Reba

As far as I know, the American military doesn't accept illiterate people, so yes, I assume that they can all read that clause.

Out of curiosity, I looked up one of my old enlistment contracts. Sure enough, it was there in black and white, a whole page on my contract titled "IV. UNDERSTANDINGS", with a list of points that I had to agree to.

In part, it stated, "In connection with my enlistment, I understand that:
b. in time of war or national emergency, or when otherwise authorized by law, I shall be required to serve as ordered by competent authorities, notwithstanding the provisions of any Annex(es) attached hereto or any other promises made to me in connection with my enlistment (re-enlistment)

c. statutes and regulations applicable to personnel in the Armed Forces of the United States may change without notice to me and that such changes may affect my status, compensation, or obligations as member of the Armed Forces, the provisions of this enlistment agreement to the contrary notwithstanding; and

d. an enlistment in the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or Regular Coast Guard in effect at the beginning of a war or entered into during a war continues in effect, unless sooner terminated by the President, until six months after the termination that war."

Before signing the contract:

"16. I hereby certify that I have read this agreement carefully..." (Underlines were on the contract.)


Read the above reply.

Also, my contract said:

"13. a. my enlistment is more than an employment agreement, that I will, upon taking the oath of enlistment, become a member of the Armed Forces of the United States..."


You don't "get it." According to the conditions of their original contract, soldiers are obligated to extended war service whether or not they sign the extended agreement. The extended agreement just formalizes the specifics of the extended duty. But they are still obligated to perform that service based on the original contract.


He can say "no" but he must understand that consequences are attached to that decision. If he believes he is morally right, then he must accept the consequences with a stiff upper lip.

This is the most bizarre idea that military people can pick and choose their assignments. Military service is NOT a "job".

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

Byrdie714

Question is: how many people actually read the clause?

Reba

They are supposed to. It says, "I hereby certify that I have read this agreement carefully; it has been fully explained to me, and I understand it and the conditions under which I am enlisting."

That statement is in the paragraph above the signature.

It's possible that they don't all read it carefully. However, will that excuse stand up in court? If the clause about extended service is in the contract, and the service member signs the contract where it states that the member "read this agreement carefully" and had it "fully explained", then how can the service member argue that he or she didn't know about it? How can the member say that it's "unfair"?

Byrdie714

Oh I agree with you! That is why I asked how many people actually read their contract? Apparently not many if they are protesting the extension of their contracts.

Just goes to show that people should read the entire contract before signing anything.

When you buy a car on a loan, do you read the entire contract? If not, it may come back and BITE YOU ON THE ASS!

Jiro

exactly. that's why they should not be bitching about it.

Byrdie714

Exactly.

Liebling:-)))

I work for many years to know soliders who have no problem to go different countries to defend against enemies until after Saddam's execution and then they knew it's wrong... and trapped because they sign quickly, assume that its about defense against enemies from any countries, they like to serve without realize what Stop Loss Policy is about. They thought Stop Loss Policy is about war on terror. That's it.

Many people overlook something before they sign the contract, it's not just soliders but many people in general way. Nobody are prefect. You can't expect we are prefect and know everything to 100%... It could be that we overlook something... Unfortunlately sadly, they were being misleading to beleive that what it's about before sign. Yes, some soliders questioned and make sure until they agreed then sign... then into different what they thought. Like what I said before that the word out of mouth doesn't count but check with Legal Advicer or lawyer before you agree to sign or disagree then not sign.

We were being recommend to not sign the contract if we doubt to understand fully or trust the contracter... but go to lawyer to aviod to get nightmare when you overlook something... You do not need to play as a lawyer to understand the contract, it could be tough to understand if you read the agreement contract for a first time because some words may foreign to you. No matter either you are smart or not...

__________________

Liebling:-)))

Quote:

1LT Watada, I just read about your refusal to deploy with the men and women of your unit. Perhaps you forgot but when you raised your right hand and swore to obey the orders of those appointed over you, there was no caveat that said "as long as I agree with them". You are a commisioned officer of the United States Army. That title brings responsibilities, responsibilities you have chosen to shirk. You will of course get your 15 minutes of fame and can probably join the Cindy Sheehan tour this summer that is if you are not sittling in Leavenworth. Lest you take me for a "ChickenHawk", I served for 12 months in theatre as the S4 of a military Police Bn, 10 of those in Baghdad and Balad Iraq. I found it to be one of the most rewarding years of my life and should I be told to do so, will go again. I suggest you think long and hard about your next step as it will seriously impact the rest of your life. Michael XXXXXXXX

1LT Watada's response:

BLACKFIVE: An email from LT Watada

It must be good reason if he felt Iraq war is unlawful and want to stop it. I respect if he want to stand up to Right and Wrong issues. Yes, he has right to refuse to go to iraq because it's not war!

