-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/07/defense-chief-looks-into-making-dont.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
And the grandest irony of all is that if he'd just done the right thing to begin with, he would have been revered by the LGBT community and respected by the majority of the country who believe DADT should be repealed. Message to the White House: IT'S NOT 1993.
Making something "more humane" means THEY BELIEVE it started out as inhumane and they WILL STILL LEAVE IT as inhumane.
I guess Gates will be consulting with the Humane Society.
But they do not think we are their equals. I see no action from this president or anyone close to him that indicates a belief that gay people are not actually inferior.
You know why we have no leaders? Because gay men do not adequately value dignity. That's what I hear in the too frequent applause breaks in the president's historic speech from Monday.
I'm not sure which I find more offensive - this administration's outdated gay panic, or its full-on assault of my intelligence.
He could issue the order today. Legislative repeal can come later. He could write on the back of an envelope "all discharges and discharge proceedings under DADT are hereby suspended until further notice", hand it to the nearest Joint Chief, and it holds the force of a direct order from the highest commander to the entirety of the military.
He knows he can do this; he just doesn't want to do this for political reasons. He's going to get a lot of splinters from sitting on that fence. He'll lose his support and he won't get any from the "right."
Cause to me it's like saying "We'll provide free government run universal healthcare to all people named Ned who live in Nebraska and were born between 1967 and 1973 as long as they don't drive a Honda." Sure, great for Ned, but doesn't really change much of anything...
I'm not sure if Obama would have asked Rosa Parks to sit in the middle of the bus or not, and the answer matters to me.
Maybe incrementalism, a belief that you steer a big boat by putting constant, mild pressure in the right direction, is so deeply ingrained that Obama would have been one of those telling MLK he was going too fast.
Maybe Obama is, although not deliberately bigoted, uncomfortable enough with gay people that he sees the half measure he continually proposes as being genuinley good enough.
He's wrong, in either case, but it is an important difference.
Let's make one thing clear: military leaders themselves have been selectively enforcing DADT since its inception. Enforcement is highly dependent on the personal beliefs of any number of individuals in the chain of command. There are many units in which the sexual orientation of the servicemembers is well-known and the prevailing sentiment is, rightfully, "BFD. Let's fight like we're being paid to do. I don't care if my buddy/commander/sergeant/whatever is a big 'mo."
Gates' position lags so far behind reality that it's fu*king insulting. One thing is clear: these half-measures are so dischordant with the real world that they MUST have been thought about a LOT in order to dumb them down so much. The COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF has the authority and, dare I say in a time of war, the responsibility to take meaningful action. It takes someone really smart and a lot of discussion to fu*k up this no-brainer.
Sounds like they are talking about a dog or a cat...not a human being.
What the hell is wrong with these otherwise, intelligent people? Discrimination is just that, no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig.
or in the Civil Rights era..would you use the word humane?
NO.
I find it a very degrading terminology to used about me.
(i think you meant, let's find a more humane was to NOT let women vote).
Obama has so screwed the pooch on his handling of this and every day is an even more offensive maneuver from this administration. They. just. don't. get. it!
From part 2 of subsection E, USC Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 37, § 654: "Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that— [2:] separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces."
It looks like Gates has all the authority he needs already to deem "separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces."
Is he under instruction not to? Or is he resistant and now wants to look more moderate??
Certainly the all the military have blatantly "pursued" just as before, they have asked, (if less directly,) and they have never used the above exception. Only local commanders would, willingly blinding themselves so as no to loose their valuable men and women.
My non-lawyered eye sees no wiggle room save the individual exception (that would work,) above, available to the Secretary of Defense. No matter how many "jilted" initiate valid investigations - they will always be able to under current law. The last line in that oddly rather concise Yahoo article refers to an executive order making the policy unenforcable - indeed a quick and easy solution to the inhumane-ness of discharging folk when they don't have to be. In wartime. When the law will inevitably change. --- Paging President Obama, stroke of pen is awaiting you ---
They are punting this issue back and forth. Like wussies. The Commander In Chief and the Secretary of Defense of the United States - wussies afraid of The Gay. Better than President Palin sure, but when that's the ONLY good thing that can be said about this administration something is terribly, terribly wrong.
If this is Gates's way of clearing the way for Obama to finally issue that order - fine - but why did it take this long, 265 soldiers long? WHAT A WASTE.
Democrats, you are on notice. Get busy with the equal rights law making or get the hell out of office. We'll be glad to help you on that last request.
I am thinking that neither Gates, nor his predecessors, availed themselves of this exception because the immediate result would be to highlight the lie which lies at the base of the "policy," that is: that the presence of an openly gay person will somehow destroy unit cohesion and be bad for morale. The more exceptions, the flimsier the foundation.
(Part A (a) is the homophobic opinion part of it, mostly)
(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.
It looks like B part 1 subparagraph D is the real exception clause.
Even so - as "conduct" (like getting caught screwing etc) used to be the standard, now (since this) it's identity. Gay is a thought crime - it's more than just the sex act. I suppose that's why subparagraphs A "such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior" and B "such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur," are so funny - wonder how many times that has actually worked as an excuse..?
