End Stop Loss Now

www.endstoploss.com

Its the policy, STUPID!

Print the article

This entry was posted on 6/24/2007 9:55 AM and is filed under Suzanne's Column.

Hello all:

I have been surprised at the vicious attacks on my son and me (particularly me) on other websites.  I'm tough I can take it but I will not let anyone disparage my son for what I am doing.  My son spent a year of his young life literally kicking in doors in Baghdad and dragging terrorists out of houses.  He has served his country admirably.  Anyone who volunteers to serve this country to the death is a HERO.  No matter how you feel about Bush, no matter how you feel about the war, these kids are HEROES and I won't allow anyone disrespect them on this site.  My son and his battle buddies are not mindless pawns and they are most certainly not terrorists.  They are HEROES some of whom are being subjected to an unconstitutional policy.  People keep pointing out the fact that I am a lawyer and I SHOULD have read the fine print.  Do you honestly believe that the ARMY bought the contract to me to review before they had my son sign it.  No.  Obviously, there are people who don't understand contract law nor do they understand the term "indentured servant".  A volunteer ARMY is just that . . . its voluntary and the government should not keep these brave young men beyond their contractual obligation unless they choose to re-enlist.  How would you feel if you were a contracted employee and your employer paid you 100,000 per year?  Suppose another employer really liked you and wanted to pay you $300,000 per year.  You go to your employer when your contract is up and tell him/her that you have decided to leave and your employer says "no, we like you so we are going to keep you."  HOW WOULD YOU FEEL?  You don't know because you know it could never happen to you.  I get e-mails from young men who ask me not to publish their e-mails due to fear of retaliation and some of the hardships that it has caused them is heartbreaking.  One young man's friend was stop lossed and now he is a double amputee.  Another young man had a great job lined up and a wonderful marriage and now he has neither.  Stop loss is incredibly hard on the young men who are subjected to it, their spouses, their children and their parents.  Why can't you see that this is about a policy that never should have been passed in the first place.  It was a replacement for the draft and yet, that's exactly what it is . . . a backdoor draft.  Some of you who have written comments on this site, have written comments on other sites that were much more anti-soldier and much nastier.  You say that my son (and others) are getting what they deserve because some of us voted for Bush.  Well, to all of you who don't understand this, Bush did not sign the stop loss policy into law, nor did Bill Clinton (although he used it for Bosnia and the Kosovo flyover).  Congress passed this law decades ago.  Its time for Congress to revoke it.  Say what you want about me, sling all the arrows you can but DON'T GET ON ANOTHER WEBSITE AND DISRESPECT OUR BRAVE, PATRIOTIC SOLDIERS.  If you have something to say, don't sugar coat it here and then write something much worse on another site.  I am watching and I will start copying and pasting.  I will not allow our HEROES who have more guts than the vast majority of people who write these comments to be attacked.  ITS THE POLICY, STUPID!

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

    • 6/24/2007 1:11 PM Christine wrote:
      Suzanne, I'm very troubled to hear you are seeing such nasty comments about you and your son. It has been my experience that people don't understand about the stop-loss policy and the manner in which our soldiers are subjected to it. My son also never paid much attention to his Army contract, let alone read the fine print. He relied on his recruiter who was more than willing to "explain" everything to him and, of course, made the military sound exciting and romantic. My son is a medic and was told that because of his high test scores he could pick any base hospital in the world and that's where he would spend his tour of duty. After he signed his contract, my husand and I were so upset that my husband (who is an Army vet himself) met with the recruiter and asked him straight out if our son would have to serve in Iraq. The recruiter looked my husband right in the eye and said "I promise you, your son will never have to go to Iraq unless he volunteers to go. As it turned out, our son is a "combat" medic (the word "combat" was also never mentioned) and has already spent one year in Iraq. Now, he has been stop-lossed (another word that was never mentioned to any of us) and will be sent back to Iraq at just the time he should be getting out of the Army. Yes, we were all naive and wholeheartedly agree he should have read his contract before signing. He has learned a valuable lesson the hard way. He has also asked me not to give my full name or his because it is true that soldiers will be punished for doing nothing more than trying to leave the Army when they "assumed" their contract was fulfilled. I read somewhere recently that "a contract is not a contract if it is entered into with the U.S. Army." I only wish we had known it sooner.
      Reply to this
      1. 6/24/2007 4:41 PM Suzanne Miller wrote:

        Dear Christine,

        My heart goes out to you.  Paragraph 9(c) is ambivalent at best and I can't believe that the wording has held up in court.  Yes, recruiters are seductive (for lack of a better turn) and they receive incentive bonuses so of course, they will do whatever they have to do and say whatever they have to say to get kids to sign these contracts.  I didn't even know my son had done it until he called me and told me.  I was sick.  He told me that the recruiters said they doubted he would have to go to Iraq and as you so aptly pointed out, they NEVER mentioned stop loss.  I have been called some terrible names and so has my son on other sites.  I can take it but my son has done nothing to deserve this but serve his country in terrible combat conditions.  My son was to be out July 9th and he is not deploying until September or later.  This policy is horrible and we need to all call on Congress to revoke it.  I am very curious as to what the Democrats will do with this policy.

