Panetta: So far, DADT A "Non-Event"

[Ziggy Stardust]

It IS!

I wouldn't know.

I do know it's great to be the best smelling one.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Again, Form, even your own linked only hinted at this as a remote possibility, not something currently ongoing. Not to mention that your link also quantified that it certainly takes more than what you allege here for that specification in the UCMJ to be used.

It did nothing of the sort. Please quote the sections where you claim it did.

Is your position that he should have lied to the police to hide that he was a homosexual? Why should he? So he wouldn't be persecuted by the military afterwards, as he obviously was for simply admitting it?

This case is well-documented, as well as thousands of others. The system obviously didn't work as you are trying to claim it does with no actual evidence to dispute the numerous documented cases.

You are simply in denial on this one, but whatever gets you to sleep at night I guess.

Again, oh sweet irony.

Since I think everyone is some of those to different degrees, no, I wouldnt.

I know numerous people who aren't bigoted or racist, much less homophobic. You even claim to associate with some homosexuals. Do you think they are homophobic?

But even in the cases where they may indeed have a slight amount of bigotry or racism, they are certainly able to control it without being so fearful of homosexuals they want them to stay perpetually in the closet and can freely associate with blacks without discriminating against them. Those are obviously the problem cases which should be dealt with.

None, actually. It was offered tongue in cheek as I believe you'd never join the military under any circumstances. Your hatred of it is too well known to even deny that.

That is yet another excellent example where you clearly have no idea what my opinions actually are. I was even slated to join the Navy ROTC on scholarship until the Secretary of the Navy finally rejected my eyesight waiver. And I don't hate anybody, much less an artificial institution.

The vast majority arent. I help remove people like that every week from service.

And yet many of them are still there as you even admitted. Why is that if the military is actually trying to eliminate people who are obviously so undesirable as soldiers while they continue to discriminate against and persecute gays even after the repeal of DADT?

Not always. I think you'd be surprised at how many allege such discrimination simply to harm others out of spite.

There will likely always be rationalizations such as this for what you admit is still a blatant problem. Ironically, it is frequently heard with sexual assault cases against women as well.

Its often a 'he said/she said' kind of issue to weed through. If you had a black soldier say a white soldier made racist statements, and the white soldier denied it; but there is no other evidence to confirm this, would you punish the white soldier regardless?

As you just stated, I would properly investigate it. It should be fairly easy to find others to confirm or deny it. All it really takes is a willingness and desire to do so along with protection for those who are willing to step forward.

Sometimes the issue just isnt as clear as you think it might be.

I think the issue is quite clear. Just as long as the US military discriminates against and persecutes people for having normal sexual relations with others that obviously includes oral and anal sex these days, while they are still willing to persecute homosexuals for "leering", and particularly while they continue to drag their feet to remove those who incessantly complain about such activity and even force women to have sex against their will, the term "military justice" will continue to be oxymoronic.

Again, if they are so incapable of policing their own ranks while suitably punishing those who commit actual crimes, instead completely bogus ones like sodomy and adultery, the best solution is to simply turn it over to the civilian authorities and use the existing criminal justice system with the existing laws. They seem to be able to manage to do a much more acceptable job of it. while still providing those accused of crimes with a real trial by jury and other protections guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. We shouldn't use military tribunals against suspected terrorists, much less soldiers who have decided to serve their country.

 

[MobBoss]

It did nothing of the sort. Please quote the sections where you claim it did.

I already did. You ignored it. I cant see where doing it again would do any good.

Is your position that he should have lied to the police to hide that he was a homosexual? Why should he? So he wouldn't be persecuted by the military afterwards, as he obviously was for simply admitting it?

My position is he should have had sex with someone sane since he absolutely knew that if a situation arose requiring him 'to tell' would indeed result in him being discharged from the military for homosexuality.

This case is well-documented, as well as thousands of others. The system obviously didn't work as you are trying to claim it does with no actual evidence to dispute the numerous documented cases.

The system did work pretty well actually. Like I said, even heterosexuals get removed from service due to problems in being in relationships with crazy people - why should this guy be any different?

