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

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well I know what the facts are. The fact is, waving the American flag creates terrorists, and raising your baby to become a Christian who loves Jesus creates terrorists. Obviously we should stop doing whatever it is that creates terrorists, abandon whatever we hold to be sacred, and just do what the terrorists tell us to do, because that way we'll be super cool and popular. They'll like us more if we're spineless and meekly surrender to their awesomeness. I'm totally cereal. Read this pamphlet about eating cheese while waving a white flag, it's practically my Bible.

Being American is offensive, I suggest we all convert to Islam.

 

[Flying Pig]

Do you really think there is a Muslim terrorist-to-be who thinks "Huh, you know, gays in America might be tolerated too much, but at least in their military they must hide their sexuality. What? That's been repealed? MUST BOMB THE PENTAGON RAWR "?

Well, people respond to incentives - if there isn't, we need to re-write all of our economics textbooks. Obviously it's a trade-off, though - there's quite a few terrorists incensed by the fact that America allows women to drive, but the negative consequences (yes, 'letting the terrorists win') from banning them are much greater than the positive consequences from the reduction in anti-American terrorism.

 

[Leoreth]

That's not really what I was referring to. I know that minor aspects of faraway societies can rile up the uneducated (like, say, "most Muslims are violent" ).

But I can't imagine a fundamentalist Muslim or America-hater to really care about DADT. It's a minor issue. Whether it's applied or not means a lot to gays in the military, but for a fundamentalist America is way too tolerant towards homosexuals either way. Implementing DADT wouldn't persuade any fundamentalist to like America's stance on homosexuality. And it only applies to the military, which too is already unpopular anyways.

 

[Flying Pig]

But I can't imagine a fundamentalist Muslim or America-hater to really care about DADT. It's a minor issue. Whether it's applied or not means a lot to gays in the military, but for a fundamentalist America is way too tolerant towards homosexuals either way. Implementing DADT wouldn't persuade any fundamentalist to like America's stance on homosexuality. And it only applies to the military, which too is already unpopular anyways.

Yes, but it's going to have some effect, however tiny, on some people, and for a few it will become, consciously or unconsciously, the last straw that breaks the camel's back. As I said, if you present any incentive or disincentive to a large group of people, some of them will react to it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

How do you know he would have been convicted?

What frequently happens to defendants when they don't even try to provide a reasonable defense for criminal charges brought against them? Are you actually suggesting he should have kept quiet that he was a homosexual and that it was consensual sex under those circumstances when that was by far his best defense which actually got him acquitted?

Try reading your own link again, this time carefully and in context. What you allege isnt happening. At all.

Only it clearly very much can and likely will occur if it hasn't already. I even highlighted the pertinent sections in my post on the previous page so it couldn't possibly be missed.

...Convictions under Article 125 can result in up to five years in prison for each act, punitive discharge, reduction in pay and fines and forfeitures.86 Service members have gone to prison for violating Article 125 of the UCMJ.

...LBG service members need to beware that an “indecent act” charge could result from someone making a false allegation about leering in the showers or watching a roommate change.

Conduct that has been considered a violation of Articles 133 and 134 includes: adultery, fraternization and soliciting another to commit an offense. For more information on each of these offenses, see the Military Policies section of this Guide.

As long as these wacky provisions continue to exist in the UCMJ there will likely still be homosexuals who are persecuted by using them to discriminate against their sexual practices. Even you admitted that repealing DADT hasn't eliminated all the rampant homophobia in the military. It has merely driven it a bit more underground, just as desegregation drove the racism underground in the past.

 

[MobBoss]

What frequently happens to defendants when they don't even try to provide a reasonable defense for criminal charges brought against them? Are you actually suggesting he should have kept quiet that he was a homosexual and that it was consensual sex under those circumstances when that was by far his best defense which actually got him acquitted?

No, i'm merely saying you dont own a crystal ball and have no way of knowing he would have been convicted otherwise. I mean if you think about it, how does him declaring his sexuality alleviate rape charges against him? Point being, he was probably screwed (no pun intended) regardless of whether he declared his sexuality, merely based upon the charge itself. The person at fault for blowing (again, no pun intended) his 'cover' so to speak was his disgruntled lover, not anyone else. He fell victim to having a relationship with a crazy person, and he is hardly the only person to have their career ruined by such. My point being, even if he were straight, and his accuser a woman, he still may have lost his career over the incident dependent upon the circumstances surrounding the case.

Only it clearly very much can and likely will occur if it hasn't already. I even highlighted the pertinent sections in my post on the previous page so it couldn't possibly be missed.

