Talk:Stop-loss policy

Terminology
The article starts with the sentence "Stop-loss is a term primarily used in the United States military.". Seriously? I think most people (especially outside the US) know this term as described in the Etymology section. Any ideas how this could be written more neutral, less America-centric? 82.181.123.21 (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Controversy
the main thing to remember here, is that the mainstream media have not picked up on this.

according to the Military Law Task Force, more than several suits were filed in the last couple of years against the stoploss, and the reason that they never have successfully challenged are 1) The DOD always drudges up the plaintiff (soldier or marine) on MEDboards or Behavioral charges, and chapters them out. 2) The STOP-LOSS always ends before the federal court system processes the suit.

I did not make up any of the information in this article, but then again, even Iraq vets like myself don't understand the stop-loss completely.

Jom Klimaski, head of the National Lawyers Guild and a Vietnam Vet with +30 years of military law experience, told me that STOP-LOSS is illegal. I tend to believe him.

Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You may not be making up information, but the cumulative weight of your edits seem to be moving the article away from a NPOV statement of what stop-loss was and is, into a denunciation of it. htom 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What here is non-objective and anything but factual? If I edit this article alot, it is because it needs it I refuse to apologize for exposing these apologetic half-truths that people try to force into the article as a way of making stop-loss look better.  You should be all over the people who re-edit this with some line like "stop loss is legal because it's in the contract".  This is not true, and no amount of glib wordage will convince me otherwise; if the article is stark, it is because the reality is stark.  We owe it to the 200,000 stop-lossed troops to not gloss this article over; Period.


 * On a separate note, I wish I wasn't the only guy in the entire world who did any research into this (other than googling it I mean). Maybe you can answer my question . . . why do people think it is okay to break soldiers' contracts?


 * I have two theories. One is that they have never faced stop-loss heading to Iraq, and two is that they want to perpetrate the myth of the volunteer military which is actually a system of slavery as immoral as the Roman Legion's 20-year-long-conscriptions.


 * How about instead of condemning this article as non-objective you talk to one of the countless soldiers who committed suicide while facing impending stop-loss? Maybe glib wording would have made them feel better about it.


 * First, Evan, let's be straight about this - your contract wasn't ever broken. The contract you signed is the same one I signed and it states in plain English, avoiding legalese, that a stop-loss is possiblility.  You knew this when you enlisted - if you didn't, you weren't paying attention.  Second, stop-loss has been used long before Iraq:Episode II - I clearly remember it being used for Haiti, Bosnia, et al during the Clinton Regime.  Third, every single federal lawsuit challenging stop-loss has failed.  There has been no successful legal challenge to stop-loss.  You're giving your opinion that stop-loss is not legal based on ..... nothing.  Except maybe for saying that some lawyer told you so. That is bordering on original research. Equinox137 (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right about one thing, and one thing only: MY contract was never broken, thank god.


 * You are wrong about the contract, the legality, and the research.


 * 1) NOWHERE in the contract does it say the words "stop-loss", and I was paying attention, thank you very much. Please don't insult my intelligence by implying that I didn't pay attention.  This is a slight.
 * 2) Research. National Lawyers Guild. NLG SL MLTF How can you disagree with this?  I am going to add this on the site.
 * 3) What does Clinton have anything to do with this?
 * 4) The reasons behind all the failed lawsuits aren't immediately clear. Let's also agree that Slavery and indentured servitude was originally upheld in the supreme court too, and you implicitly are agreeing with a form of enslavement.
 * Do you have any original evidence or arguments, or are you just going to call me out?

Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * okay, maybe i need to cool off. i just get really upset when this becomes an issue.  sorry if i hurt you feelings, equinox. Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense taken, Evan, but it does seem that you are a little too personally involved in the issue to contribute to the article with a neutral point of view. Let me address your bullet points in kind - I will attempt to do so as tactfully as possible:
 * [*] 1.) The contract does not need to specifically say "stop-loss". Stop-loss is the military jargon for the personnel action. The DD Form 4/1 that we all signed to enlist specifically states on Section 9c that "in the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States." Every suit challenging the legality of that clause has been dismissed.
 * [*] 2.) Sorry, but the federal courts don't agree with the National Lawyer's Guild. On a side note, the NLG is also calling for Bush and Cheney's impeachment, the release of the "Jena 6", for an independent counsel to investigate Bush policies that amount to "torture," and counts convicted terrorist lawyer Lynne Stewart as a member.  They sound like a left-wing activist group to me.
 * [*] 3.) I said that stop-loss was used during Clinton's term in office during the Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo "peacekeeping" missions. If you're pissed about being stop-lossed for a war, imagine how you'd feel being stop-lossed to babysit people that can't get along.
 * [*] 4.) Sure they're clear - because the courts have held that the stop-loss statute is legal. Here's one decision I was able to immediately find: . Even the 9th Circuit, the most liberal appeals court in the country, upheld the legality of stop-loss. .  In addressing your comments about "slavery" or "indentured servitude", I'll simply say that slavery or indentured servitude do not apply since pay and benfits are still being drawn from the government.
 * [*] 5.) Original evidence and arguments provided. Cheers. Equinox137 (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) We are not at War. Period.  Paragraph 9c null and void.
 * 2) Bush is not a legal expert, as can be attestified. The NLG at least knows what they are talking about, unlike all the pro-war factions that think that there is something sacred about "military service" that justifies breaking soldiers' contracts.
 * 3)Iraq is not a war. We are babysitting people who do not get along.  And Haiti was not a 21-month stop-loss, I'm assuming.
 * 4)I don't think you understand the court system, because of your allusion to the "liberal"-ness of the 9th Circuit. Courts are not liberal or conservative, and you negate their objective judgment by claiming so.
 * 4b) Several of my friends stopped getting paid while stop-lossed (as a so-called accident) and I am willing to bet that there are more than a few hundred who haven't been paid while stop-lossed. Thus, Slavery.
 * 4c) The Supreme Court has never heard a challenge. They also approved of slavery and it took them many years to reverse that decision.
 * 4d) I will wager that you don't agree with abortion. What do you think of Roe vs. Wade?  Are laws always just?  For that matter, are occupations ever just?Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * oh, I forgot. Stop-loss is the breaking of a contract for political gain.  Morally, it is wrong, and if I get pissed off it is because you are defending something that is destroying the military, and is flat out wrong.


 * You may think you have a handle on the legality of the issue, but the 17-year-old GED immigrant who can barely read English has no comprehension of it. Why doesn't the government, (since they are all about HONESTY and TRANSPERANCY) add in a paragraph 9c2 with the words "stop-loss"?


 * Why does the DOD rely on semantic arguments when it comes to recruiting, and not when it comes to bombing civilians?


 * This whole thing reeks of abuse and mistrust, which I think you have elected to defend.


 * Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your rant would seem to be better directed at Congress than Wikipedia as we are not the policy makers you seek to address. We are trying to write an encyclopedia and we are attempting to do that without advocating moral or political positions.


 * You are trying to make something legal by saying that it is. You refuse to consider my arguments, or answer my questions, and dismiss me as "misunderstanding the court system" "naive" and on a "political rant".  How is anybody supposed to argue with you?  God, you are so frustrating!--Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you're trying to make something that the courts have held is legal, illegal, by complaining about it here and in the article. This is not an effective tactic for you, as we can't change that status; we report what it is, not what you want it to be (or what I want it to be.) Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WP:SOAP htom (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your arguments have already been considered by the courts and the courts have dismissed those arguments, Evan. I think I've tried to answer all your questions as well. Equinox137 (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That said, I'll respond to what you've said, saying a number of things that don't belong in either articles or on talk pages here. We've been "at war", for legal purposes, since the beginning of the police action in Korea and that war has not ended; it probably never will. Whether or not Bush is a legal scholar is not relevant; he is the President of the USA, even if you didn't vote for him. The US military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are part of a war, even though you don't approve of them, because the Commander in Chief has so declared them. He's the president, he gets to say, not you, not the courts, not those who disagree. Courts are labeled as "liberal" and "conservative" because of how it's perceived their decisions support or hinder political postitions; the notion that the courts are "objective" is, well, naive. The military makes lots of pay mistakes; to think that there's some vast conspiracy, instead of stupidity, carelessness, or accident, is approaching paranoia. Slavery, btw, is still legal, as is involuntary servitude; the 13th Amendment does not say what you seem to think it says. (Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with the article, or this discussion but since you seem very concerned I'll say that I think that no government should have anything to say about whether or not a woman should or should not choose to have an abortion, although I'll grant them some slight power to have them done in a medically safe manner for the pregnant woman; this answer seems to upset people on both sides, and that's just tough for them.) Is the law always just? Of course not. Are occupations ever just? Yes. The assertion that stop-loss is destroying the military is debatable, I suppose, but this isn't the place for that debate (I'd be on the side that says it's better than some of the alternatives, although it's not perfect.)


