US troops sue over tours in Iraq

moghrabi

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
US troops sue over tours in Iraq

Several US soldiers are going to the courts in an effort to stop the US army extending their tours of duty in Iraq.
With US forces stretched by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, many units have been ordered to stay on longer than originally expected.

Soldiers have been kept abroad even if the date they were due to leave the army has passed.

A lawsuit challenging the policy is expected to be filed on Monday in a federal court in Washington.

Lawyers for the men have teamed up with the Center for Constitutional Rights, a liberal public interest group, to launch a class action lawsuit calling for an end to the practice known as "stop-loss".


This way, the units deploy together, train together, fight together and come home together
Army spokeswoman


The plaintiffs say thousands of service personnel have been kept in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond their discharge or retirement date.
Last week the Pentagon announced that several units would have their tours in Iraq extended to cover the elections due in January.

One of the men involved in the lawsuit, Arkansas National Guardsman David Qualls, told the New York Times: "My job was to go over and perform my duties under the contract I signed.

"But my year is up and it's been up. Now I believe that they should honour their end of the contract."

Fear of retribution

The newspaper says there are eight plaintiffs, but that Mr Qualls is the only one willing to reveal his name.

The others are reportedly referred to in the lawsuit as "John Doe" numbers one to seven.

They apparently fear retribution if they reveal themselves, including more dangerous postings in Iraq.

They include a military bandsman, ordered to Iraq to play music.

The army says its stop-loss policy is vital to ensure its forces on the ground are familiar with their environment.

"If someone next to you is new, it can be dangerous," army spokeswoman Lt Col Pamela Hart told the New York Times.

"The bottom line of this is unit cohesion. This way, the units deploy together, train together, fight together and come home together."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4072467.stm

Published: 2004/12/06 14:11:16 GMT
 
H

HeatSink

Nominee Member
Nov 23, 2004
70
0
6
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, eh?
www.theheatsinkbbs.ca
moghrabi said:
US troops sue over tours in Iraq

Several US soldiers are going to the courts in an effort to stop the US army extending their tours of duty in Iraq.
With US forces stretched by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, many units have been ordered to stay on longer than originally expected.
Click to expand...

Interesting, but not the first time a service person or persons have felt that they are being extended unfairly.

There are a few fundamental 'rules' in the military world that must adhere to less the military unit in question fall apart. One of these rules is that war is unpredictable - you get to go home when the job is done, not when a calendar day approaches.

I feel for anyone who has had a tour extended against their wishes, a lot of times the only thing that keeps you going is the count down to the day you get to leave. I also feel for the US reserves who undoubtably never had a clue that there services would be needed in such a fashion for such a long period of time.

However, none of that changes anything. If the US military doesn't feel that a unit's job is done, and there's no unit to replace it and carry on, then that unit has to stay.

Hope they get to come home soon...
 
moghrabi

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
I hope they come home soon too, and go after Bush and his gang for sending them to the wrong war for the wrong reasons under false pretenses for his own personal goals.
 
moghrabi

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Well they might be told that they could have a case against the governemnt. I am not a lawyer to tell you really the legalities of the case.

The reason I actually posted the article is to show that even the soldiers are getting fed up.
 
R

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: US troops sue over to

It depends on what is in the contracts they signed and whether they were made to fully understand what those contracts meant.
 
moghrabi

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
That is true. In the rush to war, most of these soldiers who are mostly immigrants (mostly south Americans promised to get citizenship if they returned alive) and just above the age of 18 were rushed to sign papers. Did they have a clue about what they are signing? Maybe not.
 
moghrabi

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
It is all over the news. Let me find you a link or two. Also, check the names of the dead soldiers. most of them have hispanic names.
 
H

HeatSink

Nominee Member
Nov 23, 2004
70
0
6
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, eh?
www.theheatsinkbbs.ca
Re: RE: US troops sue over tours in Iraq

Rick van Opbergen said:
Will their criticism not be dismissed because it is "part of the job" to be send to a country like Iraq, to fight a war which you don't agree with?
Click to expand...

Hi Rick,

I'm not 100% sure what you mean here...I'll take a stab at answering what I think you're asking.

