What kind of twisted judicial logic is this? [View All]

[wurzel]

A service man must return to Iraq even though his duty contract has expired.

Justice Department attorney Matt Lepore argued that an enlistment contract has a provision that says a soldier may be involuntarily ordered to active duty in the event of war, national emergency or any other condition required by law. Lepore said the language should be read broadly to include extensions of existing contracts.

WHY?

Judge Lamberth agreed the language was clear enough and rejected the claim that the military conflict does not qualify as a war because Congress never made a formal declaration of war.

HOW COULD HE ARGUE THAT AS HIS RULING?

The soldier's argument isn't based on a "formal declaration of war". It is based on one sided extension of a contract. Of course the soldier may be "involuntarily ordered to active duty in the event of war". But surely only for the term of the contact.