 * I think you misunderstand the law. THE PRESIDENT cannot declare war.  Only Congress can declare war. And I am glad you think slavery is legal, as I find that, well, semantically naive.--Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Entirely possible, as I'm not a lawyer (or a court ;) .) Congress gave up declaring war long ago, delegating the power to act as if we were at war to the president. I think that they were cowards for having done so, but they did. Read the amendment. Slavery is legal as a punishment for a crime, as is involuntary servitude. Congress can pass laws about what those are (but they haven't.) Someone in the 1960s tried to get the draft declared one or the other, making it illegal, and the court (I don't think it was ever appealed) basicly said that all that Congress would have to do would be to enact that violation of the draft law was punishable by slavery or involuntary service and it would be legal. htom (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No one misunderstands that law. However, as Otter pointed out, Congress delegated that power somewhat to the executive with "authorizations for use of force."  No, it's not a declaration of war, but when you think about it, we've already had war declared on us.


 * And by the way, Santiago tried that argument in his suit and the Ninth Circuit didn't buy it. They're the most liberal court in the country, and even they didn't buy it. Equinox137 (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You should really find another outlet for your advocacy. htom (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * this is not advocacy. if you think that you can justify the co-opting of wikipedia to serve your political ends by calling me political or biased, then you are mistaken.  You may label ME all you want, but that doesn't make SL right.  --Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like advocacy to me. You've added bunches of opinions and hopes to the article. Declaring that stop loss is right -- or wrong -- is not a function of Wikipedia. htom (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely advocatcy. You're using Wikipedia to advocate the views of your anti-war group. Equinox137 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You pretty much stole my thunder, Otter/Htom, while I do disagree with your conclusions about the 13th Amendment - which couldn't be more clear. I will add, however, that you seem to misunderstand how the legal system works, Evan. The NLG may take that position, but the position has been rejected by the courts every time that it comes to the docket.  Legally, the NLG's position on the issue doesn't mean anything.  Futhermore, the Supreme Court doesn't need to hear the issue in order for the decisions made by trial courts to be legally sound.  The Supreme Court is an appelate court only (except for admiralty cases and a few other rarities) and only affirms or reverses the decisions of lower courts.  If the case isn't appealed, and I haven't seen any stop-loss decision appealed so far, then the trial judge's decision stands and becomes binding precedent.Equinox137 (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Equinox, for at least being civil about this. Maybe we could keep this conversation limited to legalisms?--Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, Evan. I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to "legalisms" though. Equinox137 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) We are not at War. Period.  Paragraph 9c null and void.
 * According to the US Government, we are, so we are. As far as paragraph 9c, Judge Royce C. Lamberth, a Clinton appointee, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals both disagree with you.
 * 2)Bush is not a legal expert, as can be attestified. The NLG at least knows what they are talking about, unlike all the pro-war factions that think that there is something sacred about "military service" that justifies breaking soldiers' contracts.
 * Again, the NLG's position has been rejected by the courts. The contract is not legally broken and is enforceable.  Aside from that, Bush's legal expertise or lack thereof is irrelevant to the issue.
 * 3)Iraq is not a war. We are babysitting people who do not get along.  And Haiti was not a 21-month stop-loss, I'm assuming.
 * Again, Iraq IS a war according to the US Government and the US Military, which issues award for service in Iraq, the CIB, and combat patches to (Army) personnel serving there. I don't know how long the Clinton era stop-losses occurred, I just know they happened.
 * 4)I don't think you understand the court system, because of your allusion to the "liberal"-ness of the 9th Circuit. Courts are not liberal or conservative, and you negate their objective judgment by claiming so.
 * Claiming that courts are objective is, as otter put it, naive. There are many sources that refer to the 9th Circuit as such, including Wikipedia [|Wikipedia]. There was even talk in Congress of splitting up the Ninth Circuit because of its activism, but it obviousl never happened.
 * 4b) Several of my friends stopped getting paid while stop-lossed (as a so-called accident) and I am willing to bet that there are more than a few hundred who haven't been paid while stop-lossed. Thus, Slavery.
 * Because I wasn't there, I can't attest to what happened. My first guess would be an administrative error.  I'm sure that some time during your term of service your pay was screwed up at some time, right?  I know mine was several times.  Either way, if they stopped getting paid after their ETS, then they need to go through the proper channels and get the error corrected.  Once corrected, they WILL get paid what they're due.
 * 4c) The Supreme Court has never heard a challenge. They also approved of slavery and it took them many years to reverse that decision.
 * The Supreme Court has never heard a challenge because no one has appealed it that far. Because of that, the decisions of the lower courts stand.
 * 4d) I will wager that you don't agree with abortion. What do you think of Roe vs. Wade?  Are laws always just?  For that matter, are occupations ever just?
 * Abortion is irrelevant to this issue. And yes, occupations are "just". Equinox137 (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)!