He choose poorly and thats what ultimately cost him his career.

Again, oh sweet irony.

Me saying your're a liberal isnt irony at all, its simply fact. You denying it is just funny.

I know numerous people who aren't bigoted or racist, much less homophobic. You even claim to associate with some homosexuals. Do you think they are homophobic?

Why? Because they dont see the point in SSM? Nope. But again, I dont think simple opposition to SSM renders one a bigot or homophobic.

But even in the cases where they may indeed have a slight amount of bigotry or racism, they are certainly able to control it without being so fearful of homosexuals they want them to stay perpetually in the closet and can freely associate with blacks without discriminating against them. Those are obviously the problem cases which should be dealt with.

Now wait a second. Your saying that someone who keeps their personal opinion to themselves, and can still associate with blacks or gays, but if they are still privately bigoted, then THEY are the problem?

Seriously? What do you advocate we do about that? Create Thought Police?

That is yet another excellent example where you clearly have no idea what my opinions actually are. I was even slated to join the Navy ROTC on scholarship until the Secretary of the Navy finally rejected my eyesight waiver. And I don't hate anybody, much less an artificial institution.

Getting into an ROTC program generally doesnt take Sec Navy (or Sec anything approval). Getting into something like Annapolis or West Point would. Perhaps you getting your situation confused. And in order to not get an eyesight waiver you would have to be practically legally blind.

But come on...your comments about the military are well known around here. There's no denying that.

And yet many of them are still there as you even admitted. Why is that if the military is actually trying to eliminate people who are obviously so undesirable as soldiers while they continue to discriminate against and persecute gays even after the repeal of DADT?

Because there is a difference in someone who is indeed commits acts that are truly undesirable, and those who are more tolerant, but still possibly slightly bigoted. Being slightly bigoted isnt a reason to be kicked out of service. Physically assaulting someone because you dont like their skin color or sexuality is.

Please tell me you can tell the difference.

There will likely always be rationalizations such as this for what you admit is still a blatant problem. Ironically, it is frequently heard with sexual assault cases against women as well.

Again, the military does have a higher rate of that problem, but is it blatent? Nope. I dont think that an accurate word to describe the current problem we have.

As you just stated, I would properly investigate it. It should be fairly easy to find others to confirm or deny it. All it really takes is a willingness and desire to do so along with protection for those who are willing to step forward.

But what if there were no corroboration either way? Would you be willing to let it go at that?

I think the issue is quite clear. Just as long as the US military discriminates against and persecutes people for having normal sexual relations with others that obviously includes oral and anal sex these days, while they are still willing to persecute homosexuals for "leering", and particularly while they continue to drag their feet to remove those who incessantly complain about such activity and even force women to have sex against their will, the term "military justice" will continue to be oxymoronic.

Except your own story indicated we dont do that, and are prevented by doing that solely along those lines. Your link even cited the case law that established that as fact. You state that it happens as fact, while your link used the word 'possibility'.

Come on Form, even you know doing that is just propaganda. Even now your expanding on what your story said and implying it as fact when it isnt.

Again, if they are so incapable of policing their own ranks while suitably punishing those who commit actual crimes, instead completely bogus ones like sodomy and adultery, the best solution is to simply turn it over to the civilian authorities and use the existing criminal justice system with the existing laws.

How about we deal in reality since we both know that is never, ever, ever going to happen...as much as it would please you to see the military knee-capped (see earlier comment about how much you hate the military) you're simply going to have to remain disappointed along that line.

They seem to be able to manage to do a much more acceptable job of it. while still providing those accused of crimes with a real trial by jury and other protections guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. We shouldn't use military tribunals against suspected terrorists, much less soldiers who have decided to serve their country.

US law and the constitution say Military Courts Martials are indeed 'real' trials by jury regardless of how you may emotionally feel about the issue.

Protip: Military tribunals arent the same thing as a Court Martials. Just saying.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Just to let you guys know, I've been laughing at every post in this thread.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I already did. You ignored it. I cant see where doing it again would do any good.

