Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: 'Oppose the draft? It's already here'...

  1. #1
    Certified SG Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    29,514

    'Oppose the draft? It's already here'...

    This sound like any movie you've ever seen?

    Oppose the draft? It's already here

    While most pollsters would agree that there is almost no discernable support for reinstating the military draft, why should the public support the military's policy of forcing exhausted those who already have fulfilled their contractual obligation to serve into an open-ended term of indentured potentially fatal military servitude?

    Yet that is exactly what is happening to people such as Oregon Army National Guardsman Sgt. Emiliano Santiago, 27, of Pasco, Wash.


    Last Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Owen M. Panner denied Santiago's motion for a preliminary injunction against having to report again for active duty, less than a week before Santiago is scheduled to ship to Fort Sill, Okla. A soldier with D Company of the Oregon Guard's 113th Aviation Battalion in Pendleton, he is and his unit are expected to be deployed to Afghanistan in February.

    Santiago argued that he already had completed his contracted term in 2002, but Panner's ruling means that he will have to go. And he is only one of thousands who are finding themselves back in uniform despite having honorably completed the service they signed on for.

    This is possible because of an executive order President Bush enacted after 9-11 that authorized the Pentagon to involuntarily extend military personnel on active duty "for not more than 24 consecutive months."

    But the military has gone further in Santiago's case. He originally signed for an eight-year tour with the Guard in 1996, but as a result of the "stop-loss" back-door draft, his service has been extended to December 2031, when he would be 54.

    Judge Panner said he was ruling that Santiago had to go back because the military would be more harmed than Santiago if he allowed Santiago to leave. He correctly assumed that the thousands of others also forced to stay would file similar court challenges, complicating the United States' military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

    President Bush said repeatedly during his re-election campaign that there would be no military draft in his second term. But if a soldier who has completed his term of service and returned to civilian life is forced back onto the battlefield, how is that anything other than a draft, forcing involuntary servitude?

    We haven't had a draft in this country since Richard Nixon abolished it in 1973. And we haven't had involuntary servitude since Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made it illegal as of Jan. 1, 1863, freeing "all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." The Emancipation Proclamation clearly stated that "the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."

    Who knew that President Bush would overturn the acts of two past Republican presidents in deciding that, under his term, the military means not being able to declare with confidence, "I'm a civilian again."




    Source
    http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles.../1edmon103.txt

  2. #2
    Moderator Bouncer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    OCONUS
    Posts
    4,834
    Technically not true. What I mean is, we had stop loss back in GWI. If that counts as involuntary servitude, then it's not the first time it's happened.

    Just an FYI.

    Also, not being picky, but I don't understand how a Stop-Loss mandatory date of 24 months means he would serve until 2031. I'm not sure where their numbers come from, but the way the article states it, the maximum stop-loss for this soldier would end around 2006. (1996 + 8 years + 2 years). Perhaps they're including reserve and inactive reserve time? But he's a Nat Guardsman, and I'm not sure they go into the active reserve once they leave the Guard.

    I'd like to know more about how they're basing their claims.

    Regards,
    -Bouncer-
    ps: I'm not saying the soldier doesn't have a point, as I'm not too fond of stop-loss myself, but still, the numbers should add up, and they don't seem to in this case.

  3. #3
    Certified SG Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    29,514
    First line, whooooosh

  4. #4
    Moderator Bouncer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    OCONUS
    Posts
    4,834
    Err.. I'm not familiar with many movies dealing with Stop Loss, unless you mean Fahrenheit 9/11. Even in that movie, it didn't seem to be a big part of what it was about.

    Just curious, have you ever seen F911?

    Regards,
    -Bouncer-

  5. #5
    Got Alizee? ScottE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    16,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Burke
    First line, whooooosh

    The Stop-Loss, (What is making this soldier server extra time) is only good for 24 months.

    Everybody once honerably discharged from military service goes into what is called the inactive reserve. Basically you can be called back to serve at some later point should the need arise.
    Respect it.