        Take care and God bless,

        Suzanne


        Reply to this
        1. 6/26/2007 3:51 PM Tony - An Army Veteran wrote:
          I can't see what is "ambivalent" about this:
          c. 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.

          Seems pretty clear to me... Ohh, wait a minute. I guess I can see where some people might not understand this if they don't also understand that WE ARE AT WAR!!!

          Sheesh!
          Reply to this
          1. 6/26/2007 5:19 PM Suzanne Miller wrote:

            Tony,
             

            I have to laugh when I read your e-mail.  We are NOT at war - we are in the middle of someone else's civil war.  No one has declared war on us and we haven't declared war on a country and Iraq most certainly is not a threat to our national security.  Therefore, paragraph 9 (c) is irrelevant, i.e. it doesn't apply.  My father served in the Korean War - funny thing - he was never stop lossed.  There is a difference in not being allowed to leave a war zone on your ETS vs. being stop lossed so that you can be deployed AGAIN after your ETS.  Some of the most ridiculous comments I have received have come from vets, very conservative Republicans and very liberal democrats.  You all make strange bedfellows.

            Sincerely,
            Suzanne Miller


            Reply to this
            1. 6/26/2007 6:37 PM Tony wrote:
              Well, I would bet that the men in Iraq and Afghanistan who are being shot at and blown up every day would beg to differ with you. Whether or not war has been declared on us, we are at war. Albeit, an unconventional one, but soldiers are still dying.

              There is actually more to the Enlistment Contract than Paragraph 9(c). There are parts that actually differentiate between "war" and "emergency".. But we can debate all day long and never agree.

              When your son signed up he knew (or should have known) just what kind of commitment he was getting into. I hate to sound like a jerk, but that's the bottom line and it's true for anyone who has been "stop lossed".

              Just because your Dad was not retained beyond his ETS date does not mean there weren't some who were.
              Reply to this
              1. 6/27/2007 4:29 PM Suzanne Miller wrote:
                John is an Army vet, too, and it doesn't seem that he agrees with you, either.  You are right, you sound like a jerk and I personally don't want to have any interaction with you.  Its obvious you don't have a son or daugher over there and if you were stop lossed for Desert Storm, well, let's face it . . . the war lasted 4 days, 4 hours and 1 minute. So, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT STOP LOSS REALLY IS AND HOW IT AFFECTS THESE YOUNG MEN AND THEIR FAMILIES.
                Reply to this
              2. 8/3/2007 6:12 AM Cory wrote:
                You do sound like a jerk but im sure you are not sorry for it. Have you been to Iraq? Im sure you have not. You would have seen use as driving circles around the neighborhoods like you local police officers. Not allowed to use the weapons given to us for fear of being thrown in jail. Putting bright orange cones out to direct traffic. Knocking on doors, asking permission, to search local houses. Does that sound like a war to you??? Its more like we are driving around so the insurgents have something to target that is not the Iraqi population.
                Why dont you wake up! I have been there. So do not tell me what war is or is not.
                Stop throwing the fine print of a contract, signed when I was a kid, in my face. They did not trick me in to buying a crappy car, they tricked me out of my life!
                I was supposed to be out of the army 6July and we are not even scheduled to deploy until November. Army regulations state "Soldiers can be stoplossed only 90 days before and after a scheduled deployment." If you can count from July to November is a LOT more than 90 days.
                Do more research before you open your mouth! Stop telling people "its what you signed up for." I signed up to defend my country and go home, not to be a soldier forever. Am I wrong for that??? Why dont you sign up and go over there so you can get your facts straight??? Then you can try to get on with your life and be with your family when some guy tells you "sorry but you cant leave."
                I bet your one of those people with a yellow ribbon slapped on the back of your $100000 car and when you drive it you think, with a stupid grin on your face "Im supporting my troops." Last I checked I am a "troop," why arent you supporting me??? O, im sorry if I sound like a jerk.
                Reply to this
          2. 7/28/2007 2:46 PM chris wrote:
            Yes, it seems clear. But as both you and the artilce staetes,"war." I am pretty sure a few YEARS ago bush claimed the "war" was over. So, if the government is going to use language to fool convey a conotation of sucess, they should have to fuffil their legal limits involving those words.
            -Army veteran, soon to be stop-lossed
            Reply to this
          3. 7/13/2008 11:40 PM Preston wrote:
            Well, only if you ignore the fact that this is an undeclared war. That section of the contract clearly applies to declared war only.
            Reply to this
    • 6/26/2007 3:41 PM Tony - An Army Veteran wrote:
      Suzanne,

      As a veteran that served my country voluntarily I can honestly say that myself and every other soldier I personally served with knew full well that part of signing up meant a risk up being extended for the good of the service. It didn't stop us then and it doesn't stop enlistees now. I can't vouch for what they are being told now, but I can tell you that when I enlisted (1986) they made it very clear during my entrance processing phase. I served from 1986 until 1994 as an M1 Main Battle Tank Crewman.