There's a marked difference between the responsibilities of the individual soldier and the responsibilty of the government that owns the military force.

The solider is responsible to the military; the military (as the goverment) is responsible to its citizens.

There really isn'y any provision I'm aware of (in the Canadian Forces, anyhow) that allows serving members to pick and choose what military actions they want to be part of. They are soldiers and therefore obligated to go where they're told to go and do what they're told to do.

The solider is responsible for following their orders, and if that means their tour gets extended, then that's what it means.

Any discussion about whether the soldier should be somewhere in the first place is a totally different discussion that has to be held at a totally different level. That's what the UN, NATO, the international community, the Hague...et al, is for. I'm aware that there are varying opinions of whether these organizations are doing their jobs, but that's a conversation for a different thread.

So..therefore...I'd be surprised if any of these individuals were given any satisfaction in the courts for not agreeing with, or being extended in, a military action.

I do find this interesting though, and it may be a mitigating factor: Historicaly soldiers sign up for a country, a military - not a specific action. There is faith on the individual's part that their values and the government's values are and will remain aligned enough that the individual will never have any significant moral quams about being ordered to perform certain actions. In this case, though, if it is indeed true that these individuals signed a contract to perform in a specific action (as oposed to joining the military as whole), then hey...maybe they do have a case.

Me.
 
R

Rick van Opbergen

House Member
Sep 16, 2004
4,080
0
36
The Netherlands
www.google.com
moghrabi said:
35,000 immigrants will about 17.5 percent on the front lines.
Click to expand...
No, you're mixing things up. 35,000 immigrants (non-citizens) are in the entire US military. The 17.5 percent you link it to are Hispanics in the US army - and not all of them are non-citizens. And according to your second source, Blacks and Hispanics have even a smaller chance to die in Iraq compared to their total share in the US population.
 
H

HeatSink

Nominee Member
Nov 23, 2004
70
0
6
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, eh?
www.theheatsinkbbs.ca
Re: RE: US troops sue over tours in Iraq

moghrabi said:
That is true. In the rush to war, most of these soldiers who are mostly immigrants (mostly south Americans promised to get citizenship if they returned alive) and just above the age of 18 were rushed to sign papers. Did they have a clue about what they are signing? Maybe not.
Click to expand...

So, I'm not a lawyer but....

I think it's largely agreed that the reason most countries have some concept of 'age of majority' is just for this reason. If someone is of the designated age and has no other impairments that would prevent them from understanding the intent of a contract - generally they are bound by that contract.

There's a couple of problems with this in this case, though:

1. Was there a language barrier present that perhaps did result in these people being unable to understand the intent of the contract?

2. For the individuals that aren't even citizens of the States - can they legally be held by US laws to a US contract?

Perhaps a lawyer could successfuly argue these points, I don't know.

I don't know the answers to either of these questions - just curious.
 
moghrabi

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Rick van Opbergen said:
moghrabi said:
35,000 immigrants will about 17.5 percent on the front lines.
Click to expand...
No, you're mixing things up. 35,000 immigrants (non-citizens) are in the entire US military. The 17.5 percent you link it to are Hispanics in the US army - and not all of them are non-citizens. And according to your second source, Blacks and Hispanics have even a smaller chance to die in Iraq compared to their total share in the US population.
Click to expand...

My mistake about the figures. Sorry.

As for the point of immigrants, HeatSink put it properly. There might be language barrier and so on that lawyers can build a case around.

War is messy as they say.
 
R

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: US troops sue over to

It isn't just a language barrier. There have been cases of soldiers signing papers that put them on a kind of stand-by for four or five years after their original obligation is up. Some of them never knew about it, others, when they asked about it, were told not to worry because the clause wouldn't be used or they would only be on light duty in non-combat situations.

If representatives of the US military can be shown to have misrepresented the meaning of the contract, then the validity of the contract may come into question. Apparently this is complicated because the contract is complex enough that it is questionable that anybody without legal training could be reasonably expected to understand it.

The lawyers will have to figure this one out. Military organisations, in the US and around the world, have been noted for their less than honest recruiting tactics in the past though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom