You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Guard Member Who Challenged Active-Duty Policy Volunteers to Re-Enlist
2005-01-21
A soldier who sued the Army for requiring him to serve past the date of his enlistment contract apparently wants to stick with the military, after all. Spc. David Qualls, 35, has volunteered for another six-year stint in the National Guard, Capt. Kristine Munn, a National Guard spokeswoman, said Thursday. "It's interesting, knowing his past," Munn said. She said she wasn't sure if Qualls would qualify. Qualls is now back in Iraq after he and seven other unnamed U.S. soldiers filed a lawsuit last month challenging the military's "stop loss" policy, which allows the extension of active-duty deployments during times of war or national emergencies. The lawsuit, filed while Qualls was on leave, argues that the enlistment contracts are misleading because they make no explicit reference to the policy. The eight soldiers are believed to be the first active-duty personnel to file such a lawsuit. A judge denied Qualls' request for a restraining order after the government argued that allowing Qualls to stay on leave would set a dangerous precedent. Munn, the guard spokeswoman, said wasn't sure if Qualls would qualify for an extension.
I'd keep him. If he's back in Iraq, and wants to re-up, it seems he agrees we are doing the right thing. He just disagrees on the over use of "stop loss", which I agree should be changed by adding a couple more divisions.
Posted by:Steve

#8  Not quite correct Moose. Article I, Section 8 makes military law, Title 10 USC and its subset the UCMJ the power of Congress. Our founding fathers still had nightmares from Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth. So while the Pres is C-in-C and can make policy, the writers of Constitution made sure that Congress had approval of commissioned officers, control of the funding of the armed forces, and made the law.
Posted by: Don   2005-01-21 6:54:17 PM  

#7  Not necessarily, Steve. It is dependent on their "strangeness", that is how far are they remote from a decent human being.
Posted by: Sobiesky   2005-01-21 3:32:38 PM  

#6  You do get to go to exotic foreign lands and meet strange and interesting people, though.
And kill them..
Posted by: Steve   2005-01-21 1:30:18 PM  

#5  Recently, I heard that the waiting list to be a Marine recruit is six months. Of course, if you're in a hurry, there's always SOG. But if you go there, you don't get a snappy dress uniform and a shiny chrome "sa-ward". You do get to go to exotic foreign lands and meet strange and interesting people, though.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-01-21 12:34:02 PM  

#4  Sorry,B but there is a drop in reserve and NG numbers only. The active component has met its 2004 goals. The 2005 figures will be altered by the [finally]Congressional action to increase the Army's numbers by about 24k new slots. Going to be a challenge to fill all those. And no, its not just new bodies, but includes additional retention of middle and upper grade personnel to fill the command slots of any new formations created.
Second, the military will not just take anyone. Their experience in the 70's with problem children taught them to recruit and retain only those who will truely commit to the team. Been there, seen it done it.
Guess this child got the message of the law - TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 39 > para. 671a Members: service extension during war

Unless terminated at an earlier date by the Secretary concerned, the period of active service of any member of an armed force is extended for the duration of any war in which the United States may be engaged and for six months thereafter.

So at this time, all releases are at the discretion of the service secretaries. Considering the vast majority are handled in a manner not much different than they were in the anti-bellum period, is remarkable.
Posted by: Don   2005-01-21 10:26:03 AM  

#3  His lawsuit makes a basic legal error. According to the Constitution, the US Congress *alone* determines the composition of the armed forces. This means that Common Law, Contract Law, and many other accepted civilian rights and privileges do not apply. For example, that is why the armed services can essentially hold you in 'involuntary servitude', and intentionally place you in hazardous situations; and why anyone can legally be excluded from service, despite their race, color, national origin, sex, sexual preference, weight, disability, citizenship, prior criminal record, and even on "morality" grounds. The courts can only intervene is there is a disagreement between Congress and the President (who is responsible for the UCMJ) over composition, or if Congress allows the courts to involve themselves.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-01-21 10:20:15 AM  

#2  Guess he just lost his status as "antiwar hero."
Posted by: Mike   2005-01-21 9:46:51 AM  

#1  The Army or any branch should not turn away those who wish to VOLUNTIARLY serve and defend our country. Enrollment into the armed forces is down 20 - 25% in all branches. The U.S. armed forces is advertising all over the place for new recruits. This is only more BEAUCRATIC BULLSHIT.

Andrea Jackson
Posted by: belphegor   2005-01-21 9:46:00 AM  

00:00