      Does it cause a hardship on some people? Sure it does. Does it suck? Absolutely. More importantly, is it part of being a Soldier, Marine, Sailor, Airman, etc? You betcha! It is just one more crappy thing you have to deal with. Is it unconstitutional? I doubt it very seriously. But I am sure some attorney along with a few activist judges will be able to twist and distort the Constitution until they can make it appear so..

      What is this really about? You know, stop-loss really didn't just start a few decades ago. If you think about it, it has been part of every war we have been involved in with the exception of Vietnam. And I know some Vietnam Vets who would argue that it was present there also. How do you think the soldiers of WWII and Korea liked it when they had their enlistments extended indefinitely? I am sure they didn't like it. But they did thier jobs just like our boys are trying to do now and the next generation will do after them.

      Bottom line is, the volunteer military in the US is really all about not being conscripted like other countries. Once you volunteer to sign the contract you serve at Uncle Sam's pleasure. Anyone who has ever served can tell you that. Ever hear the old saying that "ARMY" really stands for "Uncle Sam Ain't Released Me Yet"? It's a funny thing but it got it's start somewhere...

      All this whining and belly aching isn't doing anything to help our troops on the ground.

      Just my opinion, that and a $4.50 might get ya a cup of joe.
      Reply to this
    • 6/27/2007 12:57 PM Christine and John wrote:
      We're not whining and belly aching -- and our children are the troops on the ground! Morale among the troops is at an all-time low because of the stop-loss policy and the inability of the soldiers to get a straight answer about exactly how it affects them and for how long. If the recruiters were honest about the use of stop-loss before signing prospective soldiers, there would be much less confusion, frustration, and anger.
      Reply to this
    • 7/1/2007 8:46 PM Rob wrote:
      Until someone goes through stop loss, they will not understand. I served 367 days beyond my contract.

      I was a reservist. My contract was up in 1 month.

      They didn't need me.

      It was awful.

      I signed up for 3, but did 4.

      Worst.

      Policy.

      EVER!
      Reply to this
    • 7/18/2007 10:29 AM Cory wrote:
      Mr. Bush declared, in a 2002 executive order on the Taliban: "…given the success of the military campaign in Afghanistan, I hereby…terminate the national emergency…"
      Reply to this
    • 7/18/2007 10:32 AM Cory wrote:
      Stop-loss requires a declaration of a national emergency or war. There is no war declared against Afghanistan. There is no war declared against Iraq.
      Reply to this
    • 7/20/2007 6:24 PM Bart wrote:
      Ma'am, I wholeheartedly support your efforts and your son's service. I too am 100% against the CURRENT abuse of the stop-loss policy, which on paper is to be used in the event of war or national emergency, but is now underhandedly used at the "pleasure" of the President. Why am I entitled to a qualified opinion? Because I too was stop-lossed. My ETS date was one month BEFORE we boarded the plane for Iraq, and I'd specifically saved up enough terminal leave to be out earlier. I had already served the whole year of OIF 1. The brass cherry picked those lucky enough to ETS, the rest of us were held in. One fellow infantryman who would be allowed to ETS volunteered to extend in order to stay with his buddies. "No go" said the brass. "You need to re-enlist." "Tough shit" he replied, and left. You see, they use the fear of being stop-lossed to induce 'voluntary' re-enlistments. When stop-lossed, you get nothing but the big green dildo. No thanks, consideration, promotion, or compensation. Why? Because they have you over a barrel. Why promote those who are DEFINETLY not staying in, ha ha? Why pay them extra? We don't have to, ha ha! Thus, soldiers re-enlist to at least have some control over their next one, two, three years and pick up a bonus. But then they redeploy, get ready to get out, and find out they're right back where they were two years ago. Maybe a rank higher. Maybe without a wife or money. Hello third deployment. Another issue you need to be aware of equally if not worse than stop-loss is being involuntarily recalled from the IRR (Individual/Inactive Ready Reserve), which is being transformed to the Individual Warrior Reserve. Having been though a year and a half on stop-loss, as bad as it was, being yanked out of your 'new' civilian life and thrown back in an institution you left before for a reason, is worse. I hope not to qualify that comparison, but with a highly logical rumored early 2008 IRR recall to be the surge upon the surge, we may all get that chance.