Yeah, thats like saying its entirely possible that a rogue asteroid can hit the earth and kill all life on the planet......sure, it CAN happen..but will it?

Thats just fear mongering based on little or no fact at all. Like your article says, there was already a challenge to the sodomy issue and it explains it clearly that the law requires more than just simply consensual sex for it to apply (i.e. a fraternization element was what was given in your link).

As long as these wacky provisions continue to exist in the UCMJ there will likely still be homosexuals who are persecuted by using them to discriminate against their sexual practices.

Ayup, as long as those wacky asteroids continue to float out there in space, we could be all wiped out any time now. Damn Mayans.

Even you admitted that repealing DADT hasn't eliminated all the rampant homophobia in the military.

And it wont. Ever. Just like segregation didnt eliminate racism, or expanding the role of women in the military didnt end sexism.

It has merely driven it a bit more underground, just as desegregation drove the racism underground in the past.

Its not underground, but can still a problem even today, just as sexism is. It may not be as rampant as it once was, but it can still certainly occur. Desegegation of the military happened around 70 years ago, and complaints of racism are still fairly routine.

 

[JollyRoger]

Desegegation of the military happened around 70 years ago, and complaints of racism are still fairly routine.

Probably because they still let racists in.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, i'm merely saying you dont own a crystal ball and have no way of knowing he would have been convicted otherwise.

It doesn't take much of a "crystal ball" to know this was really his only reasonable defense. That any other defense would have likely been grounds to disbar his attorney.

Probably because they still let racists in.

They certainly aren't doing anything about the rampant homophobia. It is almost as though they expect many of their members to be bigots and racists instead of something that should be eliminated at all costs. The police used to be like that in many cities and still are in some.

It is ironic that so many are so worried about the morality and negative effects of homosexuality when vastly more straight soldiers shouldn't even be in the service.

 

[MobBoss]

It doesn't take much of a "crystal ball" to know this was really his only reasonable defense. That any other defense would have likely been grounds to disbar his attorney.

Then perhaps he should have been a bit more discerning in choosing who he had sex with since he knew what the stakes were.

They certainly aren't doing anything about the rampant homophobia. It is almost as though they expect many of their members to be bigots and racists instead of something that should be eliminated at all costs. The police used to be like that in many cities and still are in some.

Well, what we really need is more leftys to join the military to change all that. You and Jolly interested in signing up?

 

[kramerfan86]

Wait, Panetta must be mistaken, I was assured that letting the homogays run around and be openly fabulous was going to destroy morale. Surely we have lost the war and Afghanistan at this point due to the utter demoralization the military now suffers from? I fully expect Iran to annex half the country when they curbstomb our reeling military.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, what we really need is more leftys to join the military to change all that. You and Jolly interested in signing up?

When we get into a justified war, I will sign up.

 

[MobBoss]

When we get into a justified war, I will sign up.

Good for you. We might even forgive your student loan debt if you do.

 

[JollyRoger]

Good for you. We might even forgive your student loan debt if you do.

Already taken care of. Private sector business owner vs. government bureaucrats is an unfair fight.

 

[MobBoss]

Already taken care of. Private sector business owner vs. government bureaucrats is an unfair fight.

Ah well thats news. I recall the last time you talked about that you were on the 'drag it out till I die' plan.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Then perhaps he should have been a bit more discerning in choosing who he had sex with since he knew what the stakes were.

That is the gist of it. It is certainly not your business whom he decides to sleep with, nor is it the business of the military in any free and open secular society. Someday that will change, and homosexuals will no longer be discriminated against and persecuted by their own military.

Well, what we really need is more leftys to join the military to change all that. You and Jolly interested in signing up?

Do you really think having more emotionally secure and rational adults sign up is going to force the bigots and racists to leave? Or would that take a concerted effort to enforce the general policies already in place, and replace those who fail to properly do their jobs in that particular regard?

Wait, Panetta must be mistaken, I was assured that letting the homogays run around and be openly fabulous was going to destroy morale. Surely we have lost the war and Afghanistan at this point due to the utter demoralization the military now suffers from? I fully expect Iran to annex half the country when they curbstomb our reeling military.

That was certainly the opinions expressed by some in this forum, and who now remain suspiciously silent in this regard.

 

[MobBoss]

That is the gist of it. It is certainly not your business whom he decides to sleep with, nor is it the business of the military in any free and open secular society. Someday that will change, and homosexuals will no longer be discriminated against and persecuted by their own military.

You misunderstand. Even heterosexual soldiers can get their careers wrecked by getting into a sexual relationship with a crazy person. Why should a gay guy be any different?

Do you really think having more emotionally secure and rational adults sign up is going to force the bigots and racists to leave?

Are you telling me it wouldnt help?

And sorry, I dont equate liberal necessarily with 'emotionally secure and rational' either. That was a good one tho!

Or would that take a concerted effort to enforce the general policies already in place, and replace those who fail to properly do their jobs in that particular regard?

Been doing that.

That was certainly the opinions expressed by some in this forum, and who now remain suspiciously silent in this regard.

I already gave my comment about it way earlier in the thread. Did you miss it?

 

[El_Machinae]

It must be great to be the most awesomesuace debater in one's own head.

It IS!

 

[RobAnybody]

And sorry, I dont equate liberal necessarily with 'emotionally secure and rational' either.

You have admitted you equate bigotry & racism with non-"leftys" [sic], though:

They certainly aren't doing anything about the rampant homophobia. It is almost as though they expect many of their members to be bigots and racists instead of something that should be eliminated at all costs. The police used to be like that in many cities and still are in some.

Well, what we really need is more leftys to join the military to change all that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You misunderstand. Even heterosexual soldiers can get their careers wrecked by getting into a sexual relationship with a crazy person. Why should a gay guy be any different?

Exactly. That is why this madness needs to be stopped and the military justice system disbanded if they cannot even deal with something as simple as this. There is simply no reason that anal and oral sex should be forbidden in this day and age, much less gays kicked out for allegedly "leering" at people in the showers and the urinals. This wasn't even a problem worthy of any consideration in junior high school. Adults should be treated like adults, not like they are pre-adolescents still lived in Victorian England.

And sorry, I dont equate liberal necessarily with 'emotionally secure and rational' either.

If you have so much difficulty even identifying actual liberals, I don't think your personal opinion in this regard really matters. JR doesn't strike me as being that "liberal" and I'm certainly not.

I also think being homophobic, bigoted, and racist is clearly not being emotionally secure and rational. Wouldn't you agree? What was your point in suggesting that "liberals" should join the military if it was not for this reason? What special qualities do they have to purge homophobia, bigotry, and racism from the military?

The real question though is why are these people still in the military when they are so easy to identify. If the military could discriminate against suspected gays for decades, the least they should be able to do is to identify those who were vociferously complaining about it, and who continue to do so based on your own statements.

Those who continue to discriminate against blacks should be even easier to identify.

You could start by just asking both groups. They probably have a pretty good idea who the bigots and racists are.

Been doing that.

It certainly hasn't been very successful by your own admittance.

I already gave my comment about it way earlier in the thread. Did you miss it?

What makes you think I must have only been referring to you? I made it quite clear that it wasn't only a single person. At least you continue to participate in the discussion.

And yes, I must have missed your specific comments why this hasn't been the major problem that you thought it would be. Do you have at least a page number where you addressed this topic?

 

[MobBoss]

Exactly. That is why this madness needs to be stopped and the military justice system disbanded if they cannot even deal with something as simple as this. There is simply no reason that anal and oral sex should be forbidden in this day and age, much less gays kicked out for allegedly "leering" at people in the showers and the urinals. This wasn't even a problem worthy of any consideration in junior high school. Adults should be treated like adults, not like they are pre-adolescents still lived in Victorian England.

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.

If you have so much difficulty even identifying actual liberals, I don't think your personal opinion in this regard really matters. JR doesn't strike me as being that "liberal" and I'm certainly not.

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

I also think being homophobic, bigoted, and racist is clearly not being emotionally secure and rational. Wouldn't you agree?

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

What was your point in suggesting that "liberals" should join the military if it was not for this reason? What special qualities do they have to purge homophobia, bigotry, and racism from the military?

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.

The real question though is why are these people still in the military when they are so easy to identify.

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

If the military could discriminate against suspected gays for decades, the least they should be able to do is to identify those who were vociferously complaining about it, and who continue to do so based on your own statements.

Except the 'dont ask' part of DADT prevented such action against 'suspected gays'. Extreme incidents dont prove the rule Form. They never have, and dont in this situation either.

Those who continue to discriminate against blacks should be even easier to identify.

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

You could start by just asking both groups. They probably have a pretty good idea who the bigots and racists are.

And for example, what if they point to you with an idicting finger? Should we just toss you out willy nilly based solely on their testimony? Or should we do what we currently do....formalize the complaint, throughly investigate it, and see if the allegation has merit or not?

It certainly hasn't been very successful by your own admittance.

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?

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