Calif judge to stop 'don't ask, don't tell' policy

[G26ster]

I would prefer that this sort of policy be set by the military, not a judge, lawyer, or bureaucrat.

I have not been talking about "policy." I have been talking about a constitutional question. No matter who in the system makes the "policy," our Constitution trumps -- the Constitution you swore, and I swore (several times) to defend.

I must say that I, personally, do not want constitutional issues decided by military brass, or even their civilian seniors. More than 200 years ago a group of very wise men decided in Philadelphia that the ultimate decision on such issues will be by our judiciary, contrary to their recent experience under a totalitarian government, and after many, if not most, of them, just fought in one of our nation's most horrible wars.

No problem. I think we are at the point where we have to agree to disagree. We are certainly not alone in that.

I think you are confusing “lawful orders or regulations” with unconstitutional requirements. A “lawful order or regulation” is an order which does not require one to break the law in order to follow. I see no order requiring breaking of the law in the case of the Air Force regulation.

The Nuremburg trails were about “crimes against humanity.” Those officers and others that issued unlawful (Superior) orders were convicted with the harshest sentences. Those who followed those orders were given lesser ones. Those orders not only violated civil law, they also violated “The laws of Land Warfare.” That said, this is an ill defined area, and there are lots of opinions about it. IMO, the people that were convicted deserved everything they got, and then some.

As for all military laws required to meet a constitutionality test, I have to respectfully disagree.

If you believe all military regulations or codes (UCMJ) must be constitutional, then you must explain the ones below. See how they fit in your civilian life. See if violating the code will land you in jail. Substitute Superior Officer with, “Your Supervisor at work,” or with failure to follow your company’s policies. I think the difference will become clear. Naturally, I left out the obvious codes against murder, rape, arson, theft, and all other criminal acts, as they are crimes in the civilian world as well.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucm ... 20ARTICLES" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

885. ART. 85. DESERTION
866. ART. 86. ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE
887. ART. 87. MISSING MOVEMENT
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
809. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
899. ART. 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY
900. ART. 100. SUBORDINATE COMPELLING SURRENDER
901. ART. 101. IMPROPER USE OF COUNTERSIGN
902. ART. 102. FORCING A SAFEGUARD
904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS
913. ART. 113. MISBEHAVIOR OF A SENTINEL OR LOOKOUT
915. ART 115. MALINGERING
917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN

and... the catch all...
934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

Edit: I'm not addressing DADT. I'm simply stating the IMHO one loses certain constitutional rights when they join the military.

[The Annoyed Man]

Thank you TAM.

nitrogen, I am guess that you are friends with your roommate and not strangers right?

Why should I, someone that meets the military standards have to suffer and be uncofortable because we want to change the standards so that we can accommodate and make somebody else feel better? If gays want to serve in the military do it quietly and comply with the standard.

We are, yes.

Let me turn your question around:

Why should the military get rid of someone skilled because someone else feels sketchy about them? I guess I just happen to disagree with who is in the "right" here, is all.

The problem with your position is that it is truly one sided. What I and others have stated is that gays serving in the military, quietly, discreetly, and dignified, is not really what's at issue. I've even stated that if the Army fired such a person without cause, then shame on the Army. But you, on the other hand, are refusing to acknowledge that other parties have rights in this issue too.

I liken it to integration of the military in 1948. Plenty of the same arguments were made then.

You won't find a large chunk of black Americans sharing that assessment, many of whom think that comparing homosexuality to race is a fraudulent notion. And whatever prejudices existed among whites at the time, anger over the sexual preferences of black soldiers wasn't one of them. The color of one's skin is determined at conception. Geneticists have largely discounted the notion of a "gay gene," and the consensus is that same-sex attractions are largely psychological in origin, despite efforts to prove otherwise.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a place in the military for gays, but it does mean that it isn't exactly the same thing as the post WW2 racial integration of the military. In the meantime, Harry Reid has just inserted his DREAM Act along with an abolition of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into the next defense appropriations bill. Way to go Harry. I hope he catches a painful antibiotic resistant STD.

[Hoi Polloi]

I would prefer that this sort of policy be set by the military, not a judge, lawyer, or bureaucrat.

I have not been talking about "policy." I have been talking about a constitutional question. No matter who in the system makes the "policy," our Constitution trumps -- the Constitution you swore, and I swore (several times) to defend.

I must say that I, personally, do not want constitutional issues decided by military brass, or even their civilian seniors. More than 200 years ago a group of very wise men decided in Philadelphia that the ultimate decision on such issues will be by our judiciary, contrary to their recent experience under a totalitarian government, and after many, if not most, of them, just fought in one of our nation's most horrible wars.

No problem. I think we are at the point where we have to agree to disagree. We are certainly not alone in that.

I think you are confusing “lawful orders or regulations” with unconstitutional requirements. A “lawful order or regulation” is an order which does not require one to break the law in order to follow. I see no order requiring breaking of the law in the case of the Air Force regulation.

The Nuremburg trails were about “crimes against humanity.” Those officers and others that issued unlawful (Superior) orders were convicted with the harshest sentences. Those who followed those orders were given lesser ones. Those orders not only violated civil law, they also violated “The laws of Land Warfare.” That said, this is an ill defined area, and there are lots of opinions about it. IMO, the people that were convicted deserved everything they got, and then some.

As for all military laws required to meet a constitutionality test, I have to respectfully disagree.

If you believe all military regulations or codes (UCMJ) must be constitutional, then you must explain the ones below. See how they fit in your civilian life. See if violating the code will land you in jail. Substitute Superior Officer with, “Your Supervisor at work,” or with failure to follow your company’s policies. I think the difference will become clear. Naturally, I left out the obvious codes against murder, rape, arson, theft, and all other criminal acts, as they are crimes in the civilian world as well.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucm ... 20ARTICLES" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

885. ART. 85. DESERTION
866. ART. 86. ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE
887. ART. 87. MISSING MOVEMENT
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
809. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
899. ART. 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY
900. ART. 100. SUBORDINATE COMPELLING SURRENDER
901. ART. 101. IMPROPER USE OF COUNTERSIGN
902. ART. 102. FORCING A SAFEGUARD
904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS
913. ART. 113. MISBEHAVIOR OF A SENTINEL OR LOOKOUT
915. ART 115. MALINGERING
917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN

and... the catch all...
934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

Edit: I'm not addressing DADT. I'm simply stating the IMHO one loses certain constitutional rights when they join the military.

Indeed. And as came up in another recent thread, one even must give up some human rights in the military. While the US and most world countries recognize a human right to proselytize, those in the military are forbidden from doing so in Muslim countries right now. I'm sure there are many other similar examples of human rights being lawfully denied our troops for the sake of safety.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Thank you TAM.

nitrogen, I am guess that you are friends with your roommate and not strangers right?

Why should I, someone that meets the military standards have to suffer and be uncofortable because we want to change the standards so that we can accommodate and make somebody else feel better? If gays want to serve in the military do it quietly and comply with the standard.

We are, yes.

Let me turn your question around:

Why should the military get rid of someone skilled because someone else feels sketchy about them? I guess I just happen to disagree with who is in the "right" here, is all.

I liken it to integration of the military in 1948. Plenty of the same arguments were made then.

So since you are friends and knew each other prior to living together it has no relevance to two strangers being forced to live together.

As for you turning my question around. It is not that is a sketchy feeling. It is an uncomfortable feeling but what do I know I am only in the military. I am only in the ranks and hear what the other soldiers, NCOs and Officers really feel and let me assure you every single one that I have talked to is NOT happy with the possible repeal of this policy. But who cares about the soldiers in the military? Who cares what they think and feel so long as ONE group of people is happy

[bdickens]

Well, as an NCO, all I really cared about is whether or not they could do their jobs, pass their PT tests and maintain their appearance and Military Bearing, not who they bedded down with.

If someone's sexual preferences make you uncomfortable, you need to suck it up and drive on.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Really, suck it up and drive on? Thats what you are gonna tell your troop when his gay roommate brings his boyfriend into the room?

As an NCO you should know that there is more to being an NCO than just worrying about if they can do their jobs, pass their PT tests and maintain their appearance and Military Bearing. You have to take care of your soldiers. I am not saying baby them but you have to be a leader and take care of them. I guess you must have missed that part.

Note how I have never said that they should not be in the military just not be in it openly.

[OCD]

The First Amendment protects freedom of religion but that doesn't mean US military personnel are allowed to preach the gospel in the MidEast.

[b322da]

New development.

The Senate may put DADT repeal up to a vote next week. Repeal of DADT is a part of the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill. The House approved the budget bill with the DADT repeal language by a 234-194 vote in May.

Under the plan the ban could be lifted as early as next February, after the president and defense secretary certify that the military is prepared for the change.

http://www.stripes.com/news/don-t-ask-d ... k-1.118180" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the bill passes the congress, and is then signed by the prez, we will have all three branches of our government involved, which might produce an interesting situation.

Elmo

[bdickens]

That's exactly what I'd tell my troop. Suck it up. Live with it. Life is not about what PVT Snuffy does and does not like.

No, it wasn't my job as an NCO to cater to my soldier's prejudices. Prejudice has no place in the US military. And it wasn't my job to take care of them, either. It was my job to train them to take care of themselves.

[psijac]

That's exactly what I'd tell my troop. Suck it up. Live with it. Life is not about what PVT Snuffy does and does not like.

No, it wasn't my job as an NCO to cater to my soldier's prejudices. Prejudice has no place in the US military. And it wasn't my job to take care of them, either. It was my job to train them to take care of themselves.

