Get a copy of the military contract at
RethinkingSchools.org and
pay particular attention to section 9b which makes any and
all promises in the contract irrelevant:
"Laws and regulations that govern
military personnel may change without notice to me.
Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits,
and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS
of the provisions of this enlistment reenlistment document."
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Santiago case said:
"Enlistment in the armed forces does not
constitute merely a bargain between two parties,
but effects a change of status by which 'the citizen becomes a soldier' …
no breach of the contract destroys the new status or relieves …
the obligation which its existence imposes."
This means that it is okay for the government to violate contracts of all
those caught in the "stop-loss" or "back door draft".
Once a person signs a military contract he/she is no longer a civilian,
but a soldier and as such is subject to
military rule and laws governing the military."
Source: Rethinking Schools Spring 2005, Vol. 19, Number 3, pg. 46-47 |
|
|
|
"The Department of Defense and a private contractor have been building an
extensive database of 30 million 16-to-25 year olds, combining names with
Social Security numbers, grade-point averages, email addresses and phone numbers.
The department began building the database three years ago,
but military officials filed a notice announcing plans for it only last month.
That is apparently a violation of the federal privacy Act, which requires
that government agencies accept public comment before
new records systems are created".
"David Chu, the Under Secretary of Defense for personnel, said the database
was just a tool to send out general material from the Pentagon to those most likely to enlist.
The information can also be shared with local recruiters."
"Some parents think that any information gathered by the military covertly amounts to an intrusion.
Sandra Lowe of Sonoma, Calif., who has two teenage boys, said,
'It's a direct shot to someone's child without consent from a parent.
If you were to come on campus and wanted to take a picture of a child,
you have to get a release-just to take a picture.
This is a lot more than that.'"
Source:
NY Times, Friday, June 24, 2005. Article by Damien Cave, Margot
Williams and John Files contributed from New York and Washington. |
|
|