so you are claiming that I am naive for thinking the courts are objective, then citing them as your main reference for the correctness of stop-loss? --Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because right, wrong, or indifferent, the courts have the power to settle the issue, not you, or me, or Wikipeda. Equinox137 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I forgot. Stop-loss is the breaking of a contract for political gain.  Morally, it is wrong, and if I get pissed off it is because you are defending something that is destroying the military, and is flat out wrong.
 * I've already covered how it is not breaking the contract, given that it's IN the contract, along with citations directly from the courts that dismissed the legal challenges. Whether or not it is "immoral" is up to the public debate and elected representatives.  And if you're going to get so pissed off about the issue, then maybe you need to take a breather.  This is not an advocacy website for your personal political views, regardless of how many administrators let other editors get away with it on other, higher profile Wikipedia articles.  I honestly don't understand how someone can logically make the argument that stop-loss is "destroying the military" since just letting the people ETS (or PCS) would hamper its effectiveness on the battlefield.

This is not a political rant. This is a coherent arguement that is not being heard by you. And SL is destroying the military. i was there, and I saw it, and if you haven't seen how ineffective the army is on the battlefield, then you are blind. Tere is no unit cohesion to save. This is not 1944. --Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was subject to stop-loss in 1994. I don't buy it. Equinox137 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You may think you have a handle on the legality of the issue, but the 17-year-old GED immigrant who can barely read English has no comprehension of it. Why doesn't the government, (since they are all about HONESTY and TRANSPERANCY) add in a paragraph 9c2 with the words "stop-loss"?
 * '''I've already proved the legality of the issue and proved the actual decisions that backup my statements with three separate references. Those references don't come from an advocacy website, or from RNC.org - they come from the public records of the courts themselves.  Name ONE CASE where a servicemember subject to stop-loss has succeeded in court. And personally, I disagree with the idea of allowing people that can barely speak English to enlist into the U.S. military in the first place, but that is an entirely new debate. Second, adding the term "stop-loss", which is military jargon, to the contract would give people a claim that the contract was "confusing."
 * Why does the DOD rely on semantic arguments when it comes to recruiting, and not when it comes to bombing civilians?
 * '''Statements like that do not help your credibility. They only show you have an outside agenda or even a grudge.

you would have a grudge if they killed your family. but you still haven't answered the question. the contract is 45 pages in many cases, and full of military jargon. My Question Is: Why, if SL is so fine and dandy, not add it to paragraph 9(c) or the federal code? --Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you immediately presuming that none of my family has never been killed by a terrorist? Either way, the earlier statement you made buttresses the claim that you are attempting advocacy with this page with an argument that's not necessarily relevant to the issue at hand.  Furthermore, the contract is not 45 pages long - the very first reference provided at the end of the Wikipeda page clearly shows that DD Form 4/1 (The Enlistment Contract) is four pages long and is written in plain English.  Finally, as I've said on more than one occasion, the term "stop-loss" is military jargon.  There is no need to add military jargon to the US Code or to the contract that a civilian signs.


