He wouldn’t have, of course. Who we elect has zero relevance when we consider the military’s ability to resist just these sort of changes. I agree – why were we pretending otherwise, earlier?
UncleBill: Having had a chance to read the rule: Nope, not a sound rule either.
Unfortunately, Ace, we have a situation where the President is the only person who can make it happen. He has the option of maintaining the status quo, or wrecking the military, and thus our ability to fulfill our commitments, defend our interests, and project power, or he can destroy the military over this issue and ignore the preceeding.
You tell me what you would do. I’d say it’s pretty obvious.
Wait a minute. You’re saying the only options are “maintain the status quo” or “destroy the military”?
I wouldn’t go for the fallacy of the excluded middle, that’s for sure:
I’d start with a message from on high: Don’t cash the chips of any more damn folks who protect the national security!
Then I’d demand a codification of the implied argument is that this makes sense to the military, let’s have the military spell out exactly how groups would be affected by the introduction of gay folks. Maybe you can defend segregation in the close quarters of submarines, but how the hell does being gay affect your team translation skills?
Wait a minute - I’m confused. First it was, “I submit to the ban on gays in the military because it’s what the Admin wants, but I think it’s dumb”; now it’s “If the ban were lifted by order of the Commander-in-Chief, the military would fall apart”?
Ridiculous. I thought you said the military follows orders. If the Commander-in-Chief can have gay people fired on nothing but his say-so, he can bloody well make them stop doing so.
Well, it makes me sad that people I like and respect think that who I love makes me unfit to serve my country. I guess it’s just as well the Marines rejected me for my back, since I’m not a good American because I love men (well, a man; I’m monogamous).
I did like that theme from the earlier thread:
Well, of course we all have to bear in mind the terrible national tragedy that occured when the United States was overrun by the Communists after Truman racially integrated the armed forces.
:: sigh ::
If only Strom Thurmond had won back in 1948…
(d&r, naturally)
Banning gays has been around since 1945, according to SLDN. As for Article 125, it does specifically deny the serviceperson’s enjoyment of non-coital sex.
I did not see the interview, so I cannot talk with authority on the context. I don’t know if they were sleeping in each others arm, or in the middle of sodomy. I also do not KNOW if those discharged are kicked out under Article 125 (Sodomy), or 133 (Conduct Unbecoming), 134 (General Article), or 83 (Fraudulent Enlistment), 84 (Unlawful Enlistment), 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation), or 98 (Noncompliance with Procedural Rules). I tried a quick search, but have not seen the actual rule they broke.
Here’s a link to an SLDN chart, based on DoD stats, of gay discharges since DADT went into effect. Green Bean, I’m not sure what your objection is to my previous cite. Shilts based his work on DoD statistics, so unless you’re questioning the correctness of his figures I’m not sure where you’re going with this. Airman Doors, I have not been following this issue as closely as I used to so I don’t know what level of pursuit is currently in place. If there is any pursuit then it is in direct violation of the law. The most recent high-profile “pursuit” was of servicemember Timothy McVeigh (no relation) who was pursued based on an anonymous AOL profile reported by a supposedly disinterested third party. He was discharged but ordered reinstated since the military violated DADT. IIRC he also got a big settlement from AOL for violating his rights. Read Shilts and Berube for accounts of some of the truly harrowing witch hunts upon which the military embarked during the policy’s 60-year history.
As a 12 year active duty veteran, I cannot remember the number of times we pulled into a foreign port, dropped anchor and rushed to the nearest “gut” (area of town notorious for bars and hookers). E-1’s through O-6’s were there in mass, meeting the girls, striking a deal and receiving our fair share of “unnatural” blowjobs.
The rhetoric of a person stating that “As long as it is in the rules, I have no choice except to follow them” is followed on a basis of convenience, rather than a noble duty to uphold the UCMJ.
When, and only when every report of a heterosexual “blowjob” and heaven forbid “anal sex” is followed up with the same fervor and zealousness as the homosexual members accusation, will I believe that this is even a valid argument. I watched many homosexual members get discharged, and cannot remember one incidence of a hetero member being discharged for an “unnatural” sex act outlined in the UCMJ.
If the higher ups in the military were really acting under a sense of duty, were really interested in enforcing these sacred rules as they seem to try to portray. The percentage of UCMJ violations would would greatly tilt towards the discharge of heterosexual servicemembers.