__________________

Liebling:-)))

[QUOTE]

I am surprised that you denied it but soliders do not deny for kill innocents and feel bad for it.

I think links tell you. Some soliders share their experiences.
frontline: the soldier's heart: experts: the impact of killing & how to prepare the soldier | PBS

To my view, this link, the author wrote his view over soliders is too extreme but I am surprised that it doesn't affect soliders. Read solider's responses. Some soliders accept their knowledge that they killed the people and some soliders do not feel bad to kill the people.

I pick one of responses:

Quote:

I am a professional soldier. My job is, indeed, to kill other humans, for whatever reason. But the important part comes next: the humans it is my job to kill, the ones that I train day and night to kill, the ones I will meet in combat are very specific ones. They are other professional soldiers. They are people who, given the chance, will kill me, who have trained to kill me, who know that I, given the chance, will kill them. The decision is, and always has been, theirs to make and they have chosen to enter into combat with me. We, my enemy and I, have, as professional soldiers, entered into an agreement to try to kill each other.

There's nothing noble about being a soldier@Everything2.com

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03...oot/index.html

Do you still deny it?

I got email today and decide to not post here because it's very disgusit to see... It's original pictures of US soliders made fun of Iraqi's corpses as the same as Iraq soliders made fun of US solider's corpses as well and also Iraqis and children. Yes, I was cried when I saw the pictures... It's very emotional pictures... which is the worst than I showed you the pictures of soliders and inncoent people including children at other thread and explain why anti-war group protesters were against Bush for send US troops to Iraq. I understood why many soliders refuse to go Iraq. It's not right war.

If anyone wants to see it then PM me.






No, it has nothing do to make me feel better but the fact is I never mention those word but you.

Check the links, I provided and also link to response Brylie's post as well.

Yes, we have different POV because I know the people's experience and also know US Army policy as well. I let you think I know a little about US Army policy like what you assumed at your thread. I have no more to say... Just let you think what you want.

__________________

Liebling:-)))

[QUOTE] It has nothing do with illiterate people. Please check my response post #37 to Jiro123.

Your comment does not surprise me because I know you always assume a lot without know the fact.

You said that you support soliders but to me, you take one side, not both side between Government and solider.

You need to look other side. I like her post and read further including comments.

End Stop Loss Now

Fight To Survive: SIGN THE "STOP-LOSS" PETITION!!!



No, you don't get it either. They want to get out of US Army few weeks before end of their agreement contract but they were being force to extend their contract... Yes, they were being push to extend until end then again extend...then again extend... extend... up to 8 years or more... You really has no idea but you only look one side.

Yes, it's the problem is their senseless for sign the contract quickly without read carefully because they thought they serve their country to defense foriegn countries against enemies and like it but it's not what they thought. They are being trap until they do not need them anymore then let them go ...



You don't get it. Yes, they have no problem to follow that consequences for MANY YEARS and like to serve for their country for more years... and ask voluntarily to extend their agreement contract until after Saddam's execution... They saw it's wrong... and refuse to accept the order to do "illegal" for them. They received threatening and decided to quit but it trap them off when they remind them about their agreement... They feel being betrayal... It's their feeling... I can see that you don't care but point your finger to the agreement contract without consider solider's feeling. Sure, their mistakes but it would be nice to support them if they want to get out of US Army to start a new life.

I saw the pictures and understand totally why many soliders refuse to go Iraq War. The pictures shows that it's not really war.

__________________

Liebling:-)))

No matter, many people including soliders overlook the clauses when they thought they understood it. We were being advised to leave the contract to lawyer who understand more than us because some word in agreement contract is foreign to us. I will never beleive if you understand everything to 100% what the contract written for a first time... We need to re-read them until we understand or doubt then ask legal adviser or lawyer for the help and deal the business with contracters before I make a decision either I sign or not...