  6. #6
    Moderator Bouncer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    OCONUS
    Posts
    4,834
    I read a couple of other articles about other similar suits. Seems he's not the only one with a termination date of 15 Dec 2031. It's something that it says on their pay stubs, which makes me think it may be related to retirement?

    On the otherhand, it could be worse. They coulda been 70 years old and called back in and sent to Afghanistan. No, really.
    http://www.marionstar.com/news/stori...s/1731211.html

    Regards,
    -Bouncer-

  7. #7
    *giggle* vinnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    1,620
    Indeed. The moral here is... well... where do they get those numbers from? Seriously?

    Does the hippy communist tree hugging frog licking author have any basis for his claims there? The media is typically communist terrorist loving in it's approach, throwing out random numbers which are at best misleading would hardly be out of character when it comes to anything military.

    While we're here, I giggle like a school girl every time an American a) claims that amendments and changes to their law are an essential part of their law and culture and that b) precendents from hundreds of years ago under completely different circumstances must be adhered to by the letter in the current day and age. Pick one, you can't have both.
    Australian Regular Army and proud of it.

  8. #8
    meat popsicle Zilog B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,530
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottE
    The Stop-Loss, (What is making this soldier server extra time) is only good for 24 months.

    Everybody once honerably discharged from military service goes into what is called the inactive reserve. Basically you can be called back to serve at some later point should the need arise.
    Bzzt, wrong. Once you receive your honorable discharge, then you are no longer in the inactive reserve. For example, me:

    served one year delayed entry, four years active, then 3 years inactive reserve. At the end of the 3 years inactive I got my honorable discharge in the mail. After that, legally they aren't supposed to be able to touch you. 8 year contract with the army.
    My son ... ask for thyself another internet connection, for that which I leave is too slow for thee

  9. #9
    Moderator Bouncer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    OCONUS
    Posts
    4,834
    Quote Originally Posted by vinnie
    Pick one, you can't have both.
    Yes we can, we're Americans. So we can. In fact, I plan on having both pudding AND jello tonight. So HA! Land of the free, baby!

    Regards,
    -Bouncer-

  10. #10
    meat popsicle Zilog B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,530
    Quote Originally Posted by vinnie
    Indeed. The moral here is... well... where do they get those numbers from? Seriously?

    Does the hippy communist tree hugging frog licking author have any basis for his claims there? The media is typically communist terrorist loving in it's approach, throwing out random numbers which are at best misleading would hardly be out of character when it comes to anything military.

    While we're here, I giggle like a school girl every time an American a) claims that amendments and changes to their law are an essential part of their law and culture and that b) precendents from hundreds of years ago under completely different circumstances must be adhered to by the letter in the current day and age. Pick one, you can't have both.
    You're just jealous that we can own firearms. Admit it.
    My son ... ask for thyself another internet connection, for that which I leave is too slow for thee

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    274
    Vinnie,
    Changes to law and culture are endemic to almost every society. Yours is a perfect case; general firearm ownership is now outlawed in your country. I also challenge you to find me some posts arguing about centuries old 'precendents', whatever they are.

    Just wondering here is this the draft that the Dem's proposed about two years ago, or is this the one the Rep's have yet to propose. I decided not to join the military 15 years ago or so knowing that enlisted folk could be recalled up to something like 48 years old and officers were effectively in for life if the military said so. Its not just a job, its an adventure!
    Last edited by Chrome; 01-06-05 at 05:37 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Man o man......is the draft to make a comeback?
    By downhill in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 02-22-04, 12:45 PM
  2. Would you oppose this proposal?
    By jayyy in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-30-04, 07:23 AM
  3. Nfl Draft..Round 1 Over
    By tao_jones in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-26-03, 08:31 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-26-03, 06:09 AM
  5. NHL Entry Draft today
    By CableDude in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-23-02, 07:34 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •