US soldiers sue for having to stay in Iraq

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1367979,00.html?gusrc=rss

US soldiers sue for having to stay in Iraq

Paul Harris in New York
Tuesday December 7, 2004
The Guardian

Eight US soldiers serving in Iraq launched a legal challenge yesterday to stop their tours of duty from being extended. The lawsuit is the first of its kind by a group of American soldiers on active service in the country.

The soldiers, seven of whom will remain anonymous out of fear of official retribution, are fighting against being forced to stay in their units after their period of enlistment has ended.

This so-called "stop loss" policy has seen thousands of American soldiers being kept on despite having passed their official dates for retirement, leaving the military or switching to other units.

The move adds to a growing list of dissatisfactions expressed by current and former members of the military over US handling of the war. They have ranged from widespread criticism over insufficient troop levels to equipment shortages and failures.

The stop loss policy was introduced last spring for all soldiers posted to Iraq or Afghanistan. It means that soldiers whose period of enlistment ends while they are on active duty cannot go home until their entire unit reaches the end of its period of service. That could mean many weeks of service for individual soldiers whose enlistments end earlier than those of their comrades.

The army says the policy is needed to maintain cohesion and avoid problems of continually integrating new men and women into units at war. However, critics have said that the army is using the policy as a way of maintaining manpower levels at a time when the military is facing a recruiting squeeze. In recent months more than 7,000 soldiers have been affected by the policy.

The soldiers' suit against the army claims that the stop loss policy is a breach of contract. "This is a matter of fairness. My job was to go over and perform my duties under the contract I signed ... Now I believe that they should honour their end of the contract," one of the soldiers, David Qualls, told the New York Times.

Mr Qualls, the only one of the group not listed on court papers as "John Doe", said he was not against the war. But the soldiers' case, which has been filed in a court in Washington DC, has been taken up by several groups connected to the anti-war movement.

The soldiers have been given legal help from the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, which has launched several cases challenging the US detention centre at Guantánamo Bay.

Some relatives of the soldiers have also been given advice and encouragement by Military Families Speak Out, a lobby group of relatives formed to oppose the war.

"This lawsuit addresses an injustice that is keeping soldiers fighting and dying after they have completed their side of their contract with the army," said Nancy Lessin, co-founder of MFSO.

The eight soldiers in the lawsuit come from a variety of backgrounds. They include an army musician, a transportation specialist and a National Guardsman. Mr Qualls, who is due back in Iraq this weekend, is a radio operator.

He signed up for one year in the Arkansas National Guard in 2003 but he said that he now expects to be in Iraq until some time next year. "You've got thousands of people over there in the same situation as me and somebody's got to do something. Why not have it be me?" he said.


There has been alot of debate over whether or not soldiers who indeed signed themselves up for the armed forces should be allowed to later change their minds when presented with the actual task of going to war.

As I see it, anybody who decides to join the military right now deserves to honor the contract they signed. It is blatantly obvious you will end up in a war, so if you sign up, se la vi' . For those who have been in the military prior to Iraq and simply disagree with it and object to the underlying motives etc... I support them refusing to serve, two different climates. Hope that makes sense.

Now there's this. The Govt breaching contract. I can see the point of the soldiers in that they have honored the contract they signed yet it keeps changing. Oddly enough I also want to point out that they signed up during a time of war, what did you expect? Even though I want the troops back here witht their families, it's an odd issue. I think if they win we will be just that one step closer to an actual draft and perhaps one step closer to a wake up call for the American people. Anybody have any thoughts?

 

A contract is a contract and they should be allowed to go home. This stop loss policy was not put into place to maintain cohesion - it was put into place because recruitment of military personnel has become near impossible. Who wants to sign up for duty with a company (our government) that has shown to repeatedly deceive its employees (military personnel) to the point where they are risking their lives for a war that was unjust and illegal to begin with.

 

Like it says, they did their part of the contract... If they broke it, there would be serious consequences, why not if the government does?

 

When you join the service part of the paperwork you sign states EAOS, (end of active obligated service) being on a certian date when you will get out , however you are obligated to serve another 4 years in the (IRR) indivdual ready reserves, if we are not at war you go home and live your life, your time in the service being a memory, but if we are at war they can keep you as long as they need you. So in a nut shell they have you for eight years even if you think you only sign up for four.

I feel for those guys and wish they could come home but I think they are screwed, and don't think that their lawsuit will go anywhere.

 

Oh, well if something like that is in the contract, then they're screwed...

 

Yeah I would say so.

 

did anyone else hear about how they are sending reservists who haven't been active since the 60's to Iraq now...among them was a grandma looking woman in combat gear....