You mean when you falsely claimed it was the victim who outed himself, and it was explained it was no such thing by other posters? That is the only reference I can find.

This is a well-documented case of the US military persecuting someone who was strictly following DADT until he was "outed" by a jealous lover. There are many more similar well-documented cases that you continue to claim don't exist without any actual proof.

My position is he should have had sex with someone sane since he absolutely knew that if a situation arose requiring him 'to tell' would indeed result in him being discharged from the military for homosexuality.

How exactly does one determine that ahead of time in a relationship? Isn't jealousy in a sexual relationship all too common? Don't jealous mates even occasionally claim they were raped?

Wasn't the purpose of DADT to prohibit flamboyant displays of homosexuality instead of not having to lie to the police when accused of rape? Do you know what typically happens when the police find you were lying, even though you were innocent of the crime?

The system did work pretty well actually. Like I said, even heterosexuals get removed from service due to problems in being in relationships with crazy people - why should this guy be any different?

By no longer persecuting people for merely having sexual relationships with what you claim are "crazy people"? By no longer persecuting people for having oral sex or anal sex, both of which are quite common nowadays? By no longer persecuting a handful of those who engage in adultery while using it as an excuse to persecute only certain victims?

Are those who are falsely accused of rape and found to be innocent also persecuted and forced to leave for having sexual relations with "crazy people"?

Me saying your're a liberal isnt irony at all, its simply fact. You denying it is just funny.

The irony is that you seem to know as much about my opinions as you do about quite normal and healthy sexual relationships. The theocratic morals have finally changed for the better in this country and are now secular based. It is no longer a crime to engage in anal or oral sex. It is about time the military did so as well by repealing the absurd sodomy laws and no longer selectively persecuting some adulterers but not the vast majority. Those who can't change should simply be replaced by those who can.

 

[MobBoss]

You mean when you falsely claimed it was the victim who outed himself, and it was explained it was no such thing by other posters? That is the only reference I can find.

Uhm. Did he or did he not tell the police he was gay? Thats an official statement, and as such, is certainly 'telling' under DADT.

But that wasnt what I was referring to.

This is a well-documented case of the US military persecuting someone who was strictly following DADT until he was "outed" by a jealous lover. There are many more similar well-documented cases that you continue to claim don't exist without any actual proof.

Do you doubt they occur? I get phone calls weekly from such disgruntled types that desire to harm a soldiers career in any fashion they can. The trick is to weed out the truth from the fiction.

And he wasnt 'strickly following' the rules involving DADT either because the law prohibited service members from engaging in homosexual conduct to include homosexual sex while in service. Did he engage in homosexual sex? Absolutely, so your claim that he 'strictly following' DADT is false right on its face.

He knew the risks, and what the rules were. He broke them, got accused of a crime by his lover, and ended up having to make an official statement in regards to his sexuality. Hero or not, it was his own actions that ended his military career under the rules at the time.

How exactly does one determine that ahead of time in a relationship?

You cant tell a potential lover might be crazy prior to having sex with them?

Isn't jealousy in a sexual relationship all too common? Don't jealous mates even occasionally claim they were raped?

Very rarely actually. Usually the allegations to mess with someones career arent so extreme, like they engage in adultery, write bad checks, dont pay their bills, etc. The vast majority of disgruntled mates dont make accusations of felony criminal acts.

Wasn't the purpose of DADT to prohibit flamboyant displays of homosexuality instead of not having to lie to the police when accused of rape?

Nope. I dont think the word 'flamboyant' ever appears in the wording of the law. Perhaps you should read it sometime?

Do you know what typically happens when the police find you were lying, even though you were innocent of the crime?

Your bail gets revoked?

By no longer persecuting a handful of those who engage in adultery while using it as an excuse to persecute only certain victims?

I'm unaware of any real push to remove adultery as a crime under the UCMJ, for the simple reason that when it occurs it can be an absolute morale killer in units.

Are those who are falsely accused of rape and found to be innocent also persecuted and forced to leave for having sexual relations with "crazy people"?

I guess it depends on the specifics of the case now doesnt it?

The irony is that you seem to know as much about my opinions as you do about quite normal and healthy sexual relationships.

