What kind of twisted judicial logic is this?

[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.

[DireStrike]

1. Another Lepore, eh?

I guess they hate America.

[marc_the_dem]

2. I suspect that he has room for an appeal

But for the mean time, he needs to report for duty. Now, if he dies while he's over there, and a susequent ruling says that he didn't have to be there in the first place, what recourse does his family have?

[Mandate My Ass]

3. The "Trifecta" pays off yet again

:puke:

[DulceDecorum]

4. The return of the soldier slave.

My, how history does repeat itself.
Dubya and his supporters better go read up on how
that story turned out.

Mamelukes and Mercenaries are all that is left to command.
They do not have enough of the first,
so they are going to increase the numbers of the second.

Wonder how they are planning to pay the mercenaries though.
The dollar is collapsing.
Some of those paychecks are going to bounce.
Oh, well at least the mercenaries are stuck over in Baghdad
while their bosses are reclining in spas located in Virginia.

[zbdent]

5. So, these soldiers who died and were injured never were in a "war"

?

Hmm, smells as bad as running over a family of skunks who were dining on Limbaugher (er, limburger) cheese . . .

[patcox2]

6. You can't rely on media reports of the court's reasoning.

An enlistment contract does state very clearly that an enlistee will serve a set term on active duty, then a term on inactive duty. Any time during that term of inactive duty, he can be recalled to active duty, in case of war or national emergency.

Sorry, but a congressional authorization for the use of force under the War Powers Act is the same thing as a declaration of war. Again, your not liking something doesn't make it so, congress knows when it passes an authorization to use force that this is the same thing as a declaration of war, and the courts have uniformly upheld this; the last formal declaration of war to use that term was in 1941, yet we fought in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, all are considered wars.

So, the reasoning is, the army has the right to let him go off active duty, then immediately, one second later, recall him to active duty. And that is what they are doing, so there is no violation of the enlistment agreement.

This is a political problem, not a legal one. The only solution will be political, not legal. Lay off the poor judge for simply applying established legal principles.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. "...any other condition required by law..."

is the key.

Military "employment contracts" are stacked entirely toward the government.

They don't need a declaration of war, they just have to say they need you.