Obama to call for repeal of DADT in State of the Union

[useless]

Better do the same about capitalism then, it really annoys me

Desperation! Desperation!

 

[useless]

See, this is what is frustrating me Basketcase, because your whole argument rests upon the notion that just because it annoys people like me, it is somehow valid. Well, two can tango with that, and we could easily replace a homophobic law with a racist one, and apparently your point would still be "valid" due to all the "fuss" it would create. Can't you see how idiotic this? Can't you even begin to understand why your whole defense and argument is invalid? Because there isn't an argument, only a statement from you, justifying the law mainly because it creates conflict.

 

[nonconformist]

The real question here is



why would an intelligent gay guy want to join the US army anyways?

 

[useless]

For the fit, stupid men obviously

 

[nonconformist]

I'm sure that's wh.......

oh.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Pentagon: It may take years for a minority in the military to be less homophobic to the point where they could safely repeal DADT.

Spoiler :

Don't ask, don't tell repeal years away
Pentagon sees a gradual change improving chances of acceptance throughout the military.
By Anne Flaherty

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - As promised, the Pentagon has begun examining how the ban on gays serving openly could be eased and then repealed, but a complete repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is probably years away.

The two officials appointed to lead a yearlong internal assessment - Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, and Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson - met for the first time Tuesday.

As that study gets under way, officials were expected by mid-March to suggest ways to relax enforcement of the law. Of particular interest is minimizing cases of "third-party outings," where a service member is kicked out after being reported by others to be gay.

The protracted timeline is about more than giving military leaders time to assess the effect on troops and put new rules in place. The multiyear process also is a strategic way of getting troops used to the idea before they have to accept change.

Reversing the military's policy on gays, which is based on a 1993 law and would require an act of Congress, would mark the biggest upheaval to the military's personnel policies since the 1948 executive order on racial integration.

The goal, according to senior defense and military officials, is to avoid the backlash that could result from imposing change too fast. While officials expect resistance from only a minority of service members and believe that it could be contained with discipline, officials fear isolated incidents of violence could erupt as a means of protest.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested as much in recent congressional testimony, when he said he had learned from "stupid" management attempts to dictate change too quickly as a senior CIA official in the 1980s.

"Stupid was trying to impose a policy from the top without any regard for the views of the people who were going to be affected or the people who would have to effect the policy change," Gates said.

As part of the internal review, Gates said the military would survey service members and their families on any changes to policies. "A guiding principle of our efforts will be to minimize disruption and polarization within the ranks, with a special attention paid to those serving on the front lines," Gates told a Senate committee earlier this month.

President Obama, who says the ban is unjust, is counting on a major cultural shift among American voters since it went into effect 17 years ago. Then, Democratic lawmakers joined the military in resisting a proposal by President Clinton that would have let gays serve openly.

Clinton emerged from the debate politically bruised, with GOP critics casting the new president as a social liberal who was woefully out of touch with the military. Since then, Democratic lawmakers have been reluctant to take on the issue as well.

According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, three-quarters of Americans say that they support openly gay people serving in the military. The 75 percent figure is far above the 44 percent of Americans who said so in May 1993.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, defense secretary in the first Bush administration, said yesterday that he supported a review of the policy. "When the chiefs come forward and say we think we can do it, it strikes me it's time to reconsider the policy," he said on ABC's This Week.

Obama's national-security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, said on CNN's State of the Union that the policy "has to evolve with the social norms of what is acceptable and what is not."

 

[MobBoss]

Pentagon: It may take years for a minority in the military to be less homophobic to the point where they could safely repeal DADT.

Sounds pretty much like what I was referring to earlier in the thread.

 

[RedRalph]

Sounds pretty much like what I was referring to earlier in the thread.

If those soldiers can't work within the rules and their officers are incapable of disicplining them, the US army has some serious problems.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That seems to be the underlying assumption. I think the military should simply screen them out. People that bigoted shouldn't be in the military in the first place, much less carrying a weapon in a combat zone.

