>> ^rougy:
I'm really surprised that this shit has gone on for so long.
Friend of mine is heading out there soon.
He's a reserve in his late forties.
What the fuck. I mean just...what the fuck?


I would like to type for you you an excerpt from World War Z by Max Brooks

On second thought maybe you all should read the whole section, Pages 50 - 54.

"We were a volunteer army, and look what happened to our volunteers. How many stories do you remember about some soldier who had his term of service extended, or some ex reservist who after ten years of civilian life, suddenly found himself recalled into active duty? How many weekend warriors lost their jobs or houses? How many came back to ruined lives, or, worse, didn't come back at all? Americans are an honest people, we expect a fair deal. I know that a lot of other cultures used to think that was naive and even childish, but it's one of our most sacred principles. To see Uncle Sam going back on his word, revoking people's private lives, revoking their freedom..."
-Max Brooks World War Z Page 53 3rd Paragraph Down, Section Titled Vaalajarvi, Finland character named: Travis D'Ambrosia, Supreme Allied Commander.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy#Legal_basis


Fuck you its free speech. If you can't fill the quota don't start the war.

He is expressing his discontent with bad policy. The brass should be thankful they haven't found themselves on the business end of a Service Issued M-4.

Stop loss is the same as akin to a membership being forcible extended only you have to pay for it with money. In the case of stop loss, you pay for it with sweat and blood.



Fighting for what freedom? Freedom from whom?

I catch a helluva lot of flak for the line above. But I can't seem to find out how fighting in Iraq has had any bearing my freedom? Maybe its the rationalist typing but I will not buy into the foolish idea that sending Americans to the middle east is protecting me.

Don't even get me started about the draft I'll get straight to the point on that. Give me liberty or give me death.

Humor aside, I just spoke with my friend Chris who's about to finish his post-second-tour-stop-loss in May.

He talks about porcelain toilets the way most of us talk about girls.

^It's probably better for recruitment than showing a little girl crying over the coffin of her father who died on the last day of his 4th stop-loss.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
If it's such a "lawful" refusal, then why the hell would you be fearing charges?
Because he will almost certainly be embroiled in a legal battle.
Based on the summary saying he's been honorably discharged, my guess is that he got hit with a "stop loss" letter, telling him that even though he's fulfilled his commitment to the Army, they're extending his contract because they need him.
Technically, refusal to serve would make you AWOL, and I don't know if there's still an opportunity for him to get some sort of conscientious objector status. The Wikipedia article on the topic suggests he won't qualify since he's already served at least 1 tour, therefore he's not opposed to war in general.
I hope he gets and holds the press's attention with this, since it's his only shot of winning this dispute.


Here's a little update on this guy from July. The Army commented on his refusal to redeploy.

"As he put his studies on hold to spend several months speaking to members of Congress in Washington about his plight, Chiroux's second deployment date came and went. Technically, he said, he's not AWOL because he feels he's essentially a civilian, and he's heard nothing from the Army since he failed to report.

The Army sees it differently, though. "The way he's going about it by not showing up puts him as a deserter and someone who is AWOL," Army spokesperson Major Nathan Banks said. "We won't go after him, but if he applies for a federal grant or school loans, certain jobs or gets a traffic ticket, he will be arrested and processed for being a deserter, and he will probably get a dishonorable discharge. He's digging his own hole." Banks said Chiroux's best bet is to file as a conscientious objector and explain his reasons for not wanting to serve. Quon added that if a soldier wishes to claim conscientious objector status, they must first report to their mobilization site and submit an application, which is then reviewed by a General Court Martial."

This came from the article http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1590339/20080702/id_0.jhtml which was linked through Iraq vets against the war. So, the ultimate outcome of this is that one day it will catch up to him and he will receive a dishonorable discharge (which he can have removed after a specified time limit). He essentially just disqualified himself from veteran's benefits. Thats it. The Army doesn't waste resources chasing after everyone that reneges on their obligations. When he looks for government assistance in the future he will be declined.

Under current U.S. law nobody can to jail for breach of contract alone, because breach of contract is a civil matter. In addition, the 13th amendment prevents total enforcement of labor contracts. The remedy for breach of contract is almost always monetary damages. Fortunately the army didn't choose to define this case as desertion. Though the U.S. Army has executed plenty of people for desertion as recently as WWII, in the last 10 years the stiffest sentences given have been 18 months in prison. I believe drafts, the stop-loss program, and incarceration of deserters are forms of slavery that should be abolished.

Well if you signed a contract that says you serve 4 active duty years, they cannot activate you. It is a breach of contract therefore nullifying any agreements between government and soldier.

Now the fact that they signed a contract with "Stop Loss" and other clauses like that means they were dumb enough not to negotiate the contract with a lawyer.

Contrary to belief any contract between any one anywhere in the united states can be negotiated with a Lawyer it is your right to legal representation. Contracts are legal matters.

A coworker and a person I considered a friend was a Cop/Guard for my college: Negotiated his contract with Marines and Army. Both times they failed to meet his needs, only the last time did they meet his requirements. These requirements weren't out of hand, they were to get him the ability to postpone deployment until some one replaced him as a Guard, and other things that Id rather not mention.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
If it's such a "lawful" refusal, then why the hell would you be fearing charges?
Because he will almost certainly be embroiled in a legal battle.
Based on the summary saying he's been honorably discharged, my guess is that he got hit with a "stop loss" letter, telling him that even though he's fulfilled his commitment to the Army, they're extending his contract because they need him.
Technically, refusal to serve would make you AWOL, and I don't know if there's still an opportunity for him to get some sort of conscientious objector status. The Wikipedia article on the topic suggests he won't qualify since he's already served at least 1 tour, therefore he's not opposed to war in general.
I hope he gets and holds the press's attention with this, since it's his only shot of winning this dispute.