 * You claim the contract is 45 pages long and "full of military jargon" yet you want to add more to the contract and to the US code? I'm confused.

Equinox137 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This whole thing reeks of abuse and mistrust, which I think you have elected to defend.
 * Not at all. The clause is written in plain English. There's no abuse here.  The point is that some people need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions, in particular when they sign ANY kind of contract. Equinox137 (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not plain english. And are you telling me to grow up? I hope you are not trying to insult me.--Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not you personally, no. Generally, I'm referring to the people that sign a clear contact and then attempt to back out of the contract when things don't go their way.  Equinox137 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The National Lawyers' Guild and the Military Law Task Force
In reference to color the statement The National Lawyers' Guild and the Military Law Task Force have also initiated efforts to end what they view as an illegal federal practice, can someone say what exactly what those efforts are? This link provided in the "references" goes to .pdf legal briefs they filed in the "Doe" case that they already lost at the 9th Circuit. Equinox137 (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Any answer at all to this question? Equinox137 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to remove this until someone can point out what exactly the efforts of these two groups are. Equinox137 (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole page needs more facts and numbers and less spin. As a wiki user I want to understand this topic. How many GI's are effected. How many dont like it? I have been out since after the firs gulf war. If I get the call today, I will report for duty as ordered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.135.242.14 (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of facts here. If you're looking for numbers, you'll probably find them on a DOD website somewhere.  If you've been out since the first Gulf War, I think it's safe to say you're beyond the period where you could be stop-lossed. Just by reading the article, you'll learn that "every person who enlists in branch of the Armed Forces signs an initial contract with an eight (8) year obligation, regardless of how many years of active duty the person enlists for" and that "the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States".

1997 - 2008 = 11 years. IET contract = 8 years. Anon IPs' ETS date = sometime in 1991. Anon IP is safe. This must be part of the "spin", though, right? Equinox137 (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that there was a version of stop-loss back in the 1960s. My dad was stationed in Germany and had an exit date and a promised job lined up stateside. Then the Berlin Wall went up. Involuntary extension of service ensued. He did get to meet Marlene Dietrich though. dictyosteliumDictyostelium (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

First legal challenge
Although there was a suit in October 2004, as mentioned in this article, there was apparently an earlier one in August:. Is the subject of legal challenges worth more elaboration? (In other words, should we grab some of the other information from this linked news story?) JamesMLane 07:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * They lost that suit Equinox137 (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

- I am not sure when stop-loss started but it was long before the Gulf Wars started; I suspect that it came to public attention then because many more people were being stop-lossed as a consequence of the drawdown in the size of the military. Reading the .pdf version of the enlistment contract at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd0004.pdf, stop-loss would seem to be covered in part 10.

I should get around to joining, I suppose. htom

Joining Wikipedia, I meant. I'll try to find some other on-line resources about this and either incoperate them or re-write the article. htom OtterSmith 19:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Added some history, and I may not have been logged in. :( I haven't found an on-line citation to Steven's suit. htom OtterSmith 17:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

More tiny changes. htom OtterSmith 23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a category that fits. "Military personell policy", but it doesn't exist (and isn't spelled correctly.) --htom 00:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What about "Category:United States military policies"

article states The new program, known as Involuntary Extension, is a circumvention of stop-loss, and simply changes the ETS [end time service] date on a soldier's account. I've been told a person has a contract with the government to be a soldier. So does the above mean the government pulls up the contract, erases the ETS, and writes a new one in there without bringing the soldier in there to sign agreement to changes in contract? And if so, shouldn't the word "account" be written in the article as "contract" instead? 67.53.78.15 02:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've confused the contract with the bookkeeping done by the military. ETS is an approximate date in the bookkeeping system, not the date in the contract. It appears that they have changed all of the ETS to be 24 Dec 2032, which seems a silly thing to do at first glance. On thinking about it, there are probably a pile of computer programs that look at the ETS and begin issuing orders to become effective 90, 60, ... days before the ETS. Rather than attempt to find all of those programs and correct them, or attempt to manually chase the orders once generated, they are fooling the computers into not issuing them. At least as I understand this; I could be wrong. htom (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