After listening for you for so long and being with the same woman for now over 30 years, you are correct on both.

It is about time the military did so as well by repealing the absurd sodomy laws and no longer selectively persecuting some adulterers but not the vast majority. Those who can't change should simply be replaced by those who can.

Again, that specification in the UCMJ covers more than just oral/anal sex. Try reading it again.

 

[Arakhor]

He knew the risks, and what the rules were. He broke them, got accused of a crime by his lover, and ended up having to make an official statement in regards to his sexuality. Hero or not, it was his own actions that ended his military career under the rules at the time.

Presumably a soldier would not be dismissed for casual heterosexual sex?

 

[MobBoss]

Presumably a soldier would not be dismissed for casual heterosexual sex?

Again, depends on the circumstances. If that casual sex with with another soldiers spouse, then yes, they would be subject to discharge. Often the devil is in the details as the saying goes.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Presumably a soldier would not be dismissed for casual heterosexual sex?

No, it is quite hypocritical about when that particular "law" should be applied or not. That is the gist of the problem. If they persecuted every soldier who cheated on his wife or had anal or oral sex, it would be an entirely different matter. And it would quickly end.

 

[MobBoss]

No, it is quite hypocritical about when that particular "law" should be applied or not. That is the gist of the problem. If they persecuted every soldier who cheated on his wife or had anal or oral sex, it would be an entirely different matter. And it would quickly end.

We tend to prosecute the ones we catch form.

 

[Flying Pig]

We tend to prosecute the ones we catch form.

Oh come on, with the exception of officers playing away with ORs' wives or vice-versa, that sort of thing rarely gets beyond barrack-room justice. Even then, what Form's saying is true - if Pte Atkins goes out on the town and cheats on Mrs Atkins with one of the local Frauleins, he's not going to be prosecuted for it; one of the reasons I've never married was that military marriages are famously... fluid.

 

[Formaldehyde]

And it is ludicrous to suggest that the victims of past discrimination and persecution would no longer be the same victims of the absurd sodomy and adultery "laws", as the article I posted claims.

It is time the military stops being so unjust, unequal, and unconstitutional in so many ways. It is no longer condoned in civilian society, so it should not be in the military. Soldiers have a right to fair trials by juries of their peers in front of real civilian judges to real criminal laws, instead of a mock trial to absurd unevenly-enforced theocratic laws from the distant past.

 

[MobBoss]

Oh come on, with the exception of officers playing away with ORs' wives or vice-versa, that sort of thing rarely gets beyond barrack-room justice. Even then, what Form's saying is true - if Pte Atkins goes out on the town and cheats on Mrs Atkins with one of the local Frauleins, he's not going to be prosecuted for it; one of the reasons I've never married was that military marriages are famously... fluid.

Actually, we had a really big case some years back here at JBLM where we recalled a General Officer back to active duty to court martial him for having affairs with the wives of some of his staff.

I think you'd be surprised at how often we prosecute it once we find it and can prove it. I never, ever seen it be discovered and not pursued in some fashion.

And Form, its simply not what you allege. Your simple hatred of all things military dictates your speech, and thats it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Only it is obviously "your simple hatred" of any valid criticism of a clearly broken theocratic-based excuse for "justice" which "dictates your speech".

Perhaps some day "military justice" won't be so oxymoronic when it stops discriminating against and persecuting select people, while largely ignoring the rest who do exactly the same acts. There is simply no way this could possibly be gross incompetence in this completely uneven application of "justice". It is clearly intentional given how frequently it occurs with no attempts to even try to fix it.

Panel urges ending UCMJ’s sodomy ban

A panel of legal scholars has suggested that Congress remove sodomy as a crime punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a recommendation that could boost efforts to end a ban on gays serving openly in the U.S. military.

The Commission on Military Justice recommended that Article 125, which deals with sodomy, be repealed, arguing that “most acts of consensual sodomy committed by consenting military personnel are not prosecuted, creating a perception that prosecution of this sexual behavior is arbitrary.”

