Phil McDowell, American Soldier, May Be Deported And Court-Martialed

GQ.com:

If you were walking down the street in Toronto and you happened to bump into Phil McDowell, here is what you would notice: nothing. You probably wouldn't even see McDowell, because that's the kind of guy he is. At five feet nine, he is neither tall nor short, he tends to shuffle a bit when he walks, and he favors the kind of outdoorsy Beanwear that fades into the Canadian landscape like snow. All told, he cuts a rather ordinary figure for an international fugitive.

Read the whole story: GQ.com

Comments

[hagagaga]

12:29 AM on 05/29/2011

This is a case of an idiot who didn't read a contract before signing it. ALL enlistments are for a minimum of eight years, with what's not spent on active duty spent in Individual Ready Reserve. If you're not willing to serve eight years if necessary, don't join.

[Sacro258]

09:24 AM on 05/29/2011

Wrong. Read the article. He received a stop loss order after he was discharged from active service. He could have been called up from the reserves, but he could not be stop lossed after his active service was over. Stop loss only applies to active service.

[eljefefx]

11:33 AM on 05/29/2011

You apparently know not a damned thing.

[Doobie Snacks]

12:55 PM on 05/29/2011

While you are correct. THAT STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. Look up the difference between stop-loss and recall.

[kkmousse]

01:49 PM on 06/02/2011

I am still confused. I just read the case of Sgt Zimcik. He served his total commitment 8 years and they still Stop Lossed him just before he was due to return home from Iraq. I guess that was the 90 day extension part.
Hopefully Gates finally puts it to rest like he said he would!

[Malcolm Hensley]

11:54 AM on 05/27/2011

The normal commitment when I enlisted was 4 years active with 2 years reserve. They can keep you those extra two years! The recruiter covered it several times.

I know I would have hated it because I Cherish my time in but could not wait to get out! Until you are there it's a hard concept to understand.

[pahpah25]

09:29 AM on 05/27/2011

memo to ANYONE thinking about enlisting.....READ THE FINE PRINT....the enlistment contract was written by lawyers..and you can bet your sweet bippy there is exceedingly fine print there.....KNOW what you are getting into...DO NOT ENLIST FOR EMOTIONAL REASONS.

[penndl]

11:25 AM on 05/27/2011

"DO NOT ENLIST FOR EMOTIONAL REASONS." That's some great advice. Enlisting entails sacraficing things you may have never known you had.

[Malcolm Hensley]

11:47 AM on 05/27/2011

The fine print can work both ways, I got Honorably Discharged 6 months early by staying over seas a little longer and had less than 6 months left on my time of service.

All Contracts and policies are to be read and understood, not sign and forgotten about! If you don't understand find someone you trust to read it and explain to you all the good points and bad points.

[beingthebest]

05:48 PM on 05/26/2011

I'm ashamed at the Canadian government for not standing up for these men and women. During Vietnam young people were being sent to die against their will. These young men and women did not enlist to illegally invade another country, but to serve their country with honor. When the government decided to throw out the honor part, they should have been able to void the contract.

I hope he, and all others know how many of us support him and wish him to stay and build a life here, like so many of us from the Vietnam era did.

[pflickner]

03:53 PM on 05/26/2011

Alright. Despite the diatribes of well-meaning but misinformed servicemen, the 8 years is broken down like this: 4 years active duty, 4 years inactive ready reserve (IRR), during which time you can be called back to active duty under certain circumstances. Stop-loss is different; it was enacted during the Bush Administration by Donald Rumsfeld to prevent soldiers from leaving the military because many of them, once they found out what was really going on, said "enough". And the rules to call them back to active duty are very strict, so stop-loss was illegally created to involuntarily re-up military personnel. We also saw something that had not happened before: men and women who had joined the Air Force or Navy were suddenly being deployed with the Army and Marines in an attempt to fix the problem.

The gentleman in question honorably served his country, earning two medals, and was honorably discharged in July. Someone on the other end screwed up and didn't sign the orders until August, after he was honorably discharged. They tried to get him to return his discharge papers so that there would be no evidence of the discharge while they were processing him as a recall (setting him up again for military pay, getting fitted for uniforms, signing his will, going through the entire process again as though it was boot)...

[pflickner]

03:53 PM on 05/26/2011

...The only problem is, they could not legally -- by their own definition: stop-loss can only be executed while the person in question is still active duty -- call him back into service.There is also a clause that allows someone called into active duty to respectfully decline as a matter of conscience. He has done so and he is still being wrongfully prosecuted. Calling him a Blue Falcon is offensive, especially when he did his time and did everything by the book and was ignored.

[penndl]

11:37 AM on 05/27/2011

I can't resist, but it was originally enacted during the first Iraq invasion, Desert Storm. It was re-activated by Rumsfeld under the Cheney\Bush charade. Deploying Navy and Air Force personnel to augment the Army was extreme and unusual. Rumsfeld shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the US Armed Forces. I doubt if he could effectively run a Boy Scout troop. fanned...

[Cantinflas]

03:02 PM on 05/26/2011

I hope this guy eventually wins his case, if there should be a legal action, but the sad fact is that when you join the military your immortal soul may belong to the Lord, but your @rse belongs to Uncle Sam. It's not a fair contract.

[Doobie Snacks]

03:14 PM on 05/26/2011

It was fair until the military started to abuse the inactive part of peoples contracts. This is undeniable proof that our military is overstretched. That is the real problem. When I signed up on Oct 1, 2001, I agreed to do 6 years on active duty and 2 years of inactive. With the express understanding that I would be called back up only in an emergency. Continuing a failed nation building policy is NOT an EMERGENCY.

[shthar]

03:50 PM on 05/26/2011

How bout propping up halliburton stock value?

[Cantinflas]

03:55 PM on 05/26/2011

The problem is that it is the government's prerogative to define "emergency." I served 12 years active duty and declined the opportunity to join the reserves to get retirement benefits because I recognized that the reserves exist to call you up whenever the gummint dicides they need your services. As it happened, a number of my friends did get called up for Desert Storm.

[hagagaga]

12:31 AM on 05/29/2011

He CAN'T win. He hadn't finished his eight years in the contract, he was recalled, and he is facing the consequences.

[Sacro258]

09:25 AM on 05/29/2011

He wasn't recalled. He was stop lossed. Read the article.

[gomezrules]

02:57 PM on 05/26/2011

If you've been 'stop-lossed', guess what? You're STILL officially in the service. The potential for that is stated in the contract. These people volunteered for military service. I agree with anyone that to continually expose those people to the horrors of war by deploying them over and over and over again is going to take an extreme toll on many of them, if not physically, certainly emotionally and mentally, and we owe it to all of them to help get them through and past that. The most 'hardened' of combat veterans can get to a point where they can only take so much. That has happened in every military conflict this nation has ever engaged in. But absent a draft, the volunteer military is the one we're stuck with. Way too many people have no problem learning the skills and trades that are available via military service, and they have no problem with the free medical care, accepting the housing and other allowances, the educational opportunities and benefits, or the expectation of collecting a retirement check for the rest of their lives that, for some, start when they are less than 40 years of age. But while receiving all that, there is the possibility, and more so in some services and specialties than others, that you will face combat and it's results. The biggest crock is those who suddenly declare that they are 'conscientious objectors' when they might face deployment to a combat zone. It's a slap in the face to all Americans when that happens. To those who ran away, I say "stay in Canada". Don't come back. Those who have honorably served their country here and STAYED are the ones most vocal about that. In this article, we're getting the usual 'one way' presentation, I am curious what the service's case is involving each of these people? As we all know, there are two sides to every story. But the easiest thing here is for them all to stay there in Canada. if they're accepted as 'heroes' there, oh well...

[pflickner]

03:12 PM on 05/26/2011

Stop-loss is only applicable to active service. He was not active service when the orders came through, which is why they tried to get him to return his discharge papers. There is a difference between being called back to active duty and stop-loss. Yes, it's a technicality, but you can be called back to active duty in the event of a war -- there is, if I remember my discharge papers correctly - an 8-year span in which they can call you back into service. But the wording for stop-loss is that they are active-duty that are ready for discharge. That is why they were going through the entire rigamarole again as though he were recalled to active duty.

So your diatribe not only misses the point, it is a logical fallacy that assumes that stop-loss and recall are one and the same when they are not.

[Doobie Snacks]

03:15 PM on 05/26/2011

Very well said!

[Sacro258]

03:22 PM on 05/26/2011

Yes, if he was not active duty, he cannot be stop lossed - his reserve unit would have to be called up first.

[pflickner]

03:13 PM on 05/26/2011

By the way, when and where did YOU serve, and in which branch of the military? You speak like someone who's an armchair soldier.

