(no subject)
Sep. 17th, 2004 04:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselkingSoldiers in the US Army with only a short time left in their term of service are being told to re-enlist with a contract that will keep them in the Army and stateside until 2008, or they will be deployed immediately to Iraq for a year (regardless of whether or not their hitch is up in less than a year) after which time they will most likely be retained in the Army for three to four more years - whether they like it or not - due to a stop-loss order.
Basically, it's "Re-enlist voluntarily or you'll be sent to Iraq and then re-enlisted forcibly."
Basically, it's "Re-enlist voluntarily or you'll be sent to Iraq and then re-enlisted forcibly."
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-17 03:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-19 11:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-19 11:48 am (UTC)Transferring people to combat units = okay.
Stop-lossing combat vets = okay.
Extorting a signature on a contract by *threatening* transfer to a combat unit and stop-loss order = not okay.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-19 11:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-19 11:35 pm (UTC)#2: You're dead wrong in so many ways it's not funny. You sign a contract that says you will not be treated as a *CIVILIAN*, but that is not, the same, at all, as giving up any of your rights, or saying that anything the government does to you from then on is legal. That is, in fact, such an asinine statement that I'm really having trouble even beginning to find a way in which it's NOT totally wrong.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 02:18 pm (UTC)