No. He has NOT filled his commitment. I guess most civillians don't understand that. When you enlist in the military - any branch - you owe then 8 years. Whether you spend those all active or 4 active/4 inactive doesn't matter.

The only thing he's fulfilled is the four year part of his contract. He's still got 4 to go, which yes, is a stop loss, but he's not yet completed his end of the contract, which is why the entire movie "Stop Loss" is an utter crock of shit.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
If it's such a "lawful" refusal, then why the hell would you be fearing charges?

Because he will almost certainly be embroiled in a legal battle.

Based on the summary saying he's been honorably discharged, my guess is that he got hit with a "stop loss" letter, telling him that even though he's fulfilled his commitment to the Army, they're extending his contract because they need him.

Technically, refusal to serve would make you AWOL, and I don't know if there's still an opportunity for him to get some sort of conscientious objector status. The Wikipedia article on the topic suggests he won't qualify since he's already served at least 1 tour, therefore he's not opposed to war in general.

I hope he gets and holds the press's attention with this, since it's his only shot of winning this dispute.

the stop-loss program is slavery to the state

Any (sane) person who joins the military knows there's a chance they will die in the line of duty.

Acmetech, I think you're confusing trustworthiness with submissiveness.

The stop-loss program and all other forms of conscription are slavery (therefore prohibited by the 13th amendment). Laws against desertion also constitute slavery and a violation of the 13th amendment. I would encourage soldiers who want to avoid getting called up again to flee to a more civilized country in the EU. A truly volunteer military would effectively give the soldiers veto power over unjust war by allowing them to leave. No true war of defense would lack volunteers.

The fact that hundreds of times more Americans are dying from McDonalds than from the war in Iraq is another reason not to spend so much time glorifying soldiers who died for Dick Cheney's sake.

At least Obama voted against the authorization for the Iraq war. If we pulled out all troops immediately, there might be anarchy and more genocide. Clinton/Obama are just saying take it slow and let things cool down (like we did with Japan/Germany after WWII) USA did a pretty good job of reconstructing Japan back in the day. If we fuck it over like post WWI Germany, there may be somebody even worse than Saddam Hussein in charge in 2020.

>> ^jwray:
Only nonwilling participants in something can be deemed victims of it. Informed consent makes it impossible to call the dead soldiers victims. They knew what they signed up for. It's a shame they had to die. They ought to have deserted.


jwray, sure, if you think of all the enlisted soldiers as rich white suburb kids, then fine. Keep pretending they knew all the risks and what they were signing up for. They knew they would be living in a crappy desert and spending their days as policemen waiting for a bomb to blow them up. They knew they would be firing on crowds and shooting at kids holding ak-47s.

You might be naively forgetting about all the people who joined the Reserves to pay for their kids college, or maybe they need the income, or maybe they were patriotic and doing it for many years, even decades. Did they plan to be called up? Did they know about stop-loss and having to do three combat duties. Did they know they'd have to keep getting sent back to Iraq because the military is stretched so thin.

And what about the people who didn't have any options. Inner city kids with not many other options. People who are told they get their choice of 3 yrs in jail, or enlist instead. Who do you think are they ones coming home in bodybags? Informed consent? Did they know about PTSD? Did they know about how many people are maimed? Did the news report on this in the last five years? Did the military HIDE all the coffins? Did the US Govt prevent the media from showing ANY IMAGES? Do you know how many soldiers are coming back maimed and permanently wounded?

Forget about reporting the deaths. Just on numbers alone, how many are coming back with PTSD or missing legs, arms, hearing, vision? Do you know?

Lay off MG? He's the one who said he doesn't want to shower with any homos, then later says "Stare at me all you want. It won't bother me." So, the first comments are just to be incendiary (which I totally respect and admire, because I'm likely to do the same)

Anyways, as to the policy, we would not have Stop Loss right now if they weren't busy kicking out gays. We would have Arabic translators and intelligence, but instead we only allow closeted gays to serve.

Since "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" came into force in 1993, 12,000 soldiers have been forced to leave the military, either because they refused to hide their homosexuality or because they were denounced by fellow soldiers.

On Friday, human rights organisations teamed up with groups like Log Cabin Republicans and a legal defence network for soldiers to plant 12,000 American flags on the National Mall in Washington to recognise the men and women who have suffered because of the policy.

The generals and admirals who signed the letter to Congress cited "scholarly data" which show that around 65,000 gays and lesbians serve in the US armed forces.

According to a poll conducted by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation in May, 79 percent of Americans think homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military.

Stop loss was pointed out when I signed up and I asked questions about it. It is most definitely in your contract when you sign up. When you enlist, you sign for 8 years of service no matter what. So if you leave active duty anytime before 8 years are up, they contractually reserve the right to call you back if there is a shortage for your MOS. The way I've seen stop loss most commonly used is with soldiers that are approaching the end of their service during the month of our units deployment or in the months shortly after. If they need numbers and you're about to disappear, they will extend you until the end of the next tour. This happened to a few of my friends on the last deployment. They were a little bitter about it initially, but all of them understood that they had signed for it. They even planned ahead knowing what would happen when they saw that they were scheduled to leave the Army practically the day after we were supposed to hit the ground. Also, the extensions are by no means indefinite as the movie claims. Everyone I knew that was extended either came home and outprocessed half-way through the deployment, or immediately after we got back.

from reading the wiki entry, stop loss seems pretty controversial and not an open and shut issue