[gomezrules]

04:47 PM on 05/26/2011

I'm not, nor never have, tried to pass myself off as something I'm not. But that said, are you going to tell us that only those who have been in the military can comment here? No one has tried to be an 'arm chair soldier', but if snark is all you're reduced to, I guess that's the way it is. I guess by your criteria, given how this is a public forum for discussion and the opinions that go with them, one can only comment on politics if they are a politician. Are YOU a politician? Matters involving crimes and other matters for the police and courts are often fodder here, are you a cop or a judge or a lawyer? The environment is a favorite subject, are you an environmental engineer, or an expert in some or any aspect of that? By YOUR criteria, you can't be on here if you are not any of those things! But that said, I live in a military area, and service members are among my neighbors and 'circles' that I run in (no, I have never been in the service). I have worked with many, MANY ex-service members, both retirees and those who served one or more 'hitches'. I personally know people who have been 'stop-lossed (and none of them liked it, but they didn't desert). I have worked most of my professional life within what one can call the Defense industry. Articles like this, that are sympathetic to deserters, are not received as such by the vast majority of the people I personally know (in fact, I do not personally KNOW anyone who is), or those that I do not. Military related issues are much discussed on local blogs and other sites, and I assure you, my views echo there's, in fact, I defer to them. And more than anyone else, I defer to my wife's views, seeing how SHE is a military retiree who saw service within both the enlisted and officer ranks. Choose to disbelieve any of that, I do not care. But given how snarky you did become on here, can I (and anyone for that matter) conclude that you are indeed sympathetic to those who have deserted their obligation that they signed up for? Yes or no? By the way, thank you for your service to our nation. Breathlessly awaiting your response! Over and out...

[gomezrules]

04:48 PM on 05/26/2011

PS, this site for some reason is not letting me post in such a way that I can break my posts down in paragraphs. I do not know why that is..

[chesscub]

02:47 PM on 05/26/2011

I keep hearing the term Blue Falcon on this thread.

The only Blue Falcon I know teamed with Dynomutt.

Could someone explain the term to those not in the military? Does it refer to an AWOL soldier?

[LuLou Murder]

02:34 PM on 05/26/2011

Is there an actual lawyer here who can discuss stop-loss in the context of the 13th amendment?

[pflickner]

03:21 PM on 05/26/2011

Can't equate it. It's neither slavery nor indentured servitude if you signed up voluntarily, although it pushes the latter pretty darned hard.

[pflickner]

03:22 PM on 05/26/2011

Oh, and not a lawyer, but highly logical and frustrating to lawyers. :)

[Doobie Snacks]

02:30 PM on 05/26/2011

Just stop the back door draft already. No soldier needs to be in a war zone for 8 years unless you think of yourself as a TOOL.

[75thRanger]

02:39 PM on 05/26/2011

Only problem is that it's impossible not to know that he had a total of 8 years. He was told that by his recruiter, his MEPPS counselor, and he was told when he ETS'd during post clearance.

He's nothing more than a Blue Falcon. Remember because he's not doing his job someone else is there doing it for him.....Blue Falcon.

RLTW

[Doobie Snacks]

02:55 PM on 05/26/2011

Weird, I was told that I after I completed my 6 year initial contract that I would be inactive for 2 years and only called upon in the most extreme circumstances. These people who fulfill their initial contracts are supposed to be the very last people called up. Our military is severely overstretched when reserves and national guard are activated and people on inactive are called up as well. No one said I couldn't leave the country or I would be considered AWOL. In fact I did leave the country several times. The fact is this guy did his initial contract with honor. Period! He's done more than most Americans. Yet people are still going to piss on him?
"Remember because he's not doing his job someone else is there doing it for him."
If that's the case than I guess he should of never been discharged in the first place...but he was so apparently they had someone to do his job.

[pflickner]

03:25 PM on 05/26/2011

Nope. It's not the same thing. You're thinking of being recalled to active duty, which is not the same thing as stop-loss. Had they processed him as being recalled to active duty and set him up that way (physically, what was described was a recall because no active-duty stop-loss requires getting set up for military pay, identification, etc.), then he would be breaking the law. In this case, there is no bf. He was stop-lossed after his discharge, which is why they tried to get him to return the discharge papers.

[MMRDO]

02:47 PM on 05/26/2011

You're not at war for 8 years you're enrolled for 8.

[Doobie Snacks]

03:01 PM on 05/26/2011

With the express understanding that you would only be called up in the most dire of circumstances. Like immanent invasion. Not to in order to go back to the same war you have already done your 4 years for. That's called a back door draft. The normal recruitment is for 4 years active and 4 years inactive, or in my case 6 years active and 2 years inactive. The current use of calling up the inactive is unprecedented and grossly abusive.