As an NCO you should know that Our job is to enforce Rules and Regulations not to interpret them. If someone did not shave or get a haircut for two weeks would you tell others to find a straw and suck it up? What if they were known to drive drunk every weekend on their liberty but made it back every Monday morning for formation how long would you tell them to "drive on". My point being there is no distinction between your personal life and your professional life in the military

[terryg]

1) We do quarter males and females in the same barracks. The open-bay barracks you see in the movies are long gone; today they are more like college dorms.

Then I stand corrected on that. Times change. Evidently, I'm behind the times.

Wow, I haven't followed up on this thread in a while - so I am quoting a pretty old posting. Probably not adding a whole lot of value here - but I feel compelled to point out:

To my knowledge, the outstanding United States Marine Corps still houses young men and young women separately. I know with certainty that they are the last service branch to maintain separation during basic training. I am only slightly less certain that this separation is maintained for housing purposes after boot camp.

Somebody still has their wits about them ...

Semper Fi

[G26ster]

That's exactly what I'd tell my troop. Suck it up. Live with it. Life is not about what PVT Snuffy does and does not like.

No, it wasn't my job as an NCO to cater to my soldier's prejudices. Prejudice has no place in the US military. And it wasn't my job to take care of them, either. It was my job to train them to take care of themselves.

With due respect to your service, I believe a leader's job is to "lead" them, and maintaining morale is a large part of leadership. If DADT is in place as a military regulation, it's every NCO/Officer's job to enforce it whether you "agree with it" or not. I think our military commander's main concern with abolishing DADT is a lowering of morale. A demoralized force is a poor fighting force. Just MHO.

[baldeagle]

As TAM points out, the military does not discriminate against gays. Congress does. Congress passed the DADT policy. All the military does is carry it out. If Congress repeals DADT or passes a law requiring that gays serve openly in the military, then the military will comply with that as well. One of the great strengths of America is that the military answers to civilian leadership, and thus to the people, and not to an all powerful ruler.

[b322da]

As TAM points out, the military does not discriminate against gays. Congress does. Congress passed the DADT policy. All the military does is carry it out. If Congress repeals DADT or passes a law requiring that gays serve openly in the military, then the military will comply with that as well. One of the great strengths of America is that the military answers to civilian leadership, and thus to the people, and not to an all powerful ruler.

While this is of course largely correct, baldeagle, and I particularly emphasize your last sentence, is it not true that the reason for the enactment of DADT by the Congress was to reduce discrimination against gays in the military, not to discriminate against them? That is, prior to enactment of DADT was it not true that simply being gay was a ground for discharge? Wasn't DADT intended to reduce the number of closeted gays discharged?

Doesn't the off-hand expression "repeal DADT" include eliminating the authority to discharge service members for simply being gay, no matter how this is discovered, particularly like was the alleged original action by the Air Force in Major Witt's case, upon the receipt of an anonymous letter? "Repeal DADT," so far as I know, does not repeal the authority of command to discharge a service-member for homosexual acts or conduct.

These are just some questions prompted in my mind by your comment, BA.

[baldeagle]

As TAM points out, the military does not discriminate against gays. Congress does. Congress passed the DADT policy. All the military does is carry it out. If Congress repeals DADT or passes a law requiring that gays serve openly in the military, then the military will comply with that as well. One of the great strengths of America is that the military answers to civilian leadership, and thus to the people, and not to an all powerful ruler.

While this is of course largely correct, baldeagle, and I particularly emphasize your last sentence, is it not true that the reason for the enactment of DADT by the Congress was to reduce discrimination against gays in the military, not to discriminate against them? That is, prior to enactment of DADT was it not true that simply being gay was a ground for discharge? Wasn't DADT intended to reduce the number of closeted gays discharged?

Doesn't the off-hand expression "repeal DADT" include eliminating the authority to discharge service members for simply being gay, no matter how this is discovered, particularly like was the alleged original action by the Air Force in Major Witt's case, upon the receipt of an anonymous letter? "Repeal DADT," so far as I know, does not repeal the authority of command to discharge a service-member for homosexual acts or conduct.

These are just some questions prompted in my mind by your comment, BA.

Again, the military doesn't do anything without the approval of Congress. Before DADT gays were summarily discharged when they were "outed" (or outed themselves.) Just as Congress passed DADT, they were well aware of the military policy and approved it by their failure to take any action to change it. If Congress passes a law allowing gays to serve openly, then the military will comply with that as well.

Yes, I'm aware that we are looking at this from two different angles. My point is that the politicians seek to escape censure by blaming the military for implementing a policy that Congress explicitly required them to implement. Far too many people accept that political subterfuge at face value and consequently see the military as somehow evil. It's time that the people of this nation held Congress accountable for what Congress does and refuse to accept the political blame-shifting they constantly engage in to avoid responsibility for the laws that they pass.