¶ I found, in June 2015, that the various links to court decisions were broken, I replaced them with something more substantial and provided citations; I found a source for the Edward A. Stevens decision (and I am astonished & gratified that someone found even a mention of that early case!!!! It isn't mentioned in law review articles on Stop-Loss and I am amazed that someone knew of it, since it was so extremely obscure.)  That someone should stand up and take a bow. Sussmanbern (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

¶ I added a summary of the Sherman case. This case is also interesting for non-military reasons: It applies the usual intepretive canons that newer laws amend/repeal/modify older laws and that a legislative body is presumed to be aware of the existing laws when it enacts a new law. In the Sherman case those presumptions are relied on even when the situation seems to be an exception to the presumption; the old law being modified was in Title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense) and the newer law was in Title 10 (Armed Forces), and there was nothing in the entire legislative history to show that anyone was aware of the older law when enacting the newer one. Moreover the newer law contained specifications that appear to have left a loophole which should have enabled Sherman to win. But the Court insisted that Congress had been thinking of the older law, and had intended to modify the older law, and that Congress would never have intended to allow a loophole for Sherman and therefore the law would be interpreted as if that loophole did not exist. This decision is a clear, even brutal, example of those canons of statutory interpretation. Sussmanbern (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy Tag
I added the "factual accuracy" tag for the following reasons: Some of this looks to me to be plainly made up. Equinox137 (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1). The statement "It has been argued that soldiers contractually agree to partake in stop-loss, but this may or may not be the case, and the issue is still being debated, both in public and in federal court." It IS, in fact, the case.  As correctly cited in the article, Paragraph 9(c) of  DD Form 4/1| (the Enlistment Contract) clearly states "In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless the enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States."  This HAS been challenged over the years in the federal courts and ALL of the challenges have failed.
 * 2). The article erronously states that "Since then, it has been used more extensively; since 2001 primarily after the national State of emergency declared by President George W. Bush". This is flat out wrong - stop loss was used extensively also during the Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo deployments.
 * 3). The article claims that "Stop loss was created by Congress after the Vietnam War" then further down claims "The first legal challenge to the extension of term of service of military call-up or contract occurred during the American Civil War, when a soldier was courtmartialed by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton himself." Which is it?  It's either a new concept or it's not.
 * 4). The article states "The new program, known as Involuntary Extension, is a circumvention of stop-loss, and simply changes the ETS [end time service] date on a soldier's account." There is no such animal as a soldier's "account"


 * 1)The issue can be debated even though the courts have spoken; there are few things that can't be brought into, or back into, court.
 * 2)I suppose that editor was thinking of "modern", that is, Bush's, use.
 * 3)It's an old concept, with a new name; previous extensions were without Congress's authorization.
 * 4)There are several accounts. There can even be several contracts. ((See my comment above, too.)

htom (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm not saying it can't be debated. What I AM saying is that the legal questions have been answered a long time ago.
 * 2) You're probably right, however the information couldn't be more incorrect.
 * 3) Any sourcing on the part about previous extenstions being without Congressional authorization? Keep in mind, Congressional authorization isn't necessary now - it's just formalized into US Code and into enlistment contracts.
 * 4) No sir. What you're referring to is SIDPERS, which is not an "account" but a personnel record.  69.58.224.75 (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I agree that the legal questions appear to be settled. That doesn't stop people from bringing them back to the courts, again and again, only to be told by the court that it's a settled question, move along. It's a great way to get publicity and stir people up, especially when you're thrown out.
 * 2) All of the cases you cite are before Bush took office, and before 2001. You could insert that list, though, um : ... used more extensively, for example for USA troops in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo; since 2001 ...
 * 3) No source, just memory that it changed from being DoD policy and/or Executive Order to being part of the US Code as well.
 * 4) Today, one person's "record" is another's "account"; at least they are not grunting and pointing. I've heard both terms used to refer to my current collection of VA paperwork. Thinking back, "account" is usually used when they're talking about money, and "record" when they are talking history of service. Again, if you were to change it to "personnel record" from "account" I won't object.