In its report — dated October 2009 — the commission suggested several changes be made to the UCMJ, including a requirement that law enforcement officials videotape interrogations. The panel’s discussion of Article 125 has gotten the attention of “don’t ask, don’t tell” opponents.

“Public opinion about private, consensual sexual conduct has shifted dramatically since the military sodomy ban was written into law almost a hundred years ago,” according to Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow at the Palm Center, a University of California, Santa Barbara, research institute focusing on gays and the military.

“To say that gays should be banned from the military for this outdated reason makes no sense,” Frank was quoted as saying in a center news release.

It’s the second time the commission recommended repealing the law, the first time was in 2001.

Sodomy is defined in the Manual for Courts-Martial as “unnatural copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex.” Under the UCMJ, sodomy — which includes oral sex — is considered a criminal act, even among consenting adults and married couples.

“The vast majority of heterosexuals engage in sodomy as defined in Article 125 and the Manual for Courts-Martial,” said Kevin Nix, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The organization strongly opposes both “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the sodomy law.

“In fact, it appears that the majority of people prosecuted under Article 125 are straight,” Nix said in an e-mail to Stars and Stripes. He described the law as “a legal anachronism” and said it was selectively enforced.

A repeal of the sodomy law is long overdue, according to Walter T. Cox, who heads the military justice panel. Cox is a former chief justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

“In my judgment, it causes people to disrespect the law when you have a law in place that people don’t agree with and don’t obey,” Cox said in a telephone interview.

It isn't "obeyed" any more than thepatently absurd adultery statute.

“The Department of Defense traditionally does not like change. Their mantra is ‘if it’s not broke don’t fix it,’” he said.

Only this is clearly broken and they still refuse to "fix it". There is no valid justification for these absurd antiquarian religion-inspired "laws" from the past, which many, if not most, servicemen are actually guilty of violating on a regular basis.

 

[MobBoss]

There is no valid justification for these absurd antiquarian religion-inspired "laws" from the past, which many, if not most, servicemen are actually guilty of violating on a regular basis.

Proof please that 'most' servicemen engage in sodomy on a regular basis.

 

[LucyDuke]

Are you suggesting that oral sex is significantly less common among members of the military than the rest of us?

 

[MobBoss]

Are you suggesting that oral sex is significantly less common among members of the military than the rest of us?

I'm saying that no such data on it exists. Are you going to challenge that?

And fwiw, i'd think that being on a forward operating base in Afghanistan or where-ever on a year long deployment would probably indeed make oral sex significantly less common than for the rest of you. Wouldnt you think? But thats merely a suggestion, I certainly dont have any 'data' to really back that up....and am fully aware that doing away with DADT might indeed impact that particular statistic in some fashion.

 

[LucyDuke]

Yeah, I think it's completely absurd to claim that military folks don't practice oral sex. I don't have any more statistics than you, but let's appeal to common sense.

 

[Formaldehyde]

"Common sense"?

I think it is quite obvious that the vast majority of soldiers have engaged in "sodomy" in regard to oral sex, and many of them have even engaged in heterosexual anal sex.

And many, if not most, of the married personnel have committed adultery. This is particularly true if they were ever stationed overseas without their families. Why should they be any different than the 25%-50% of the married male population who have done so, especially if deprived from any sexual relationship for an extended period of time like that?

I don't think Mobboss has a clue what most normal healthy adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah, I think it's completely absurd to claim that military folks don't practice oral sex. I don't have any more statistics than you, but let's appeal to common sense.

Lucy, I never alledged they didnt. But Form said 'many, if not most'. While I know some probably do engage in that behavior, I have no idea if 'many, if not most' do.

I'm simply wondering how one reaches that conclusion. Is there any fact or data involved?

"Common sense"?

I think it is quite obvious that the vast majority of soldiers have engaged in "sodomy". And many, if not most, of the married personnel have committed adultery. This is particularly true if they were ever stationed overseas without their families.

What proof do you offer? Is this anecdotal testimony from your personal experience with the military maybe? Bear in mind, i'm not say your wrong, i'm just saying there is a decided lack of data to really back up the assumption.