Sex sex sex sex sex - given the amount of ABORTIONS on aircraft carriers, (with the concomitant lack of rape reports of theft reports from the sperm bank they must have somewhere) you'd think mebbe some of the same anti-gay folk might just be glad for a bit of sodomy with the rum and the lash. Less baby killing. Of course virtually no prosecution at all for all those heterosexuals screwing, guess it doesn't happen. It's all the Gay.
Again, this kind of stupidity takes real attention to detail.
What a junior high school playground the USA has become.
Grow the fuck up...Turkey and the USA are the ONLY two nations in NATO that do not allow openly gay servicemen and women.
Whoops...that's right...I forgot how this nation is being held hostage by the white trash bible belters in both party's Southern Strategy.
JEEBUS FUCKING KKKEEERIST
Al-Jazeera broadcast clips filmed in 2008 showing stacks of Bibles translated into Pashto and Dari at the U.S. air base in Bagram and featuring the chief of U.S. military chaplains in Afghanistan, Lt. Col. Gary Hensley, telling soldiers to “hunt people for Jesus.”
Check out the Newsweek article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/202734
Wednesday, JUNE 24, 2009.
"Until Gates is gone DADT will stay. That is their agreement. There is no other logical reason for the delay to repeal it. Robert Gates has Obama by the balls, and he's squeezing 'em tight. Wait a minute, isn't that against military policy? Ooops!"
Obama must be putting some pressure on the old fart or he wouldn't even be looking at any way of reducing the strict enforcement and discharges.
It's really that simple. It's not even arguable any more that military readiness is degraded by the presence of LGBT Servicemember.
Let's just stop allowing our armed forces to be put at risk by DADT.
LOL.
....I only did it because the responses were serious and I thought no one was getting the joke. Never dreamed it was me. HA!
=======================================
Well, John, this would take leadership and we're still waiting for "the Fierce Advocate" to start leading.
All three were outed by someone outside the military. Up to now policy has apparently been that if they find out someone's gay they have to fire them. He's asking a fair question: If the government doesn't ask, and the servicemember doesn't tell, does the Dept. of Defense have to act?
It's not as good as ending the policy altogether, but it's a sign of progress. And I don't think we should spit in the face of progress, even while we demand further action.
Is it a perfect solution? No. Is it as good as an executive order? No. But given that President Obama isn't going to sign an executive order, this is a reasonable transition measure and that movement is afoot.
So, neither is an iron-clad solution.
Here is Obama 'flinching' again - I don't know if it will do any good, but we do have a pattern of behavior.
We do something (DNC fundraiser protest, rant about the Stonewall reception) and we get something (some benefits for Federal employees and now Gates looking into a more 'humane' DADT).
Now that we have established what we need to do, let's keep up the heat and maybe turn down the hyperbole.
More like "tokenism."
You hire one black person and that means you don't discriminate. You give champagne and cheese puffs to a handful of gay lap dogs and that means you've done something for gay people everywhere.
Meanwhile we're on the verge of seeing Lt. Choi kicked out. An honorable, honest man, and someone who speaks AArabic. Too bad we couldn't get all the Arabic speakers in the services to claim they are gay as a form of protest.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...
A military review panel recommended Tuesday that National Guard Lt. Dan Choi, the gay Arabic translator who became a national figure in fighting the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy after declaring his sexuality on television, be discharged from the service.
BUT -- perhaps that's the point. We will have a military then with many out gay men and women, and that will prove that 'unit cohesion' hasn't suffered. By creating a half out, half closeted army, it will prove to opponents that gay men aren't the problem.
It hurts him that we just aren't good enough to be on his Cabinet. He wishes we were really equal. It's probably our fault that we aren't.
He's so humane. It makes him even dreamier.
And my eye? I tripped on the bus and hit my face on the fare box. I felt like a damn fool.
Clearly they still want their gay servicemen and women to lie. If you're found out by accident--and have enough political support--we might keep you. If you dare to stop lying on your own, you're history for breaking the rules that demand you lie. They can kick out the most forward-thinking, and keep in a few tokens.
I can't pretend it's not a baby step forward. Having openly gay service members sanctioned for whatever reason--even if only because they were outed in foul play--is a historic step. But Gates' obviously doesn't understand our basic civil rights. The details of his plan are no less insulting to our dignity and equality than DADT itself.
Seems like that's what Truman would've done by now.
Gates' "humane DADT" is MUCH worse than DADT itself and is completely un-workable.
In Korea, there were convenient "red light" districts.
What the heck do the guys and gals do, who are stationed in Iraq? I know there are more females in the military now, but certainly not enough to balance out. There are no stories about "Sex in Iraq" at all. We do not even hear of R&R sites, other than Qattar and Kuwait, not exactly known for free and easy night life.
Could this be the reason that the military is dragging its feet on DADT? Are they afraid that letting people say they are gay will no longer provide the coersion not to tell about their same sex-scapades in the desert? Could it be that the brass are afraid that the guys they have been having sex with will tell on them if they are allowed to be out? Is that the unit cohesion that they are worried about?