htom (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

National Emergency
Bush did declare national emergency on 9/11/2001, and renews it every year. You are wrong about at least one thing, Equinox. Maybe you are not infallible after all.--Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I never claimed to be infallible. Source it, and I will admit I was wrong but even then, it wouldn't be necessarily relevant to this article. Equinox137 (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Bye, Evan. Sorry it didn't work out. Equinox137 (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fuck you fascist. did you suck Bush's dick yet?  I bet you did your share of cocksucking in the peacetime army, didn't you?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan.knappenberger (talk • contribs) 18:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That making a mess and running away thing not satisfying? htom (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Peacetime army? That's what Somalia and Bosnia was?  Hmm....I guess that combat patch was just for decoration. :) Equinox137 (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit Wars
Because I don't have the time or energy to engage in edit wars with people who re-edit everything better than any Orwell character, I am giving up. Stop-loss is illegal, and there is no amount of arguing that will make it appear legal. Let me just say, if you are affected by stop-loss, do your own research.

Equinox and Ottor are completely biased (more than even I could hope to be) and will not give you the full picture, and shut down every attempt at free speech or nuetrality made. People like them are the demise of wikipedia, and there is no stopping their re-edits, undo's, or biased talk. Rest in peace, noble idea of wikipedia. You have been burned by the same loosers who would re-write the constitution, god knows why.

Anyway, at least I tried to argue with these bitter old peace-time army grunts. Because I am moving on with my life (there is so much more to life than military service!) I don't have the time to argue here. I can't check in on wikipedia five times a day to compete with fat old NCO's with no lives; so defeat.

But there IS A NUETRALITY CONTROVERSY.

We'll see how long it takes Equinox, Ottor, or one of their IP's to edit this out. --24.17.152.86 (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Evan, either you're in our you're out. Come up with a reason that the article is biased, other than your own personal opinions on the legality of this policy, otherwise please drop it.  BTW....New entries on the talk page are supposed to go to the BOTTOM, which is where I moved this.


 * "Peace-time" army......get over yourself, kid. Equinox137 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statistics
Anyone have any information on the frequency or percentage of withdrawing soldiers being stop-lossed? It seems to me that any controversy around the issue cannot be properly assessed without knowing the annual percentages of those leaving the force.--Mokru (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since they're not actually leaving the military due to being stop-lossed, there are probably no figures that DOD has made public since the issue would be a personnel matter. I see what I can find though.Equinox137 (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * From the article: "Despite Secretary Gates's order, by April 2008 use of stop loss had increased by 43%.[9] Soldiers affected by stop loss were then serving, on average, an extra 6.6 months, and sergeants through sergeants first class made up 45% of these soldiers. From 2002 through April 2008, 58,300 soldiers were affected by stop loss, or about 1% of active duty, Reserve, and National Guard troops." The thing is percentage of active duty doesn't give a clear picture.  Those who chose to stay on cannot be stop-lossed.  One must choose to leave military service, so, in order to be accessible, we need the number of soldiers that did leave service between 2002 to April 2008.  The percentage would then be $$(58300*100)/(58300+exiting)$$.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokru (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Impact by type of "extension" I'd like to see statistics on what types of personnel actions and normal contract provisions were affected by stop-loss. For example, if a member was extended beyond his/her initial active duty obligation, how far into and/or beyond his/her eight-year obligation? Another example, if a member's request for retirement is denied due to stop-loss, how far past the requested retirement date* and how far past his/her current enlistment contract? In other words, while stop-loss can require active service beyond contract dates, is the impact of stop-loss mostly within reserve obligation or current enlistment periods? (*) Of course, a member may choose not to submit a request when it would be automatically denied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.29.111 (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?
"Many opponents of the stop-loss policy are not familiar with the provisions of enlistment contracts for an eight-year service obligation." This assertion is given as bald fact without any kind of citation of evidence to back it up. Frankly, I find it insulting to the intelliigence of the average serviceman or woman that such a statement remains unchallenged.Jatrius (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should service members be any more inclined to either read or understand the contracts they sign than any other typical American, who frequently signs contracts with neither reading nor understanding? When my wife and I sat down to buy our house, the closing company was stunned to find that we were reading and discussing the papers we were given to sign. They'd never seen that before (they claimed.) From the number of spelling errors we found, though, they might have been correct. htom (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is insulting to the intelligence of the average serviceman to say that the average opponent of stop-loss is unfamiliar with the dynamics of the the enlistment contract? I can understand where the statement is anecdotal, at least, because after all, what evidence is there that "many" opponents aren't familiar with the contract. Therefore, I've removed the sentence. Equinox137 (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed tag about Stevens, the first lawsuit.
http://1stminnesota.net/SearchResults.php3?ID=0218