__________________

Jiro

lol... i had a good laugh from that reply email. That Lieutenant wants to interpret the constitutionality differently and he's not even a lawyer! If he wants to question the legality of the order - he should be taking it up to his superior or contacting J.A.G. which he did not. Well - looks like he conveniently choose the interpretation of "illegal order" by calling Iraq War as an illegal war thus any orders relating to Iraq War are illegal. "Illegal Order" - exactly what is illegal order? Well I'm sorry but he made a very poor and illed comparison of Iraq War to Nazi... soldiers blindly obeying orders... No no no no no... Why? because the major differences between Iraq War and Nazi War are -

1. Hitler ordered a mass-scale of genocide aka the Holocaust. President Bush did not.
2. Hitler preached to Germany about Aryan Race and blamed Jews, Gypsies, etc. for the demise of Germany. President Bush did not.
3. Hitler invaded whole Europe because he had a vision as the savior of Aryan Race. President Bush did not.
4. Hitler ordered his soldiers to gun down (aka execution) the civilians and prisoners. President Bush did not.

Lastly.... Lt. Watada stated - "The responsibility of an officer is to evaluate the legality and truthfulness behind every order. We cannot blindly accept every order, especially one to go to war, based on faith and what our "political" leaders tell us." I want to correct him right there:

ONE - he and the soldiers are not following every order from the political leaders - plural word. There is only one political man in charge and that is.. the Command-in-Chief - the President of the United States.

TWO - NO HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO REFUSE TO GO IRAQ! Do not confuse military with the way of civilian world. But he does have legal rights to disobey the order that is against the Constitution and Geneva Convention. Ordering him to go to Iraq is not a violation of the Constitution and Geneva Convention. GET IT?

THREE - There is an interesting comment by somebody in the link you gave me about the legality of Iraq War. "US forces are currently in Iraq according to mandate by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1637 passed UNANIMOUISLY and considered at the request of the Iraqi government. Our troops are in Iraq in full compliance with both international and domestic law."


one last thing - a response to all of Liebling's posts. It's getting very tiresome. You need to try very hard to separate your emotion & sympathy away from this issue. You have to look at the situation objectively. You need to understand very hard that the lawyers cannot help you at all with the military contract. I highly suggest that you call your lawyer to ask him about the military contract that all civilians have to sign before joining the military and the Stop Loss Policy. I can guarantee you that it is perfectly legal and it's tough luck. Your lawyer will tell you that military contract is not confusing at all like you see on those confusing fineprints on most of contracts that you signed for loans.

Byrdie714

It's war because Congress has authorize funding for it.

Secondly Watada signed the contract , aware of the clause, and now he wants to get out of his duty just because he doesn't agree with it.

Doesn't work that way.

He is going to go to jail. Period.

Byrdie714

Whether you understand it or not, you still need to read every clause before you sign your name to it.

Watada signed it and the Army is holding him incontempt for it.

The Army has the right to do that.

Byrdie714

God is it ever?! Continually bashing Americans....

BTW.....

Jiro

From that link of Lt. Watada's emails - if you read the comments by readers... all of them think he is a coward. Lot of these comments are written by both soldiers and veterans.

here are some comments -

Jiro

EXACTLY! Signing mortgage contract as agreed by both parties to pay back with low interest rate for 20 years. But now with real estate bubble - the mortgage interest rate skyrocketed and you get pissed about it that you have to pay high interest rate and thought it's a violation of the contract. But you failed to see the fineprint saying that you are subjected to slight change of agreement regarding the interest rate. Do you bitch to bank for not telling you about it? NO IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! The bank has EVERY LEGAL RIGHTS to take your house and remove you from it - TOUGH LUCK.

Lesson of the life? GROW UP and nobody's spoon-feeding you or babying you. You're on your own and it's your responsibility to know everything before you sign the contract. If you got a crappy lawyer, YOUR FAULT. If you misunderstood it, YOUR FAULT. If you don't like such risky obligation - DO NOT SIGN IT!

Liebling:-)))

*sigh* Why have I repeat to you when you and I have the same meaning way.

I said: Any Agreement contracts including miltary contracts are being recommend to leave lawyer to examine and then explain exact what it is and then leave client decision either they agree or not before sign the contracts. The clients can add something to question contracters... the lawyer can write a letter to the contractors for their clients... until everything goes solved then... Get it?

