From
this Army Times article: "An Oregon Army National Guardsman must report for duty after failing in his challenge of a military program that extends his enlistment".
Sgt. Emiliano Santiago, whose 8 year contract with the Oregon Guard had ended, filed a federal lawsuit after he was called back to active duty under the government's stop-loss policy. Kudos to Sgt. Santiago for taking on this fight.
Santiago was denied a preliminary injunction just one week before he is due to report back for duty.
Here is the judge's reasoning:
Panner said he thought the military would endure more harm than Santiago if he ruled in the soldier's favor, essentially agreeing with the government's argument that thousands of military members who are subject to stop-loss orders might file similar legal challenges.
He's worried about the harm done to the military? What about the harm to these soldiers and their families?
He's worried about lawsuits? Don't free people have the right to file suit?
The article states that not one court has ruled against the military's policy. Why not? The judge's ruling in this case apparently means that although Santiago's case could eventually be heard, he felt that Santiago probably wouldn't prevail. Well, when judges state reasons for upholding the stop-loss policy as this judge did, how can any soldier even hope to prevail? Why are these judges towing the Pentagon's line rather than wasting time being worried about more lawsuits?
Correct me if I'm wrong, you legal eagles out there, but if a court ruled against the government, couldn't that simply be used as the precedent to quickly rule in favour of a plaintiff? Would it necessarily clog the courts as a result? And why are judges so scared to rule against this policy? Not doing so, as this judge has, simply smacks of a political statement siding with the government. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not even an American, but this seems outrageous.
Santiago's termination date has now been extended 27 years, to December, 2031! How is that even possible? I had no idea these extremely lengthy extensions were being imposed. I truly am shocked.
Is there anyone out there who still thinks this stop-loss policy is not a back-door draft? Speak up.