Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the Between-Scylla-and-Charybdis dept.

The Pentagon recently asked nearly 10,000 soldiers to repay excessive bonuses they were given for re-enlisting in the California National Guard between 2007 and 2009 amid the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress was notified of the problem in 2014, but representatives failed to pass a provision that would allow the Defense Secretary to waive the repayments.

Some representatives claim that the California National Guard failed to convey the scale of the repayments issue or make it a congressional priority. An outraged and bipartisan group of legislators have called for quick action and full forgiveness of the overpayments (estimated to be around $70 million). On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and President Obama have promised to resolve the issue, even as officials acknowledge that the issue may extend to other states:

President Obama has told the Defense Department to expedite its review of nearly 10,000 California National Guard soldiers who have been ordered to repay enlistment bonuses improperly given a decade ago, but he is not backing growing calls for Congress to waive the debts, the White House said Tuesday. The comments by White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggest the administration is running into legal and policy roadblocks as it struggles to handle a public relations headache for the Pentagon, the National Guard and members of Congress who were caught off guard by the scope of the problem.

[...] California Guard officials say they informed California lawmakers about the scale of the debts in 2014, telling them in a list of legislative priorities sent to each House office and the House Armed Services Committee that "thousands of soldiers have inadvertently incurred debt, through no fault of their own because of faulty Army recruiting or accounting practices."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 28 2016, @06:55PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 28 2016, @06:55PM (#419921) Journal

    initiating an armed conflict

    Is not the same thing as pushing to invade.

  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday October 28 2016, @07:19PM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Friday October 28 2016, @07:19PM (#419934) Journal

    initiating an armed conflict

    Is not the same thing as pushing to invade.

    So you are suggesting that the military-industrial-Republican complex was pushing for an unarmed invasion of Iraq? Seriously, khallow, you can only bend words so much until they break. I am starting to think you are trolling me!
    .
    .
    The UN Charter states that all member nations renounce to the use of force in all international relations, except for cases of immediate self defense (REPELLING an invasion) or under the explicit authorization of the United Nations. Bush 1 got authorization. Bush 2 committed a war crime, specifically the crime of war. Interesting as well that at least one of the Nazi propagandists was found guilty of the crime of fomenting illegal war. Fox News should be very worried, if the rule of law ever returns to America.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 28 2016, @08:10PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 28 2016, @08:10PM (#419946) Journal

      So you are suggesting that the military-industrial-Republican complex was pushing for an unarmed invasion of Iraq?

      Are you?

      The UN Charter states that all member nations renounce to the use of force in all international relations, except for cases of immediate self defense (REPELLING an invasion) or under the explicit authorization of the United Nations. Bush 1 got authorization. Bush 2 committed a war crime, specifically the crime of war.

      Bush 2 did get explicit authorization from the UN. Lying to get it is not illegal especially when no one at the UN level can be bothered to care. That's the vast chasm between what is a war crime and what should be a war crime. Similarly, there is a chasm between what should be a war crime and the various proposals here to mess with defense contractors because they have to be guilty of something.

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:24AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:24AM (#420051) Journal

        Bush 2 did get explicit authorization from the UN

        Um, you know that thing we talked about, where you cannot just make up facts because you believe them? You are doing it again. George W. Bush pointedly did not seek or get authorization from the UN for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Kofe Annan, UN Secretary General, denounced the US for its illegal use of military force. The Goddamned Pope said the invasion of Iraq was not a just war. It was called, the coalition of the billing, because only countries that the US could coerce into participating actually participated in this illegal violation of the sovereignty of a fellow nation. Khallow, you are out of your depth. You actually know nothing of international law, the International Laws of Armed Conflict, International Humanitarian Law, and the Just War tradition going back to the Romans. Seems to be a common affect among Libertarian type, like this Johnson guy. These things are not fictions, they are real, and pretending they are not does not serve the interests of you country, any more than pretending Anthropogenic Global Warming is not real. Tarbaby, Bro! But tarbaby in the Hague! You notice that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz do not travel abroad much, lately? But as for you, if you do not even know the basic facts of the war, I see no point in continuing to debate you. Good day, Sir!
        ,
        ,
        Oh, re-enlistment bonuses, for soldiers lied into an illegal war? I say, let them have them! People coming back now to say that these incentives were perverse? Way to late. And I know of far greater horror stories of costing the taxpayers an awful lot of money just so one the their Government Issue guys could get an nice juicy re-enlistment bonus.