      Note, there were some individuals who truly made my stop-loss time bearable and I thank them. They know who they are.
      Reply to this
      1. 7/21/2007 9:56 PM Suzanne Miller wrote:

        Bart,

        Thank you for writing and thank you for the warning about IRR.  The DOD is truly out of control.

        Thank you for your service to our country.

        Suzanne Miller


        Reply to this
    • 9/5/2007 6:33 AM Leslie Beard wrote:
      I saw the broadcast of Ralph Peters on Fox news this morning and he made a comment I would like to touch on. He made the comment that troops are reenlisting so it shows the troop moral is high. Umm can you say bull shit? Troops are reenlisting because they are being forced to! Most of the troops reenlist b/c they are being stop-lossed if they don't and they would rather reenlist and get a tax free bonus instead of just getting boned in the rear! People need to understand that majority of our troops don't want to be in Iraq regardless of what they say on TV. If most of you don't already know the military monitors everything any troop says to the public, and they are only allowed to say what they are told to say! Talk to the troops that are already discharged and they will tell you the truth!
      Reply to this
    • 9/6/2007 11:20 AM Christine wrote:
      Leslie, what you are saying is absolutely the same thing my son (Army solider) has been telling us. The questions and comments the troops ask when a politician is visiting are carefully scripted and only hand-picked soldiers are allowed to talk at all. My son is constantly harrassed about re-enlisting and when they're in Iraq, the pressure is even worse. I wish the public was more aware of what underhanded tactics the military uses to retain these soldiers who so desperately want to get out.
      Reply to this
      1. 9/7/2007 8:31 PM Suzanne Miller wrote:

        Christine,

        Both you and Leslie are correct and I have written every senator on the Armed Services Committee about it.  If all these soldiers really wanted to re-enlist, there would be no need for threats and certainly no need for stop loss. 

         

        Suzanne


        Reply to this
        1. 9/11/2007 6:27 AM Leslie Beard wrote:
          What the military doesn't get is that if they actually cared about their troops and treated them as such then the reenlistment rates would go up! I mean honestly who wants to stay somewhere where they are constantly bullied by their superiors and treated like they are a piece of dirt on the ground! I wouldn't want to stay around that either. It really is an "Army of One" Every man for himself, screw everyone else!
          Reply to this
    • 9/11/2007 1:08 PM Leslie Beard wrote:
      Well my husband just found out yesterday that another solider in his unit just got his ETS paper, effective Sept 6th 2007. So why is, it if there is in fact a stop loss on is brigade, they are letting people out? This is about the 4th person I have heard off in his unit that is getting out. And yet for some reason no one is letting my husband go! This is what we mean by our military is corrupt. It states in the army regulations about stop loss that no one should be aloud to PCS or ETS until after the stop loss is dropped from that brigade or unit. It sounds like they are discriminating against my husband and it's not fair! If they are going to let other soliders go in his unit then they should allow him to leave! I hope someone important finds this and helps us. We have contacted Sen. Bill Nelson but I'm losing faith in him as it has been awhile and nothing is happening! All we get are letters saying they are still investigating his case. But I don't think they are. I really am starting to believe that they are just sending us those letters to make us shut up!I mean is there not one person, who is in the position to help us, in this country that is willing to do something? You're talking about another human beings life! And granted I know there are others in his position and I want them to get any help they can also. But of course I'm going to be more worried about my own husband. I mean I'm 4 months pregnant with our first child, and it's a lil girl, and I'm worried she will be scared of him when he comes back after being gone for so long! No parent should have to worry about that or even a child! Someone help us!

      Sincerely,
      A desperate wife and mother!
      Reply to this
    • 9/16/2007 3:27 PM Leslie Beard wrote:
      Well I just found out the reason they are letting people out of my husband's unit is b/c they are reenlisting with the reserves/guard. So basically they are telling people the only way you are getting out of active duty status, even though your contract is up, is to sign up for the reserves or guard. That is so messed up! It shouldn't matter if they bully you into reenlisting into the reserves! If your contract is up they should let you go. We actually had a JAG lawyer tell my husband "technically the army can keep you for 20 years if they want to." Ok so everyone remember when your loved one goes to enlist, that they can keep them for as long as they want to! It doesn't matter if they sign up for 2 years or 10 years. Yet another perk to signing your life over to America's corrupt army!
      Reply to this
    • 7/6/2008 5:58 PM Pangolin wrote:
      If all of these soldiers would get their families to put down the 'support the troops' flags and sit outside their congressmens office they might get some relief.

      It's sad to say but the US military has forgotten the part of the oath "all enemies foriegn and domestic." The domestic enemy to the constitution resides in the White House.
      Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.