Information manipulation

[Chum]

Interesting way American's are kept stupid.

This was this morning's edition....and read it entirely. Notice there's an omission of the point. He is conscripted to remain on active duty 'for how long?'


Oregon National Guardsman fights orders for extended duty
Emiliano Santiago, who has served eight years, accuses federal officials of improperly activating him
Wednesday, December 01, 2004

byMIKE FRANCIS

An Oregon Army National Guardsman who was scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan next month sued Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and three other military officials in federal court Tuesday in Portland, accusing them of improperly activating him under the military's "stop-loss" rules.

Emiliano Santiago, 27, who lives in Pasco, Wash., but is a member of a Pendleton-based National Guard unit, is asking to be released from his military obligation after serving a full, eight-year term that was scheduled to expire in June this year.

Santiago was not available for comment Tuesday. His attorney, Steve Goldberg of Portland, said Santiago "believes he deserves to be honorably discharged" after serving eight years in the Army National Guard. The stop-loss program, he said, essentially constitutes a "backdoor draft."

Department of Defense officials did not respond to requests for comment by the end of the day Tuesday.

The stop-loss policy is critical to the government's plans to deploy the military without resorting to an involuntary draft, especially as the National Guard falls short of its recruiting goals.

Santiago's suit is the latest in a string of cases brought by soldiers challenging their activation under the stop-loss program. Nationally, about 40,000 National Guardsmen have been extended under the program, MSNBC has reported. Oregon National Guardsman Eric McKinley of Corvallis was killed in Iraq in June after his deployment was extended.

One New York guardsman who sued the government over the stop-loss policy was granted an honorable discharge last month, and a Hawaii guardsman was granted an administrative delay after he sued the government.

Goldberg, who is a member of the National Lawyers Guild, which is representing military members opposed to the policy, said he expects a class-action suit to be filed next week in New York on behalf of service members.

Also last month, a federal appeals court in San Francisco refused to issue an injunction to keep a Sacramento man from deploying to Iraq this month with his unit of the California National Guard. In that case, attorneys for the man, identified in the suit as "John Doe," argued that the stop-loss policy doesn't apply to the National Guard, and his lawyers said it shouldn't apply in Iraq. The judge didn't rule on those arguments, but refused to intervene to stop the soldier's scheduled deployment.

 

[Chum]

Now read the independent newspaper's version of the same story (notice just how long his enlistment's been extended):

Pentagon's "stop-loss" policy on trial here

By Alex Fryer
Seattle Times staff reporter



Emiliano Santiago, an Oregon National Guardsman, finished his eight-year enlistment last June.

But four months later the Army wanted to ship the Pasco resident to Afghanistan and reset his military termination date to Christmas Eve 2031.

Santiago, 27, decided to take it to court.

His lawsuit, Santiago v. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, will be heard today in a special sitting of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle.

It will be the highest court review of the Army's "stop-loss" policy, which affects about 14,000 soldiers nationwide.

Of the 4,200 citizen soldiers in the state's 81st Brigade Combat Team, the deployments of 412 were extended through stop-loss, according to National Guard officials.

Santiago's legal battle has attracted national attention but is most loudly trumpeted by groups opposing the war, adding a political dimension to what his lawyer says is ultimately a case about fairness.

In November 2002, the Army implemented stop-loss to ensure reserve units ordered to active duty would not lose key personnel.

Army attorneys say the law gives President Bush the ability to "suspend any provision of the law relating to promotion, retirement or separation" of any soldier who is deemed essential to national security in times of crisis.

Santiago, whose unit refuels helicopters, learned the Army had added 26 years to his enlistment. The date was selected for "administrative convenience," according to court papers. Most guardsmen extend their commitment from three to six years.


Pentagon policy blasted

In legal briefs, Santiago's legal team blasted the Pentagon's policy.

"Conscription for decades or life is the work of despots. ... It has no place in a free and democratic society," the team wrote.

"If the government can break its promises to young men and women like Santiago, then the bedrock of our all-volunteer army — trust in the government's promises — will crumble."

Although the National Guard has failed to hit recruitment targets recently, an Army spokesman said stop-loss was not designed to buttress thinning ranks.

"Bottom line is that stop-loss has nothing to do with increasing the number of people in the Army and everything to do with effective units," said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman.

In December, District Court Judge Owen Panner ruled in favor of the Pentagon, saying the Army's mobilization alert in April 2004 was tantamount to an order to active duty two months before Santiago's discharge.

What's more, Panner determined that since other members of the Army National Guard had been serving on active duty since October 2001, the stop-loss policy extends to Santiago and every other citizen soldier.

Santiago appealed, and the three-judge panel is expected to rule in several months.

The case could go before the entire 9th Circuit or end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unless the appeals court grants an injunction, Santiago, an electrical engineer, is scheduled to be shipped to Afghanistan within a week. Santiago is not oppossed to deployment overseas, he's on record as "wanting to help America".

Santiago's lawyers initially tried to challenge the president's emergency mobilization to deploy troops in Afghanistan on the grounds that the country now has a democratically elected government.


Politics still part of case

Panner rejected that argument as political, and Santiago's attorneys dropped it. But politics are still part of the case.

Military Families Speak Out, formed in November 2002 to oppose the war in Iraq, is expected to demonstrate outside the courtroom.

The National Lawyers Guild, which called Bush's 2000 victory a "betrayal of democracy," has been involved in several stop-loss cases.

"We win if enlistment numbers go down," said Marti Hiken, co-chair of the guild's Military Law Task Force in San Francisco. "Military people won't go in if they can't get out."

Santiago's attorney, Steven Goldberg, a member of the National Lawyers Guild, said his client steered away from politics.

Santiago was traveling yesterday and could not be reached.

"I've not spoken about the politics with him," Goldberg said. "It's really about fairness."


I'd venture to say that slavery is back alive and well in America. We're only as stupid as the republican owned media wants us to be.

 

[Jarod]

So, rich, powerful men don't really care about the people...never saw that coming.

 

[Merak]

I guess they were right in the sixties. Never trust the government, especially a republican/ fundamentalist taliban one. Die and go to heaven. Which heaven no one knows. Met anyone whose been there? Unfortunately, kids are signing up thinking they can get a free college education, but end up getting killed or maimed at the request of whoever is president at the time. I miss being young, but I don't miss the naivete that goes with it.

 

[Chum]

Not too certain this naivete plays much a role when information and news is corrupted. Just like the original justification, which proved to be nothing more than calculated lies. In the 60's, we at least had a media that accepted the truth next to the claims. Now it's ver batim propaganda so only a half-wit would believe it, the rest didn't vote for Bush.