Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) - Obama's failure in leadership

Is that not the same as ignoring DADT completely?

Does the American President have the power to overrule a law of Congress?

No if he wanted to compromise he could demand they stop doing things like searching private emails or allowing third party testimony. Make the don’t ask part meaningful.

Then go on to say the congress needs to repeal the measure for gays to be allowed to serve openly.

In this instance he certainly has the power to stop enforcing a law. Overturning the law is the job of congress.

Obama throwing his hands up in the air and pretending he can’t do anything is ridiculous. His administration has actively defended anti gay laws. He no longer deserves any benifit of doubt from the gay community. He lied to his constituents.

It’s my understanding that they have started doing this. I don’t know if they’ve halted discharge proceedings that are in progress, but I believe that they no longer do anything for third-party outings.

Thanks for the answer, as well as the later cite re the constitution.

Well, I’ll grant the the GOP may get far on a platform of bigotry and fear. But the aspect of campaigning against soldiers when there’s 1.5 wars going on right now? Political suicide if you ask me.

Good point. If Obama all by his lonesome can’t kill DADT then it makes sense to have a co-operative congress do it. But Obama isn’t going to get that congress so it made me wonder why he doesn’t just go for it while he still can. Some progress would be better than none at all, wouldn’t it?

Or the Arabic linguists. That MOS was apparently a better predictor of teh ghey than wearing pink in a Pride Parade.

Not “overrule” per se, but he can certainly ignore it. Just like how he isn’t enforcing the federal prohibition on marijuana in California.

He could immediately declare that he is not going to discharge a soldier for being gay. Period. As long as more than 1/3 of the Senate sides with him (and votes not to convict him on impeachment charges) then he gets away with it.

Do you really want the President to act like that though?

That makes the President really, really powerful, and the Congress sorta, kinda meaningless.

The Repubs are pandering to their base. Principles mean nothing to them. They are after an election and they think it helps their cause. I am sure there are Repubs who understand the stance is against the civil rights of approx. 10 percent of the population.
Some military brass came out for killing DADT. But I think a few big ones are fighting it hard behind the scenes. Obama is a politician. He he conducting mental polls all the time. There is an election coming up. I am sure he will proceed after the election. That is not being wrong, it is the reality of politics.

The majority of Republicans want DADT to be repealed AFAIR.

Absolutely. If we were talking about civilian life, I might agree, but since the President is Commander in Chief of the military, he should have the power to dictate what is done in that context.

If Obama believes that the ban on gay soldiers is making our armed forces less prepared than they should be, then I believe fully in giving him the power to do what is best. Similarly, if the next President wants to ban gays entirely, then that is his prerogative.

Congress and the Courts have no business overseeing the military. The only exception is that Congress can decide through appropriation how big the military is, and it has the power to declare when we go to war. Other than that, the President needs to be in charge.

That strikes me as one of the most astonishingly bad ideas I’ve ever heard.

There’s plenty of wiggle room in the DADT law that allows Obama to stop the expulsion of gays from the military. See, eg. 10 USC 654(b)(1)(D). He can also issue stop-loss orders. None of this violates the law or overrides Congress. See, eg. 10 USC 12305:

Then what’s the point of doing any of it in the first place, if it’s just going to go around in circles every four to eight years?

That would certainly be a part of a CIC’s thought process. Would it be a good thing for the military to have a “gay purge” after a time? Surely not. Even if he was against gays in the military to begin with, surely a reasonable person would see that a wholesale dismissal of the ones who “outed” themselves under favorable Obama circumstances would cause a terrible morale problem if these types of rules were inconsistent from administration to administration.

You may say that we can’t trust the President to make these decisions, but this is a guy that could destroy the whole world in a firestorm of nuclear weapons with a secret code word. Surely he can be trusted with personnel matters.

Honestly, I don’t think that having openly gay service members will cause one ounce of problems. None at all. But I don’t want to start the precedent that military matters are open to matters of social policy and justice that could potentially undermine their readiness in the future.

60-65% in polling of Republicans. A majority of Americans want a repeal passed. Americans think a repeal would be a good thing.

From the Republican side of things however the issue isn’t so much they are against repeal. If they were the party in power it would probably be repealed. They are against the Democrats repealing it because it would be a political success for Democrats. Far more important to Republicans then good policy is being in power. The goal is let the Democrats succeed at nothing.

You know, I don’t actually know what the process is for launching a nuclear attack, but I’m pretty sure we don’t trust him with that sort of power. There are, I imagine, a number of cut-offs between the president and “the button” to prevent a president from unilaterally deciding to nuke Brussels.

I could be wrong, of course. But if I am, I think that’s something that really needs to be changed ASAP.

Dear mom,

I’m here with the guys in my unit at xx latitude yy longitude. We have yet to construct a defensive perimeter, have no water, and are short on ammo. Please don’t tell any insurgents about this. I hope no evil-doers intercept this message in transit, because we’d be fucked (in a bad way).

Hugs and kisses,
Your Gay or Straight Son

Seems like this would be something that we should look out for - I’m not convinced (particularly in a military organization) that a right to private correspondence overrides the right to my buddies to not get killed over some idiot writing home to mommy. The Geraldo Rivera incident comes to mind.

You have little or no right to the expectation of privacy while on an operation. That’s the job, just like working in a hospital - you can’t shoot off an email to “mom” saying “can you believe that this person with SSN 123-45-678 has HIV and gonorrhea at the same time??? Wow…LOL…FTW”

Did you completely miss the topic of the thread or are you intentionally being obtuse?

Should the military be searching peoples private correspondence for the purposes of determining their sexuality? If the Military learns someone is gay should the be fired even though that person never told anyone else in the military privately or publicly under a Don’t ask don’t tell policy?

The problem that GiantRat is pointing out is that the military needs to read the private correspondence of soldiers to make sure they don’t make any security leaks. They can’t decide to just read the security-leak correspondence and not read the correspondence relevant to sexuality, because they don’t know which is which until they read them.