Talk:Stop-loss policy

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Controversy

the main thing to remember here, is that the mainstream media have not picked up on this.

according to the Military Law Task Force, more than several suits were filed in the last couple of years against the stoploss, and the reason that they never have successfully challenged are 1) The DOD always drudges up the plaintiff (soldier or marine) on MEDboards or Behavioral charges, and chapters them out. 2) The STOP-LOSS always ends before the federal court system processes the suit.

I did not make up any of the information in this article, but then again, even Iraq vets like myself don't understand the stop-loss completely.

Jom Klimaski, head of the National Lawyers Guild and a Vietnam Vet with +30 years of military law experience, told me that STOP-LOSS is illegal. I tend to believe him.

--Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First legal challenge

Although there was a suit in October 2004, as mentioned in this article, there was apparently an earlier one in August: [1]. Is the subject of legal challenges worth more elaboration? (In other words, should we grab some of the other information from this linked news story?) JamesMLane 07:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They lost that suit [2] Equinox137 (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure when stop-loss started but it was long before the Gulf Wars started; I suspect that it came to public attention then because many more people were being stop-lossed as a consequence of the drawdown in the size of the military. Reading the .pdf version of the enlistment contract at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd0004.pdf , stop-loss would seem to be covered in part 10.

I should get around to joining, I suppose. htom

Joining Wikipedia, I meant. I'll try to find some other on-line resources about this and either incoperate them or re-write the article. htom OtterSmith 19:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added some history, and I may not have been logged in. :( I haven't found an on-line citation to Steven's suit. htom OtterSmith 17:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More tiny changes. htom OtterSmith 23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a category that fits. "Military personell policy", but it doesn't exist (and isn't spelled correctly.) --htom 00:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Category:United States military policies"

article states The new program, known as Involuntary Extension, is a circumvention of stop-loss, and simply changes the ETS [end time service] date on a soldier's account. I've been told a person has a contract with the government to be a soldier. So does the above mean the government pulls up the contract, erases the ETS, and writes a new one in there without bringing the soldier in there to sign agreement to changes in contract? And if so, shouldn't the word "account" be written in the article as "contract" instead? 67.53.78.15 02:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've confused the contract with the bookkeeping done by the military. ETS is an approximate date in the bookkeeping system, not the date in the contract. It appears that they have changed all of the ETS to be 24 Dec 2032, which seems a silly thing to do at first glance. On thinking about it, there are probably a pile of computer programs that look at the ETS and begin issuing orders to become effective 90, 60, ... days before the ETS. Rather than attempt to find all of those programs and correct them, or attempt to manually chase the orders once generated, they are fooling the computers into not issuing them. At least as I understand this; I could be wrong. htom (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy Tag

I added the "factual accuracy" tag for the following reasons:

1). The statement "It has been argued that soldiers contractually agree to partake in stop-loss, but this may or may not be the case, and the issue is still being debated, both in public and in federal court." It IS, in fact, the case. As correctly cited in the article, Paragraph 9(c) of DD Form 4/1| (the Enlistment Contract) clearly states "In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless the enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States." This HAS been challenged over the years in the federal courts and ALL of the challenges have failed.
2). The article erronously states that "Since then, it has been used more extensively; since 2001 primarily after the national State of emergency declared by President George W. Bush". This is flat out wrong - stop loss was used extensively also during the Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo deployments.
3). The article claims that "Stop loss was created by Congress after the Vietnam War" then further down claims "The first legal challenge to the extension of term of service of military call-up or contract occurred during the American Civil War, when a soldier was courtmartialed by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton himself." Which is it? It's either a new concept or it's not.
4). The article states "The new program, known as Involuntary Extension, is a circumvention of stop-loss, and simply changes the ETS [end time service] date on a soldier's account." There is no such animal as a soldier's "account"

Some of this looks to me to be plainly made up. Equinox137 (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1)The issue can be debated even though the courts have spoken; there are few things that can't be brought into, or back into, court.
2)I suppose that editor was thinking of "modern", that is, Bush's, use.
3)It's an old concept, with a new name; previous extensions were without Congress's authorization.
4)There are several accounts. There can even be several contracts. ((See my comment above, too.)

htom (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'm not saying it can't be debated. What I AM saying is that the legal questions have been answered a long time ago.
2) You're probably right, however the information couldn't be more incorrect.
3) Any sourcing on the part about previous extenstions being without Congressional authorization? Keep in mind, Congressional authorization isn't necessary now - it's just formalized into US Code and into enlistment contracts.
4) No sir. What you're referring to is SIDPERS, which is not an "account" but a personnel record. 69.58.224.75 (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I agree that the legal questions appear to be settled. That doesn't stop people from bringing them back to the courts, again and again, only to be told by the court that it's a settled question, move along. It's a great way to get publicity and stir people up, especially when you're thrown out.
2) All of the cases you cite are before Bush took office, and before 2001. You could insert that list, though, um : ... used more extensively, for example for USA troops in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo; since 2001 ...
3) No source, just memory that it changed from being DoD policy and/or Executive Order to being part of the US Code as well.
4) Today, one person's "record" is another's "account"; at least they are not grunting and pointing. I've heard both terms used to refer to my current collection of VA paperwork. Thinking back, "account" is usually used when they're talking about money, and "record" when they are talking history of service. Again, if you were to change it to "personnel record" from "account" I won't object.

htom (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]