If they thought they understood it without ask anyone for assistance before they signed then is good for them... but it´s bad if they overlook something... because the lawyer can´t help them... because they already signed the contract.

If they doubt either they understand it or not then ask legal adviser or lawyer to examine and explain exactly. The clients will not sign if they don´t like miltary contract with the help from the lawyer. It´s safety than be sorry later.

I know from my experiences, we were being recommend to leave agreement contracts to the lawyer for examine and explain exact to make sure that we won´t overlook it. This is safety way than be sorry. It does the same with soliders as well... They are also being recommend as well... it will help them to understand more than they thought they understood it.

__________________

Liebling:-)))

I know myself because I am a property owner since 1988. We left agreement contract to the lawyer to examine and deal, etc. before we signed the agreement contract with contracter, Bank, etc. Everyone are being recommend to leave their contracts to legal adviser, lawyer or experts. It´s safety than sorry later.

I don´t tell anyone that it´s your fault, etc, ... you baby, etc... because I know everyone are human being who make mistakes...

__________________

Liebling:-)))

Yes, I have read that´s why I posted those link because I want to see your reaction on some comments... I am surprised about your reaction... I say no more further.

To my view to those some comments is an ignorant, closed mind and arrogance because they forget quickly that he served many countries in the past.... I am glad to see some comments support him and his rights.

__________________

Liebling:-)))

Yes I aware it that´s why I leave contracts to lawyer before I can sign or not.

Good thing is Watada have many supporters and court who are on his side.

__________________

Byrdie714

No he hasn't. He signed up for the military after 2001 and has been in college since then.

Now that it's time for him to actually serve in combat--he is chickening out!


From Jiro's posts......Watada doesn't have that many supporters.

Liebling:-)))

[QUOTE]I want to say is he had been served to countries in the past and have no problem for that.

This is your opinion. I admire him for stood up his right when he knew he would face imprisonment or death penalty.

To my view, he doing right thing by stand up to those who abused the Constitution. He do not want to violate the crime against humanity and the interest of Americans and the world because Iraq was not America´s enemy. Iraq did not start a war and did not attack America. It´s false because it written under oath "…I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, …



Oh yes he does. Check the link of my first thread. I have another link...
Thank You Lt. Watada - Home Page

Ehren Watada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________

Jiro

Liebling - read the enlistment contract that all civilians sign before joining military [PDF file]

and then read few links
1. How to Read an Enlistment Contract
2. Understanding Your Enlistment Contract for the Military

Byrdie714

[QUOTE=Liebling:-)));1012093]All my answers are in red.

Byrdie714

Good post jiro.

Yet do you think she is actually reading anything we say? Hardly.

Jiro

quote from Lt. Watada email thing -
Liebling - if you want to have a strong support to your view, please use a credible source. not some random links you found in google especially some protester sites. Scholarly sources, info from legal proceedings, testimony of "high-level" officials, and also info from reputable independent investigation authorized by appropriate organization such as UN/Congress/etc. are best used as a support to one's view/belief/argument.

You're clouding the argument with mostly your personal experiences and emotion/sympathy which is usually ignored because it's just . If you want to call it an Illegal War and Illegal Order... then picture yourself speaking at Supreme Court before 9 honorable judges or at the Congressional Hearing. You need to show substantial, solid, reputable evidence/argument beyond all reasonable doubt to present your case that Iraq War is illegal and that Lt. Watada has legal rights to disobey the order of deployment. If you can do that, then I will support you and denounce this war as illegal.

Until then.... as far as I'm concerned, Lt. Watada is in wrong of disobeying the orders and Iraq War is legal since Congress authorized the funding and it is in full compliance with both international & domestic law and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1637.

Texan Guy

I strongly considered Watada a coward and traitor to his country, period.

__________________

Jiro

and worse... he's a thief. He used our tax money for his college tuition and he has never served in any combat! I suppose he was not expecting to get involved in any conflict. He even flat-out REFUSED an offer to have a desk job in Iraq! He thinks he can use his college smart to weasel his way out of the binding contract but NOPE NOT GONNA HAPPEN! if there's something he learns in life - it's to pay for consequence of violating the contract.

Texan Guy

Ahh, man, that traitor and thief bastard deserves to go to Guantanamo Bay.

__________________