NEW YORK — When U.S. Army reservist Jay Ferriola filed suit against the federal government Friday, the 31-year-old combat veteran joined the ranks of a newly emerging military contingency of reservists who are resisting deployment to Iraq on grounds they've already fulfilled their obligations to the armed forces.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is among the defendants in the suit that claims Ferriola was forced into "involuntary servitude," and that his right to due process was violated when the Army ordered him to report to his unit Monday to prepare for an 18-month assignment in Iraq.

Ferriola claims he completed his eight-year obligation in February and submitted a formal resignation in June.

The Army, however, contends Ferriola submitted his resignation only after his unit was mobilized for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Story continues

advertisement

On Sunday, he won a temporary injunction in Manhattan's U.S. District Court until Nov. 1 to allow the government to investigate and respond to the claims.

A spokesperson for U.S. Attorney David Kelley in New York's Southern District said she would not comment on the case.

'Backdoor draft'

Ferriola is the fourth member of the armed forces to sue to block orders under the federal stop-loss policy to serve more time than he claims he signed up for.

The stop-loss order was issued on Sept. 14, 2001, with the purpose of granting the Department of Defense authority "to activate the Ready Reserve to respond to the threat of future terrorist attacks against the United States."

Critics of the Bush administration have called it a "backdoor draft."

Former Army Lt. Todd Parrish of North Carolina filed suit in July seeking to rescind his ROTC contract on similar grounds.

After serving eight years on active and inactive duty, Parrish is on his sixth administrative delay after winning a temporary injunction against showing up for training and deployment to Iraq.

"The underlying principle here is this is an all-volunteer force," said Mark Waple, Parrish's lawyer. "When the Defense Department starts going to these extremes to recall people for active duty who have no remaining service obligations, they bump into problems with the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution."

Waple says Parrish signed an eight-year contract when he was a college sophomore in exchange for three years of paid education. When the contract expired on Dec. 30, 2003, Parrish received a discharge certificate.

The Army, however, claims Parrish did not officially resign his commission and is therefore considered a volunteer.

"But the operative word on the discharge certificate is 'discharge.' There was no indication or phrase in the contract that would have told him he had to resign," Waple said.

"We contend that the contract should be rescinded based upon the law requiring the branches of service to deal with young men and women in a straightforward manner — no cards under the table," he said.

Nationwide lawsuits

Waple has been in contact with lawyers representing two other California reservists identified only as 'John Does' in their suits against the government seeking release from the stop loss order.

"The circumstances for our clients are different," said Joshua Sondheimer, co-counsel for the two John Does. "This concerns the extension of enlistment period rather than recall to duty."

After tours of duty in Somalia, the Western Pacific and the Middle East over a 12-year period, John Doe No. 1 signed up for another tour under the Army's "Try One" program in December 2003. His contract was set to expire in December 2004.

The married father of two, who fought in Iraq in 2003, then received notice that his unit was being mobilized for another tour of duty in Iraq, which would extend his service obligation by at least one more year.

"The former Iraqi regime has been removed from power, and Iraq cannot be considered to present any threat of terrorism against the United States, if it ever did," the suit contends. "The stop-loss order, accordingly, is invalid because it is unauthorized by, unrelated to, and exceeds the scope and purpose of the Executive Order under which the stop loss order has been promulgated."

John Doe 2, who also signed up for the "Try One" program in February 2004, filed an almost identical suit in October after receiving notice that his unit was being mobilized for training and deployment beginning on Oct. 3.

Like his counterpart, Doe is seeking release from any obligation of military service beyond the existing enlistment contract and injunctive relief barring him from application of the stop loss order in the future.

Most significantly, both cases seek a ruling that the stop-loss order is illegal.

Retired Lt. Col. Arnold Sandler with the Army Reserves sympathizes with the men's plights.

"Reserve means back force, not main force. It's like a volunteer fireman doing the job of a career firefighter. People have commitments, jobs and families, which is why they didn't buy into this full-time." he said.

"If there were an imminent threat, then bring out the reserves and the national guard," Sandler said. "But if we're going to continue fighting in Iraq, we need to bring more allied troops. Obviously, we can't do this alone anymore."