Talk:Stop-loss policy

message: 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)
thread_title: Terminology

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

text: 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)
thread_title: The National Lawyers' Guild and the Military Law Task Force

message: 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)
replies: text: They lost that suit  Equinox137 (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: First legal challenge

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Bye, Evan.  Sorry it didn't work out. Equinox137 (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That making a mess and running away thing not satisfying? htom (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: National Emergency

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Statistics

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: 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)
thread_title: Citation needed tag about Stevens, the first lawsuit.

message: 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." ϢereSpielChequers 07:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: proposal re neutral language

message: 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)
thread_title: The "end" of stop loss

message: "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)
thread_title: Applicability to mobilized reservists?