…which refers to the bottleneck at the UN in translating, not a bottleneck in US military service translating. I’m sure we’re just chomping at the bit to offer our translating services – yes, that is arabic for “yankee dog! We have nukes!” Why do you ask?
Interesting note: Lackland AFB accounted for 221 of 1007 TOTAL dismissals in 1997. 212 of those 221 were from Basic Training units. 22% of ALL servicemembers dismissed in a year are from ONE base, 21% are in Boot Camp units.
There were 415 Air Force dismissals in 1998, 1163 total in the five services. Lackland? 271 of those. That is 23% of all dismissal in the military, and 65% of the dismissals in the Air Force.
They have changed their policy, which had been basically a recruit who said “I’m gay” to a superior was sent home, no questions asked. Either an easy out for someone who didn’t like pushups, or an unusually aggressive policy of rooting out gays. Now they are given separate quarters if they fear harassment, phone calls to home, and are kept on base a while longer, and given the chance to recant their statement as long as it was made in private. It is explained that homosexual ORIENTATION is not a problem, but homosexual CONDUCT is still a no-no. Entry Level Discharges for homosexuality have dropped significantly.
**Joe_Cool wrote:
All the SC was to block the endless cycle of “I didn’t win? Recount them! Oh, I still didn’t win? Well, recount again. Still no? Ok, recount again…”**
I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with the whole issue and get all the facts.
**Airman Doors, USAF wrote:
And of course, if Gore had been in the White House right now, boy howdy, he’d have jumped right on this issue, wouldn’t he?
Do you have any idea how silly you make yourself sound when you bring that up?**
I think that Al Gore would serious consider the issue rather ignore it like the current resident of the White house.
I mention who I voted for because the issue is brought up; “vote for someone who’ll change the policy.” Yes, I am doing that. As The Ace of Swords pointed out, the entrenched military bureaucracy is also part of the problem.
The funny thing is, it’s a trumped up charge. It’s like getting Al Capone on tax evasion, because they have nothing else to go with. It’s cheap, it’s dirty, but it’s the law, and if applied equally, yes, Freyr, 99% of the military would be court-martialed. But it’s not. And I am powerless to do anything about it except destroy myself in protest.
Acutally, I agree with you. I only copied and pasted your statement as a leadin to my own opinion (that if the rule were equally enforced, 99% of the military would be going through court martial procedures right now and that the rule is merely a way to hound homosexuals out of the military). That you have a career and a family to think of is certainly an important factor.
Sorry, I should have made my point clearer in relation to your own.
**sezyou wrote:
I watched many homosexual members get discharged, and cannot remember one incidence of a hetero member being discharged for an “unnatural” sex act outlined in the UCMJ.**
Thank you! This isn’t about following rules or maintaing disciplne in a unit. This is about a witch hunt to get homosexuals out of the service for whatever arcane reasons.
You’ve now crossed into the realm of spewing absolute bullshit. What a ridiculous, alarmist false dilemma. You’ll find most people on this board are not stupid enough to be fooled by such nonsense. Who believes this baloney? “oooh, the armed forces will collapse! Oooooh!” Yes, it sure fell apart when they integrated, huh? Everything went straight to shit.
Here’s my less-than-stunning educated prediuction; if the silly ban on gays is lifted, the vast, vast majority of military personnel would accept it, some more grudgingly than others, and the tiny minority that left the service would not really be missed.
I totally agree with you, RickJay. But I still think that despite military resistance, it’s up to the president to change things. Implying it’s not his fault or responsibility because he gets resistance (as others have done) is cheap.
To clarify again: DADT is not a “policy.” It is a law. The President does not have the power to end DADT by executive order. Abolishing DADT will require either that Congress vote to repeal it and the President sign it or that the law is struck down as unconstitutional by a court.
Prior to DADT being passed into law, the President could have ended it “with the stroke of a pen” as the saying goes, by executive order. No longer.
What the President (and the brass) can do is ensure that the law is followed, that troops are properly trained on the law and that troops are ordered not to harass on the basis of (real or perceived) sexual orientation and that those who violate laws or policies or orders are punished. That’s the leadership that can be offered short of repealing the law, and that is what the leadership is NOT doing.
I dunno… would so many supposedly highly competent, highly motivated, experienced, respected senior commanders and staffers be willing to purge themselves and thus cripple their “beloved” services and endanger the nation, rather than follow an order from the CinC to put aside their “feeling” on a particular issue? What happened to "Duty, Honor, Country? Where do their loyalties reside? Because if it’s to themselves and not to the Republic…