to be shipped to Afghanistan within a week.

Santiago's lawyers initially tried to challenge the president's emergency mobilization to deploy troops in Afghanistan on the grounds that the country now has a democratically elected government.

Politics still part of case
Panner rejected that argument as political, and Santiago's attorneys dropped it. But politics are still part of the case.

Military Families Speak Out, formed in November 2002 to oppose the war in Iraq, is expected to demonstrate outside the courtroom.

The National Lawyers Guild, which called Bush's 2000 victory a "betrayal of democracy," has been involved in several stop-loss cases.

"We win if enlistment numbers go down," said Marti Hiken, co-chair of the guild's Military Law Task Force in San Francisco. "Military people won't go in if they can't get out."

Santiago's attorney, Steven Goldberg, a member of the National Lawyers Guild, said his client steered away from politics.

Santiago was traveling yesterday and could not be reached.

"I've not spoken about the politics with him," Goldberg said. "It's really about fairness."

Read more