This was supposed to say “and SHE happened to leave it someplace the cops could see it.”
No the military has full responsibility for that. The police did not lie or misinform the military nor should they be expected too. Yes they did provide more information then necessary, maybe out of spite, doesn’t matter to me. I generally assume the cops are going to be assholes.
That’s some harsh shit right there. And what did the police accomplish with their spiteful behavior? Lessening the readiness of our Air Force. Thanks a lot, stupid fucking pigs.
Enough for fins and scales, yup.
This is why DADT needs to go - it’s a stupid reason to lose qualified personnel.
They have to let her go because that’s policy - once she’s outed, she’s out of the military. That’s sort of the heart of DADT - keep your sexuality a secret and you can stay in, but once it’s public for any reason you’re done and a civilian again. Even if it hurts the military.
Stupid policy.
What would happen to her commanding officer / whoever’s in charge of letting her go if they didn’t?
Here’s a “what if” for you…
I guess then, it wouldn’t bother you, if one of us “outed” a few undercover cops to the Mafia, Russian Mob, or the Familia then? Maybe it won’t be spite, just a little information leak? Maybe it’s spite, but so what.
I don’t consider the two comparable. The laws are such that one position is legal and encourages the military to legally carry out their policy. The other position is on questionable legal grounds and encourages illegal activity against the agents.
The military policy is a bad one. Placing the blame on the police for the military carrying out policy is a red herring. It fails to address the hundred of people discharged every year for no other reason then policy.
It’s a shit policy, and it should be discontiuned, but the military would have probably not acted on it, unless the cops turned it into an issue (which they did). So yes, I put a goodly share of the blame on the police, because they knew what was going to happen.
No, it doesn’t. What you fail to acknowledge is that there’s more than enough blame to go around: the cops are at fault for turning tattle-tale, the military is at fault for enforcing it, the politicians are at fault for creating the policy in the first place…
Gay marriage is specifically included as a reason for discharge under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. U.S. Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654> b >3:
My guess would be that her commanders, even if they are among the most anti DADT officers in the army (which of course I have no idea whether they are or not), have little to no choice. If they allowed her to remain then it would set a precedent under which anybody else who has been discharged for a same-sex marriage could sue to get back in or anyone who presently or in the future enters into one could sue since an exception has been made.
Since I don’t think any reasonable person would ever believe the officers really were able to read that paper through a window, and it would be pretty easy to prove it in court (“this is the same size font and you are the same distance from it that you were from the paper on the kitchen table- could you read it aloud to us please”) I wonder if she would have an invasion of privacy suit against the individual policemen or against the city. Anyone know? Bueller?
My guess would be that you kind of need to analyze the administrative regulations to perform a proper analysis and form your conclusions.
And my assertion is that you are being an ass in this thread. Cut it out.
you cant perform the analysis fully without expounding on regulations which may or may not be relevant. simply trotting out the statute and saying “the military had no choice!” is sloppy analysis.
Explain then how it would be legal and no danger in precedent setting to knowingly allow a lesbian who married in violation of the homosexual conduct rules to remain in the service when more than 13,000 other personnel, many of them with very special and essential skills, have been discharged for that or other violations of the exact same code.
The ACLU is filing suit specifically for invasion of privacy.
Essentially, the red herring is DADT. The real issue is whether the police violated Newsome’s privacy when they outed her.
“The Secretary of Defense has used this regulatory authority to limit the circumstances under which investigations can be initiated. For example, the regulations prohibit commanders from conducting investigations unless they first have credible information from reliable sources that there is a basis for discharge…The Secretary has broad authority to devise additional restrictions on the initiation of investigations.”
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/ImplementationInLinewithNationalSecurity.pdf
would it be a stretch to suggest that it’s entirely possible that information obtained through a violation of a servicemember’s 4th amendment right to privacy is a condition under which these investigations won’t inure? Again, I’m not saying there’s some magical words in the regulations that I know of, but merely pointing out that the statute says there was no other choice and stopping isn’t correct legal analysis.
There’s a difference between this and, say, someone telling a commander that they saw Jenny making out with Sally, where the commander can (and very likely would) claim that there was insufficient evidence to launch an investigation. The old “fingers in my ears and I can’t hear you” routine. I’ve seen that happen before in regards to DADT. However, if Jenny and Sally continued to make out, in public, or did something monumentally risky like, oh I don’t know, GETTING MARRIED, there’s not a whole lot the commander can do to avoid taking action. In the first case, if his boss comes down and says “Why didn’t you kick out Jenny and Sally?” he can claim plausible ignorance. OTOH, “Look at this marriage certificate, why didn’t you do your job?” is a quick way to put a hurting on your own career.
In God’s Own Air Force? She’s damn lucky those fundie freaks didn’t stone her out on the air strip. The modern Air Force is a disgrace to the uniform they wear and the Constitution they purport to uphold.
ETA: In fariness, I should restrict the above sentiment to the upper echelons of the officer corps. I would imagine the average airman could give two shits.
Outing an undercover cop is impeding an investigation - which can probably net you an “obstruction of justice” charge if the police feel so inclined. If the police officer is harmed, you might be charged as an accessory if that was a forseeable result of your action. At the very least, you’ll do an OJ - you’ll go broke getting yourself off the hook.