E-Z-B
04-07-2005, 06:40 PM
Some guy who's contract was up last June and is due to ship out to Afghanistan
any day now lost his case to the appeals courts. And they extended his service
by 26 more years. Once your 8 years are up, you've completed your contract. If the military needs more soldiers, they should re-institute the draft. Then it's fair for everybody:
Appeals court rejects Guardsman's bid to block extension of his service
By Alex Fryer
Seattle Times staff reporter
Emiliano Santiago, a National Guard sergeant, embraces his sister, Susana Gomez, while surrounded by family at the appeals-court hearing of his lawsuit yesterday. The court later rejected his suit.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals took just hours yesterday to uphold the military's "stop-loss" policy that required Santiago to report to active duty months after he completed an eight-year commitment to the National Guard.
In a two-paragraph judgment, the judges also denied Santiago's motion to allow him to remain in the United States pending an appeal. The judges said they would provide a more detailed opinion later.
Santiago was due to ship out tomorrow from his Pasco home to re-unite with his helicopter-refueling unit in Afghanistan.
Although he apparently fulfilled his military contract in June 2004, Santiago's platoon sergeant told him his termination had been set back to Christmas Eve 2031, an arbitrary date set for "administrative convenience," according to court papers.
Accompanied by 16 members of his family including his wife and parents, Santiago, 27, said he was hoping for good news.
"I signed my contract for eight years. The government involuntarily extended me for another 27 years. I want the government to be fair," he said. "That's the message. It's just unfair."
But the judges appeared to side with the government's lawyer who argued the president has a right to call up troops in times of emergency, regardless of a particular soldier's length of service.
Department of Justice Attorney Thomas Byron told the court that Santiago's unit was already in Afghanistan and that his commander said Santiago was "critical to those operations."
Since members of the Army National Guard have been serving on active duty since October 2001, Byron said the law allowed military planners to involuntarily extend the duty of Santiago and any other Guardsmen.
Santiago's attorney, Steven Goldberg, argued the judges should read Santiago's contract carefully and come down on the side of a teenaged recruit who did not read all the pertinent federal codes relating to military service.
Goldberg also noted that involuntarily extending terms of duty would have a chilling effect on recruitment.
"If you accept what the government is saying, what young man or woman would be willing to sign up?" he asked.
Judge Richard Tallman said the practical impact of the Pentagon's stop-loss policy should concern Congress, not the courts.
"That's certainly a risk, that it will have an adverse affect on recruiting," said Tallman. "[But] we're not legislators."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002233738_stoploss07.html
Spread the word that if someone you know is deciding to join the military, they're in for life.
any day now lost his case to the appeals courts. And they extended his service
by 26 more years. Once your 8 years are up, you've completed your contract. If the military needs more soldiers, they should re-institute the draft. Then it's fair for everybody:
Appeals court rejects Guardsman's bid to block extension of his service
By Alex Fryer
Seattle Times staff reporter
Emiliano Santiago, a National Guard sergeant, embraces his sister, Susana Gomez, while surrounded by family at the appeals-court hearing of his lawsuit yesterday. The court later rejected his suit.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals took just hours yesterday to uphold the military's "stop-loss" policy that required Santiago to report to active duty months after he completed an eight-year commitment to the National Guard.
In a two-paragraph judgment, the judges also denied Santiago's motion to allow him to remain in the United States pending an appeal. The judges said they would provide a more detailed opinion later.
Santiago was due to ship out tomorrow from his Pasco home to re-unite with his helicopter-refueling unit in Afghanistan.
Although he apparently fulfilled his military contract in June 2004, Santiago's platoon sergeant told him his termination had been set back to Christmas Eve 2031, an arbitrary date set for "administrative convenience," according to court papers.
Accompanied by 16 members of his family including his wife and parents, Santiago, 27, said he was hoping for good news.
"I signed my contract for eight years. The government involuntarily extended me for another 27 years. I want the government to be fair," he said. "That's the message. It's just unfair."
But the judges appeared to side with the government's lawyer who argued the president has a right to call up troops in times of emergency, regardless of a particular soldier's length of service.
Department of Justice Attorney Thomas Byron told the court that Santiago's unit was already in Afghanistan and that his commander said Santiago was "critical to those operations."
Since members of the Army National Guard have been serving on active duty since October 2001, Byron said the law allowed military planners to involuntarily extend the duty of Santiago and any other Guardsmen.
Santiago's attorney, Steven Goldberg, argued the judges should read Santiago's contract carefully and come down on the side of a teenaged recruit who did not read all the pertinent federal codes relating to military service.
Goldberg also noted that involuntarily extending terms of duty would have a chilling effect on recruitment.
"If you accept what the government is saying, what young man or woman would be willing to sign up?" he asked.
Judge Richard Tallman said the practical impact of the Pentagon's stop-loss policy should concern Congress, not the courts.
"That's certainly a risk, that it will have an adverse affect on recruiting," said Tallman. "[But] we're not legislators."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002233738_stoploss07.html
Spread the word that if someone you know is deciding to join the military, they're in for life.