 

[MobBoss]

If those soldiers can't work within the rules and their officers are incapable of disicplining them, the US army has some serious problems.

That seems to be the underlying assumption. I think the military should simply screen them out. People that bigoted shouldn't be in the military in the first place, much less carrying a weapon in a combat zone.

You folks just dont get it do you?

This is a policy that is going to have huge and wide sweeping effect upon our military during a time of already high tension and stress.

Why dont the two of you walk a few miles in those peoples shoes before you judge them so. Maybe it would give you both some appreciation for the situation.

 

[Formaldehyde]

http://www.cyberspacei.com/jesusi/focus/co/cows/afsc/youthmill/html/news/aug00/dontask_p1.htm

Spoiler :

AT A GLANCE: Facts about Military Homophobia

Anti-gay harassment has been on the rise.

Service members who harass or improperly investigate gay service members are rarely held accountable.

The military has never committed its resources to creating an atmosphere free of homophobia.

"Don't Ask; Don't Tell" has created new dangers for lesbian and gay service members.

July 4th marked the first anniversary of the violent death of Pfc. Barry Winchell at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Winchell, a young gay soldier and a member of the Army’s 101st Airborne Division (the "Screaming Eagles"), was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat by two fellow soldiers as he slept. So severe was the beating – Winchell’s head was swollen and his eyes were completely black – that his corpse was almost unrecognizable to his mother. Two soldiers were later convicted of crimes related to his murder.

This anniversary has been marked by another troubling event: the release of an Army Inspector General’s report which largely exonerates military leadership in its handling of homophobia at Fort Campbell.

Barry Winchell’s beating death had been proceeded by at least four months of taunting, name-calling, rumor-mongering, and threats. Two different inquiries into his private life had been undertaken by two sergeants in his command. These inquires were based on reports that he had been given a ride to a civilian area in the vicinity of a gay bar. At one point in the investigation, Winchell was asked whether he was gay; he said "no."

Several soldiers stationed at Fort Campbell have reported an increase in the harassment of gays and lesbians on base in the weeks following the murder. According to one report, soldiers were led in anti-gay chants during exercises. One chant reportedly used during a five-mile run was, "***** down the street; shoot him, shoot him ,‘til he retreats." Some of the graffiti that appeared on base during that period included a picture of a baseball bat with the inscription "Fag Whacker" and slogans such as "One fag down; More to go" and "A fag free army."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-frank/what-can-stop-the-gay-bas_b_295170.html

Spoiler :

The Associated Press reported today that another gay service member was abused by the military across several years of service to his country. Petty Officer Third Class Joseph Rocha, a sailor trained to work with military dogs in the Navy's anti-terrorism, force protection, and explosive detection operations, was brutalized for more than two years at his base in Bahrain after his refusal to hire a prostitute raised suspicions that he was gay. The abuse included hog-tying Rocha to a chair and pushing him, bound, into a dog kennel full of feces, as well as humiliating him by repeatedly forcing him to simulate oral sex with another man while being videotaped.

Rocha told me that, while hazing was common in his unit, the activities he was forced to do were a direct result of the perception that he was gay, including being told by his military leadership, on videotape, to act more effeminate, speak with a higher voice, appear more "queer," and make his sounds and gestures more realistic (one begins to wonder at how "straights" in the Navy get their thrills). He said it was the "most disgusting, degrading thing that I've ever been made to do."

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=101980

Spoiler :

Military Hero Admits to Gay Bashing, Is Stripped of Rank

U.S. Air Force officer has admitted to beating a gay man outside a Manhattan bar, and lost his rank for his role in the incident.

