Santiago v. Rumsfeld (2005)

9th Circuit Court of Appeals
4/06/2005, C-SPAN Product ID: 186185-1

From C-SPAN's Description:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th District heard oral argument in the case of Santiago v. Rumsfeld. Sergeant Emiliano Santiago, a member of the Oregon Army National Guard, had two weeks left of an 8-year agreement to serve in the National Guard when was he ordered to Afghanistan for a year or more. Sergeant Santiago sought an injunction to stop his deployment to Afghanistan while he challenged the "stop loss" order that requires him to remain in the military beyond the term of his enlistment contract.

After hearing oral argument, the Ninth Circuit's three-judge panel affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the government's argument and denied an injunction to stop Sergeant Santiago's deployment to Afghanistan.

The case was heard in the moot courtroom of the University of Washington School of Law.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• uscourts.gov
• public.resource.org

[pphelpsburg]

H. Thomas Byron is the best attorney of ALL TIME.

[xadam2dudex]

no doubt this Judge Tallman is a republican that wants to support the party line and to enable the illegal war

[duvarusik]

god save us and forgive us for electing such a dreadful tyrant and all his little helpers.

[lysel3]

The NATIONAL GUARD, are - "NATIONAL" - it is a VIOLATION OF THEIR CONTRACT to send them on INTERNATIONAL, OVERSEAS MISSIONS, particularly in a conflict which is ILLEGAL, i.e., CONGRESS DID NOT DECLARE WAR, and therefore, the National Guard RESERVISTS, are NOT subject to overseas, INTERNATIONAL service.

"Civil disobediance becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless and corrupt"  ~Mahatma Ghandi~

[eddiethking]

This is a great argument, thanks for posting it.