Today's terrifying link:

[theweaselking]

Update the 2nd: Clarification and addendum to spoof commentary, pre-cut.

Update: PNH notes that this story is a spoof.

Frankly, it sounds way too believable to be a *funny* one. It fails the "good satire" test, by being something way too believable - like claiming that Bill Frist has explicitly called for the prosecution of judges who rule in "un-Christian" ways.

US Army signing up children as young as 14

Colin Hadley spends most of his days after school skateboarding or playing Halo II on his new X-Box with friends. He sleeps until noon or later on weekends and rarely, if ever, does any schoolwork outside the classroom, where he pulls down solid C's and a few D's - just enough to get by. He's the typical 15-year-old American boy: cocksure in demeanor, certain the world revolves around him, and confident that life is going to serve him well.

And he's the new "target of interest" for U.S. military recruiters who've begun signing up boys as young as 14 for military service, which they will be required to begin when they turn 18.

"It's a sweet deal," says Hadley, who boasts that he bought his X-Box with the enlistment bonus he received after signing up last month. "I don't have to do hardly anything for three years, but they're paying me now."

Ah, yes, the classic "Sign them up with benefits before they know anything about what they're doing" trick.
Want to bet there's a pile of lawsuits a few years from now, claiming that they couldn't possibly have made an informed decision at 14?

Carla Bloomer agrees with Tom Hadley that poor children have few options, but rankles at the suggestion that selling military service to a child is an answer to the problem. And she didn't even know this was an issue until she learned a recruiter had talked to her 14-year-old son and convinced him to sign up.

"He's not smart enough to make a decision like that at this point in his life," she says. "That recruiter came in and played to his teenager's sense of invincibility and know-it-all attitude and convinced him this was the best thing for him to do. In the end, I had to give in and let him sign up."

After he signed the paperwork, however, Bloomer took a closer look at the contract and was even more disturbed by what she learned. The small print reveals that the $350 monthly stipend her son receives is actually an advance on his $250 per month combat pay and $100 per month hardship duty pay.

"What they've done is guarantee that my son will go to war when he's old enough," says Bloomer. "They're paying him for it now so he can't back out later."
Her son, Richard, admits he wasn't aware of the source of the payments he's receiving, but adds that he's not worried about it either.

"At least I'm getting paid now," he says. "Hell, I might get killed my first week out and then I'd get nothing. At least I can enjoy it now."

... yeah. Of course, he hasn't READ the contract he signed.

the money paid out in the pre-enlistment program is an advance on pay, which will need to be paid back if the soldier is unable to serve in combat for any reason.

"If a recruit is incapacitated or killed before two years of service have been completed, half of the funds paid to him pre-service will need to be returned to the U.S. government," he says. "That's still very generous, considering we could ask for reimbursement of funds for the entire period of incomplete service."

But this provision has not sat well with some citizens who have petitioned the government to repeal this section. U.S. Rep. Dennis Caster introduced a bill in the last session that would make any repayment of the pre-paid funds strictly voluntary, but it never made it out of committee.

And once these kids sign up under this program, they are committed to serving in a combat zone and face strict punishment if they refuse duty when they come of age. If any refuse to show up for duty they will be charged with desertion in a time of war and be subject to military court martial, which, theoretically at least, could result in the death penalty.

"We expect our recruits of all ages to honor their commitment," says Pederson. "We are expending resources to guarantee their future service and will do whatever is necessary to make sure they live up to their pledge."

Absolute proof that these kids are too stupid to be signing contracts:

"They give us a lot of money for doing nothing," says Tyler. "If we have to go to war later, it won't be that bad anyway. She (Reas) gave us a copy of an Army video game that lets you see what it's really like. If you know what you're doing, you probably won't get hurt or killed."

Comments

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Um, so you can be bound to a contract before the age of 18 in the states?

That's dumb.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

You can do it in Canada, too. If minors couldn't sign contracts, they'd have a royal bitch of a time getting jobs or even working with warrantees.

The thing is, there's the requirement of informed consent, which they are most definitely not getting, here.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Weird, for some reason I thought they couldn't.

I'm going to have to look into that.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

The parents are supplying it though.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

No, they're not. Take a look at the bit I quoted above, where the parent didn't get to see the contract until after it was signed, and didn't know that these were *advances* on pay until after the fact.

There is a critical lack of informed consent involved.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

The father consented though.

I admit this is just pushing up against the law though, and that contract law in general needs to be reformed, but this is nothing compared to everything else the US government is doing.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Yes, he consented, but he did not give INFORMED consent.