The fracas unfolded last Sept. 26, when radio personality Blake Hayes and two friends encountered Air Force Staff St. Benjamin Ford outside McCoy’s bar, a straight establishment located in gay enclave Hell’s Kitchen. According to Hayes, who is a DJ on radio station WPLJ, Ford called one of the DJ’s friends, Alec Bell, a "homo." The three men rejoined by making fun of Ford for his thinning hair. At that point, Hayes said, Ford hauled off and punched Hayes, screaming, "Die of AIDS, you **** queers!"

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/bass-boyfriend-reveals-gay-military-nightmare_1011675

Spoiler :

Pop star LANCE BASS' partner, model REICHEN LEHMKUHL, has taken aim at the US military after revealing he was sexually assaulted by straight soldiers after he 'came out'. The hunky reality TV star is using his celebrity to highlight gay issues in the military, and admits he was targeted personally when he announced he was a homosexual while in the Air Force. The 32-year-old admits he tried to hide his sexuality under the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, but when he came out his life was made miserable by his peers. And there was one night in particular Lehmkuhl will never forget. He recalls, "A bag was put over my head. I was stripped of my clothes. I was forced to do things sexually with two other male cadets. "That's when you start having suicidal thoughts... and you start saying, 'Oh my God, I am so stuck in this situation. I can't go to anyone.'" Lehmkuhl, who became a captain in the Air Force, talks about his experiences as a gay man in the military in his new book, HERE'S WHAT WE'LL SAY: GROWING UP, COMING OUT + THE US AIR FORCE ACADEMY.

 

[MobBoss]

Whats the point Form? I guess you think by listing a handful of incidents involving misconduct that it says.......what?

 

[dirtyparrot]

^ His point is probably that in some ways this whole policy fosters a witchhunt of gays and undermines any effort of stopping it. These people who are getting abused have no recourse in stopping their abuse, since under that very policy they're not supposed to discuss it. So the abuse continues.

 

[MobBoss]

^ His point is probably that in some ways this whole policy fosters a witchhunt of gays and undermines any effort of stopping it. These people who are getting abused have no recourse in stopping their abuse, since under that very policy they're not supposed to discuss it. So the abuse continues.

Actually, it doesnt. It has been my experience that it does the opposite and prevents such 'witchhunts' from happening.

Does that mean everyone follows the rules? No. Form can go find instances of abuse, but it still doesnt prove anything system wide.

Btw, your wrong. The abuse such as hazing and other sexual harassment or misconduct is against policy that has nothing to do with homosexuality.

 

[useless]

So, by experience you mean as heterosexual male, whom does not have to adhere to this law, hence you lack any experience and aren't on the recieving end of it, therefore your "experience" means very little in this topic. This policy is dangerous, because not only does it promote homophobia by actively forcing homosexuals to leave the army, but it also fosters the mentality that homosexuals are wrong, hence their apparent resignation from the army.

You claim that these instances do not prove anything, despite being valid evidence for it. What, in your mind would be proof of of such abuse? Somehow, i believe it'll require a lot more proof just for you to begin to accept such a thing.

 

[MobBoss]

So, by experience you mean as heterosexual male, whom does not have to adhere to this law, hence you lack any experience and aren't on the recieving end of it, therefore your "experience" means very little in this topic.

No, I mean by my work experience as a chief paralegal in the US Army. I have seen many such 'investigations' be quickly quashed because someone heard a rumor somewhere, blah, blah, blah. Its called 'dont ask, dont tell' for a reason, and it prohibits the military from investigating those situations based simply on private conduct. If commanders exceed their authority on this particular issue then can be relieved of command or even brought up on formal charges.

So you are quite in error in you comment. Completely.

This policy is dangerous, because not only does it promote homophobia by actively forcing homosexuals to leave the army,

But it doesnt.

but it also fosters the mentality that homosexuals are wrong, hence their apparent resignation from the army.

But it doesnt.

You claim that these instances do not prove anything, despite being valid evidence for it.

In the big scheme of things I have seen it all. When you have a force of 1.5 million soldiers in uniform its pretty easy to pick out a handful of examples of bad behavior that has nothing to do with how things actually work.