This is already referenced, but I don't know how to properly remove the tag.

htom (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

¶ No problem. I found a source for the text of the decision in Stevens - very obscure and NOT findable on Westlaw or Lexis!!! - and inserted it. I am astounded and gratified and amazed, etc., that Otter Smith even knew of this case, it is so obscure that even law review articles don't mention it. By the way, Stevens went on to be a lawyer and an editor of at least one compilation of statutes. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC) ¶ The person who included or added the Stevens reference should stand up and take a bow. It was so on point, yet so completely unmentioned in law reviews and court cases, that knowledge of it was practically supernatural. The person who referenced it here should make him/herself known so we can applaud. Sussmanbern (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

proposal re neutral language
I tried to use neutral language in an edit, but it got reverted, and the article currently contains a number of POV elements. For example: "Since then, it has been used during American military deployments to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the subsequent War on Terror." This omits the second Gulf War and subsequent occupation of Iraq, which is obviously a cause of stop loss, it also takes the line of certain conspiracy theories by using the word during rather than after. I suggest replacing that sentence with "Since then, it has been used during American military deployments to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, the response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Afghanistan, The Second Gulf War and the subsequent Occupation of Iraq."  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know that we need a list of every place that the American military has been deployed (the proposed list omits several, and "Second Gulf War and Occupation of Iraq" should be just Iraq). I suspect (but do not know) that there are people serving in non-combat zones who have been stop-lossed. How about: "Since then, it has been used in many American military deployments." htom (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with WereSpielChequers. I was just thinking the same thing when I randomly came across this page.  As written the page uses the term "War on Terror" to, ostensibly, refer to the Iraq war as well as the war in Afghanistan.  This may be a legitimate perspective, but it is certainly not a neutral one, especially w/r/t the Iraq war.  Balonkey (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This omits the second Gulf War and subsequent occupation of Iraq, which is obviously a cause of stop loss.. Err....no it doesn't, since the Second Gulf War and Iraq occupation are considered to be part of the War on Terror (except to those on the far-left). Equinox137 (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The "end" of stop loss
Well, that was the headline. Doesn't seem to be the end though. Two milbloggers (and others) talked to G1 LTG Michael Rochelle, MG Gina Farrisee, Director, Military Personnel Management and came away thinking it was going to be "less used".

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/03/the-army-to-end-stop-loss.html

http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/the_end_of_stop.html

I'm going to leave the Gates announcement on the article, but that part needs to be expanded, especially as details become more available. htom (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Applicability to mobilized reservists?
"active duty service under the enlistment contract in order to retain them beyond their initial end of term of service (ETS) date" The article does not clearly distinguish between mobilized reservists and other types personnel on active duty (e.g, regular component personnel and full-time active-duty reservists).

Does a mobilized reservist have an even active-duty ETS date? Or, do reservists expect that they could be retained on active duty up to the end of their contract plus six-months beyond any time of war, regardless of any announced anticipated demobilization date?

Even without a discussion of these issues, the quoted phase is a little too terse to prevent misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.68.184 (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)