Go click the link.

[conuly]

I don't know. Are they supposed to do this sort of thing?

Comments

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Is the gov't supposed to recall, or are the recallees supposed to sue about it?

I mean, the article does say that his inactive status ended eight years ago.

[conuly]

Either. I don't know anything about this, so before I get pissed I want to know.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Hmmmmmmm. After completing a tour of duty in the Army, National Guard or (I think) any other branch of the US military, vets are subject to recall into the Army. The period of time for this differs; the particular story's time period of five years os about typical, maybe a little long. The people who join the military are aware of this. If they remain on inactive duty, they are *certainly* aware of it--they frequently have to attend monthly training classes, with a special assembly once a year. Employers are legally obligated to let people off work for this, and they are paid for their time.

But--this guy completed his inactive duty status EIGHT YEARS ago. There is a limit on how long this status lasts. This is the only case I've heard of that's this extreme, and I suspect that this is a glitch in the Army's bureaucracy and/or paperwork. I'll be fascinated to see if they really end up taking him

The Army is currently implementing a massive recall of people on inactive duty status. They're certainly supposed to do that. See this commondreams.org article (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1002-24.htm) for a bit more information.

Hope that helped.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Ummm, it doesn't really matter what they're supposed to do. Remember what Captain Jack Sparrow told Will Turner? "All that really matters is what a man can do and what he can't do."

Obviously they can try to recall him, because they've done it. And equally obviously he can try to fight it, because that's what he's doing. Who'll win?

I suspect he will, because ONE soldier isn't worth the trouble of fighting a big legal battle, and also because the publicity from this is going to be very bad. Consider: just how many people are there, who did their service and returned to civilian life long ago, who now have to worry that they too may be yanked away from their families and sent back to war?

I say, spread this article far and wide - I can think of no better way to cut support for the war among veterans, than by causing them to consider that they may be first in line to go fight it.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Consider: just how many people are there, who did their service and returned to civilian life long ago, who now have to worry that they too may be yanked away from their families and sent back to war?

Not very many who don't already know about it. See my comments above--inactive duty status is not a surprise to these people, and if they're currently still in it, they've probably been expecting this for some time. Follow my link for more information.

I'm betting thatthis guy beats it. I'm seriously thinking that it's a glitch, that he wasn't dropped off the rolls when he was suposed to be, and that it'll get fixed.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Umm, my father is a Navy Commander (retired; he's 78) so I do know that inactive-duty status isn't a surprise to people who still are ON inactive-duty status. I'll bet it is going to come as a big surprise to people who are not still on inactive-duty status, to learn that they could be "re-activated" like that.

Oh, doubtless it's a glitch, but that's not the point. Did they say "Oops, sorry, our mistake" and drop the matter when informed that it WAS a glitch? No, they did not. This guy's having to pay a lawyer, engage in this whole big legal battle - and yeah, he'll probably win, but that won't make up for the fact that he had to go through it at all.

Seems like there've been a lot of "glitches" in this war, doesn't it? "Ooops, Iraq didn't cooperate with al-Qaida after all"; "Ooops, no WMDs in Iraq"; "Ooops, the war's not over after all"... not to mention all the other little "glitches" like hanging chads and malfunctioning voting machines and....

... and I think people may be losing patience with the "glitch excuse". Doesn't mean it's not perfectly true in this case, of course, but how often can the same excuse be used before it starts to wear thin?

One thing everybody in the military learns real quick: whatever can happen to someone else, can also happen to you.

[stejcruetekie.livejournal.com]

Yet another reason not to be stupid enough to join the military - ever.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Is the gov't supposed to recall, or are the recallees supposed to sue about it?

I mean, the article does say that his inactive status ended eight years ago.

[conuly]

Either. I don't know anything about this, so before I get pissed I want to know.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Hmmmmmmm. After completing a tour of duty in the Army, National Guard or (I think) any other branch of the US military, vets are subject to recall into the Army. The period of time for this differs; the particular story's time period of five years os about typical, maybe a little long. The people who join the military are aware of this. If they remain on inactive duty, they are *certainly* aware of it--they frequently have to attend monthly training classes, with a special assembly once a year. Employers are legally obligated to let people off work for this, and they are paid for their time.

But--this guy completed his inactive duty status EIGHT YEARS ago. There is a limit on how long this status lasts. This is the only case I've heard of that's this extreme, and I suspect that this is a glitch in the Army's bureaucracy and/or paperwork. I'll be fascinated to see if they really end up taking him

The Army is currently implementing a massive recall of people on inactive duty status. They're certainly supposed to do that. See this commondreams.org article (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1002-24.htm) for a bit more information.

Hope that helped.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Ummm, it doesn't really matter what they're supposed to do. Remember what Captain Jack Sparrow told Will Turner? "All that really matters is what a man can do and what he can't do."

Obviously they can try to recall him, because they've done it. And equally obviously he can try to fight it, because that's what he's doing. Who'll win?

I suspect he will, because ONE soldier isn't worth the trouble of fighting a big legal battle, and also because the publicity from this is going to be very bad. Consider: just how many people are there, who did their service and returned to civilian life long ago, who now have to worry that they too may be yanked away from their families and sent back to war?

I say, spread this article far and wide - I can think of no better way to cut support for the war among veterans, than by causing them to consider that they may be first in line to go fight it.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Consider: just how many people are there, who did their service and returned to civilian life long ago, who now have to worry that they too may be yanked away from their families and sent back to war?

Not very many who don't already know about it. See my comments above--inactive duty status is not a surprise to these people, and if they're currently still in it, they've probably been expecting this for some time. Follow my link for more information.

I'm betting thatthis guy beats it. I'm seriously thinking that it's a glitch, that he wasn't dropped off the rolls when he was suposed to be, and that it'll get fixed.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Umm, my father is a Navy Commander (retired; he's 78) so I do know that inactive-duty status isn't a surprise to people who still are ON inactive-duty status. I'll bet it is going to come as a big surprise to people who are not still on inactive-duty status, to learn that they could be "re-activated" like that.

Oh, doubtless it's a glitch, but that's not the point. Did they say "Oops, sorry, our mistake" and drop the matter when informed that it WAS a glitch? No, they did not. This guy's having to pay a lawyer, engage in this whole big legal battle - and yeah, he'll probably win, but that won't make up for the fact that he had to go through it at all.

Seems like there've been a lot of "glitches" in this war, doesn't it? "Ooops, Iraq didn't cooperate with al-Qaida after all"; "Ooops, no WMDs in Iraq"; "Ooops, the war's not over after all"... not to mention all the other little "glitches" like hanging chads and malfunctioning voting machines and....

... and I think people may be losing patience with the "glitch excuse". Doesn't mean it's not perfectly true in this case, of course, but how often can the same excuse be used before it starts to wear thin?

One thing everybody in the military learns real quick: whatever can happen to someone else, can also happen to you.

[stejcruetekie.livejournal.com]

Yet another reason not to be stupid enough to join the military - ever.