This entry was posted on 4/3/2007 5:22 PM and is filed under uncategorized.
To all of you who visit endstoploss.com, welcome! First, let me say that this is not a forum to debate the war on terror. This is a forum for information related to the unconstitutional stop loss policy currently in place through the Department of Defense.
Congress created the stop loss policy after the Vietnam War and more importantly, after the draft ended. Congress wanted to create an avenue whereby the military, during war time, could retain soldiers after their contracted terms were up. As opposed to an upfront draft that millions of Americans were against, they created a “back-door” draft. Young men and women are swayed and basically mislead by recruiters when they sign the military’s contract that states, in pertinent part:
"In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States."
The stop-loss policy was first used in the Gulf War by former President Bush for a very short period of time. It was used, again, by Bill Clinton during the Bosnian conflict and Kosovo Air Campaign each lasting a very short time.
It was re-implemented by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld after the September 11th attacks that occurred in 2001 and it has been in place since that time to ensure that the United States military is stabilized in the “War on Terror”. The first rationale that was used by Rumsfeld pertained to losing soldiers with critical skills necessary to fight the “war”. In 2004, after the invasion of Iraq, Rumsfeld said it was to promote unit cohesion. No one has ever said that we do not have enough military men and women. We do. As an example, the 1st Brigade from Fort Stewart left in January with a troop capacity of 110%. No shortage of troops there!
Blaming President Bush for believing that Saddam Hussein had WMD, is a bit hypocritical. The majority of Congress believed it, too, as did former President Clinton. As a matter of fact, in 1998, Clinton stated, “If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
In 2002, Senator Robert Byrd was quoted as saying: “The last weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.”
In October, 2002, Senator John Kerry stated: “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
So, no matter what these, and other, Congressmen claim, they believed that Saddam either had or was building an arsenal of WMD.
On October 16, 2002, President Bush signed Resolution 114, passed by both houses of Congress. The resolution authorized the use of the U.S. military to make Iraq comply with the U.N. Resolution it signed in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War.
The rest, as they say is history, or it should be. Everyone who visits this website knows that we did, in fact, invade Iraq. We captured Saddam Hussein and we found little WMD. That’s as much power as Congress gave President Bush. He has now abused that power and affected the lives of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers.
My son, Spc. Matthew Beard, joined the U.S. Army in early 2004. This was, of course, after we had invaded Iraq and so my son knew where he was going. He has an IQ of around 140 so he is not one of the mindless pawns described by Senator John Kerry. My son signed a three-year contract and yes, it included the aforementioned provision allowing the military to retain him in time of war. He spent a year in Baghdad which was the worst year of his and my life. With his termination leave, he was to be released from the Army on July 6, 2007. His brigade is going back to Iraq in late summer, and due in part to Bush’s request for additional troops, my son has been stop-lossed.
There are several problems that I have with this, both as a mother and an attorney. First, Congress never declared war on Iraq so we are not at war. We are not in conflict with anyone but terrorists, however, the conflict in Iraq is between two factions of the same religion. It is not our conflict nor is it our civil war. Second, the Department of Defense has chosen to include “conflict” in the word “war’ in that particular provision. Third, the U.S. did what Congress gave the President the power to do: Saddam Hussein is dead and there is no WMD. Fourth, this is a war between different factions of the same religion who have hated each other for centuries and each wants control of Iraq, therefore, this is a Civil War in Iraq and has nothing to do with the United States. Fifth, the stop-loss policy equates not only to a “back-door” draft but it also has a more fundamental derogation of the U.S. Constitution and that is one of “indentured servitude”.
So, to this mother and attorney, the stop loss policy is unconstitutional specifically as it pertains to continuing to enforce an employment contract after it has expired.
My main objective is to call attention to this issue. I want to give the tens of thousands of soldiers, their mothers and fathers, and spouses and children a voice to end stop loss.
In January, 2007, the new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates sent a memorandum to the service chiefs, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and undersecretaries of defense, requesting plans for minimizing stop loss. Secretary of Defense Gates must realize that stop loss will hurt recruitment numbers. My own son, who is a great patriot and outstanding soldier, said that he would never have joined the Army had he known they wouldn’t let him out. My son was married in August and had plans to go back to school this August but now those plans are destroyed. His deployment time may be up to eighteen (18) months and this is very devastating both his new wife and me as well as other family members.
What do we need to do? We need to write Congressmen, as I have been doing, the President and Secretary Gates as I have done.
I was interviewed on the Alan Colmes radio show on Monday, March 12, 2007. I am a Republican but Alan Colmes was the only one to respond to my e-mail and he did it within twenty four (24) hours of me sending it. None of the “conservative” talk show hosts have even bothered to acknowledge my e-mails. I wanted to mention Alan because he was very respectful of my views, although we did not agree on all things, he gave me time to get the message out about this unconstitutional “back-door” draft, and he helped give those of us who are grappling with this a voice. So, to Alan Colmes, I say “thank you”.
I will continue to raise this issue whenever and wherever I can. I am proud of my son’s service to his country. That is not the issue. He did things in Iraq that were unimaginable to me so it’s not an issue of service to one’s country, it is an issue of fairness and constitutionality.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Miller, Esquire
No disrespect - no malice intended.