"Hey, want to try this wonderful new Cola?"
"Okay!"
[drinks]
"That's right, Ebola Cola - The hemmorage that refreshes!"
"... say what?"
"By the way, the EULA on the can says you've got to give me money. You opened the can! You signed the contract!"

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Not quite.

Did he have the oportunity to read it over, and he just declined and signed it?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Not having read the contract *is* a valid defense against "small print" things in Canada.

It is the responsibility of both parties to ensure that they both have read and understand the contract. This is part of the legal definition of informed consent.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Really? Cool.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

There's a discussion of what the term means in medicine, here:
http://eduserv.hscer.washington.edu/bioethics/topics/consent.html

There's a lot of discussions about when it applies, but it's essentially this: You have a responsibility to read your contracts. You have a responsibility to understand your contracts. "I did not read it" is not an absolute defense, but it *is* a defense against "gotchas", and exclusionary clauses legally cannot be interpreted to void responsibility for a service - if I sign a contract to provide you with a service that has a clause that says you indemnify me for all losses associated with the service, and then I take your money and never provide you the service, that doesn't mean I'm immune because you signed that.

[looming-shadow.livejournal.com]

Actually, no it isn't a valid defence. While you might argue there is no consensus ad idem (where there is on the essential terms), the courts will not excuse a person for not reading it.

Only in the rare circumstances, like Tilden Rent A Car v. Clendenning, where the fine print actually changes the substance that is at the core of the contract will the courts excuse you for not having read the contract.

If not having read the contract was a valid defence against everything, there'd be mass uncertainty in the business world as far as contracts are concerned. It's part of that tension between getting more certainty and ensuring consensus ad idem.

As the parents were probably briefed as to the essential terms of the contract (boy promises to enlist at 18, boy gets paid now), and gave their consent, I do not have reason to see that they can make an informed consent case unless the fine print drastically changes those two key terms. The fact that the money is repayable if the boy is unable to perform does not change either of those terms.

- There was seemingly no fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation
- There was only a unilateral mistake which was presumably unknown to the recruiter
- There was no unconscionability
- The only possible grounds under which they could escape performance would be Inequality of Bargaining Power, but even then, they would have to make restitution on the recission of the contract

[looming-shadow.livejournal.com]

Also, informed consent usually is not a principle that applies to contracts. If the parent makes his or her consent without thinking about it, then nominally, the parent has given consent for legal purposes.

Usually informed consent is found in the domains of medicine and psychology.

Reasonably, tho, they could try arguing against that consent on the basis of Inequality of Bargaining Power, but some of the seemingly required elements, like a sense of urgency or duress, is missing

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think I'm conflating my legal principles, here. My degree is engineering, so my "law" is out of date and largely superficial.

At the same time, there are laws about what minors may and may not consent to, regardless of information, as well. One could probably make a credible case that a minor cannot consent to accept military service if they cannot consent to sexual contact.

Either way, the article is apparently fake - so the absurdity that I'm objecting to is there to make me object to it, not because a real situation is full of idiots.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

My later comment was meant to clarify that - it's a defense when the fine print substantially changes the nature of the agreement. I was specifically thinking of Robet v. Versus Brokerage Services Inc, and Chapleton v Barry UDC.

- wherein the "small print" clauses were fraudulent, substantially changed the nature of the contract, etc.

In this case, the comments of the people involved clearly demonstrate that they have *no* idea of what they have signed up for, and it's difficult to seriously credit a 14-year-old with the capacity to judge this kind of thing.

That being the case, the reason it's so egregious is that the entire article is apparently a fake. It fails my essential test to be "good satire", though - it's not something beyond what you could reasonably expect from the people involved.

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

My respect for the military just dropped a gew full points.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

I'm under the belief this got confirmed false...

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

... as you post *after* the top-of-the-page-before-the-cut addendum that yes, it's apparently satire, but way too close to the truth.

Thanks anyway, though, honestly.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

Didn't catch that, sorry.

You're right about the "too close" bit though.

[ironhammer.livejournal.com]

Okay, here's the real rub, and true even if the story isn't.

It's the U.S. Army.

They can do -anything- to a U.S. Citizen and are not held by Civil, Criminal or even Constitutional law except the amendment about quartering soldiers. If you stop to read the U.S. Constitution it spells it out there very carefully. The only thing the military follows as far as law is the Unified Code of Millitary Justice (UCMJ). The only restrictions are what the U.S. populace are willing to let them get away with, and that willingness just gets higher and higher every year.