[MMRDO]

02:16 PM on 05/26/2011

You have inactive time, if you can't hack it, don't sign.

[Sacro258]

03:14 PM on 05/26/2011

If he was inactive, they couldn't stop loss him unless they called him up first.

[pflickner]

03:28 PM on 05/26/2011

If you read the information, you can be recalled to active duty after your discharge, and under very specific circumstances. Stop-loss was for active-duty only. His discharge was complete before the stop-loss was issued, which was why they tried to get him to return his discharge papers. They snafu'd all over the place on this one and they're trying to make him pay the price for their idiocy. And some Unit Clerk is going to pay for it once they lose the case, you can pretty much count on that.

[cromag]

02:15 PM on 05/26/2011

What did they think they were joining? What did they think the actual business of the military was?

His ETS date was 23Jul. His stoploss orders came down before that. Just because you are on terminal leave you are not out of the Army until that date. I want to know the actual day the orders came down.

[Sacro258]

03:15 PM on 05/26/2011

His stop loss order came down after his ETS.

[pflickner]

03:29 PM on 05/26/2011

Read the article. His stop-loss orders came down in August. Last time I checked, August came after July.

[cromag]

11:19 AM on 05/27/2011

"Finally, in early July, it came. At the top, it said "Memorandum," and below, his captain explained that the unit was indeed preparing for stop loss; he was expected on base by August 1."

That means the orders were already cut before his ETS date. If he was to get out the last week of July and his report day was AUg 1, they were cut probably at the end of June.

[75thRanger]

02:01 PM on 05/26/2011

At the end of the day this guy is just a Blue Falcon.

RLTW

[Smithn]

02:19 PM on 05/26/2011

{{{Fanned}}} for service--Thank you!

[75thRanger]

02:22 PM on 05/26/2011

:)

[pflickner]

03:30 PM on 05/26/2011

Nope. Read the whole article. He was stop-lossed after his discharge.

[75thRanger]

05:03 PM on 05/26/2011

I still think he's a Blue Falcon. For the love of God he was a desk jockey.

[INDIVIDUALTERRY]

01:50 PM on 05/26/2011

When will one of these guys be honest and just come out and say " i was afraid i was going to get killed" ?

I would have at least a small amount of respect for their position.

[reading2009]

02:04 PM on 05/26/2011

That's not what happened, for this man, at least.

[Smithn]

02:14 PM on 05/26/2011

I'm thinking this man and every other man and woman who's lives touch warfare are afraid of getting killed. It's like the baseline for all other human emotions for them, don't you think?

[INDIVIDUALTERRY]

02:30 PM on 05/26/2011

Everybody who has been in combat has been scared . And scared sh.IT . less more often then not.
But you do what you have to do.

[75thRanger]

01:33 PM on 05/26/2011

When I was in everyone did 8 years. (I'm sure it's the same way now) Part of that is active and whatever you have left after that active time is served you have the remaining balance as inactive. You can be called up anytime during the time you have left on the 8 years.

I had no Guard or Reserve time since I did a full 10 when you added my re-enlistment time.

This is clearly stated on the contract and numerous times by the Recruiter and the career counselor at MEPPS. This kid knows this and is just trying to get sympathy.

RLTW

[robXdion]

01:47 PM on 05/26/2011

I did 10.335 active duty yrs in the Marines the same way. Everyone knows they have 8 yrs part of which is on the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR). And if it's forgotten, they're reminded during out-processing for their active duty discharge.

[75thRanger]

01:57 PM on 05/26/2011

Exactly. You are told when you enlist by your recruiter, your MEPPS counselor and like you said when you do your post out-processing.

Have a good one brother.

[Sacro258]

03:17 PM on 05/26/2011

If he was in Reserves, he couldn't be stop lossed until he was called up to active duty first.

[SGTDBK]

01:47 PM on 05/26/2011

Thank you...I read the story and my first thougth was inactive reserve. Curious how they didn't mention that part for this "combat IT vet".

[75thRanger]

01:58 PM on 05/26/2011

Yeah those combat IT vets have truly seen a lot............:)

How you doing brother? Mrs. Ranger and I had our first born...not even a month old yet.

[Sacro258]

03:18 PM on 05/26/2011

Reserves can't be stop lossed until they've been called up to active.