What, in your mind would be proof of of such abuse? Somehow, i believe it'll require a lot more proof just for you to begin to accept such a thing.

Well, since I see the lack of such abuse daily at work, pretty much nothing you could offer would convince me since I tend to actually work those issues as opposed to reading about it on huffington post.

If I saw it myself, or even on a larger army wide basis as opposed to singular isolated incidents, then I would believe it. But thats simply not the case. I really hate to disappoint you, but we dont walk around the base with the gaydar on trying to find them so we can kick them out, sorry.

 

[useless]

I too, can make unsubstantiated claims, and then reply to any naysayers with the line "But it does/n't. Also, since not all abuse isn't always unsubtle, your point at the end is invalid. Of course not, but the army's haste to chuck out those who are homosexual can only lead those who're against it, to compare it to a witchhunt, since it is essentially that.

 

[MobBoss]

I too, can make unsubstantiated claims

Again, dealing with DADT is part of what I do in my job. Can you claim likewise?

Of course not, but the army's haste to chuck out those who are homosexual can only lead those who're against it, to compare it to a witchhunt, since it is essentially that.

Actually, the timelines involved in removing someone from service (administratively) for homosexuality come from a concern for the soldiers welfare, not as part of a witchhunt trial. You do know that people seperated for that reason typically still get an honorable discharge dont you? Nah, you probably didnt know that. But its true.

Because such separations are not punitive. They are done for the good of the individual and good of the service. We dont want people getting hurt anymore than anyone else does, and as long as the official line is that homosexuality is not condusive to military service then we do our best to seperate people administratively as quickly and with as much dignity as we can.

 

[useless]

So you admit that you view, and the military views, homosexuality as something that is wrong and hurts people? How is that not homophobic?

I coudn't care less about whether it's your job to sack people from the army purely on the basis on their sexuality which is homophobic no matter much you try to slant it, and say that it's for the "good of the individual" and "the service", as if you're implying that homosexuality is wrong and evil.

And by soldiers welfare do you mean that they could perhaps be beaten up, or subjected to harrassment and abuse, something which you've stated is lacking within the army, regardless of the policy or not?

Honorable discharge or not, the policy still requires people to be sacked from their job, purely on their sexuality. Now imagine, if you will, with your brain, the brain that god gave you, if he existed, in your head. Imagine if there was a policy that existed that forced people to leave their jobs and/or be discharged and sacked because of their religion, race or other factors, would you still stand by such a law, and defend it? Somehow, i doubt it, because no doubt you'd realise how wrong it is, and that it is bigotted.

But for some reason you fail to understand that this is the same with DADT.

 

[BasketCase]

You're totally illogical. You're basically arguing that if DADT was repealed and ended, the world would go to hell in a handcart.

Oh yeah? Quote me.

Better do the same about capitalism then, it really annoys me

Heheheh. Nice try. Yes, capitalism is annoying. The reason we have it is because it's less annoying than all the alternatives. Before we had capitalism, you would have been building your own house and farming your own food and knitting your own clothing, and I'm pretty sure you can't sew.

See, this is what is frustrating me Basketcase, because your whole argument rests upon the notion that just because it annoys people like me, it is somehow valid.

And the CFC forum rules happen to be on my side. The rules say: don't troll. DO NOT ANNOY PEOPLE. Well, at least, don't post with that specific intention, but seeing as how just about every post in Off Topic is gonna piss somebody off, I never did get a good grasp on exactly what a troll is. So, unless you're willing to petition the mods to change the forum rules (fat chance), it would appear the very web site you're posting on disagrees with you......

DADT allows everybody to serve in the military with a minimum of fuss. Repealing it simply increases the amount of fuss and doesn't serve any other benefit. We're not talking about voting rights or race relations or world peace here. If democracy collapsed, that would be a disaster. Not being allowed to tell anybody you're a switch hitter? Cry me a damn river, I'm pretty sure life and liberty will survive.