Obama to fire gay military officer. Martinus pops vein.

[Neil]

Why would the US have hanged Calley?  They didn't lose the Vietnam War.

To encourage the others.

How would hanging random lieutenants encourage anyone?

Random executions didn't help the Soviets.

[Faeelin]

An interesting article:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jtsimpson/2009/05/08/why-reagan-was-a-better-friend-to-gays-than-obama/

[ulmont]

If it makes you feel better, Obama has the power to forbid nondiscrimination amongst federal employees (not including the military) by an executive order but has shown no inclination to do so. 

No need.  The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 basically parallels normal non-federal anti-discrimination laws...but includes a ban on discriminating based on "conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others."  This ban has been interpreted to include a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation.

So federal employees are already covered.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

[grumbler]

How would hanging random lieutenants encourage anyone?

Dunno even how that relates to my point.  Are you a ransom lieutenant, to be concerned?

I thought you above such things. 

[DontSayBanana]

I had a drill sergeant who tried to fuck some trainees (in the field, yuck) and took some bribes to give good scores on PT tests. I cooperated with CID to reel him in, but it would have been inappropriate of me to go on television about it.

And that's relevant how? It would have been inappropriate for you to comment anyway, as you were not the man in question, a spokesperson for the CID operation to get him, or one of his victims.

Hardliners like you create these situations. You insist they have to serve without reservation, and then you tell them they have to keep their identity under wraps in order to serve. They have to live a lie, or be punished for honesty. How does that jive with your "duty, respect, and selfless service?"

[dps]

A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. The "don't ask, don't tell" law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can simply order the military to stop investigating service members' sexuality.

OK, I might misunderstand something here, but this seems incorrect.  Isn't the whole point of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that the military was to stop investigating the sexual orientation of service members, but that any service member who openly declared themselves to be homosexual is still to be discharged?

[Faeelin]

I'm assuming they're saying the president can use his position as commander in chief to tell the military how to exercise its prosecutorial discretion in these cases.

It seems pretty weak.

[DontSayBanana]

I'm assuming they're saying the president can use his position as commander in chief to tell the military how to exercise its prosecutorial discretion in these cases.

It seems pretty weak.

They're saying that the President's position puts him in charge of investigations of whether "don't ask, don't tell" was breached. If the President signs a gag order, there is no investigation; if there is no investigation, there are no findings; if there are no findings, there is no grounds for firing, and supposedly, it's all legal. The military are required by law to fire after the results of the investigations, but the investigations themselves are at the whim of the military.

Nothing to do with prosecutorial discretion; just this: if the President signs an order to cease investigating DADT violations, there's nothing to stop him legally doing so.

[Phillip V]

Hardliners like you create these situations. You insist they have to serve without reservation, and then you tell them they have to keep their identity under wraps in order to serve. They have to live a lie, or be punished for honesty. How does that jive with your "duty, respect, and selfless service?"

I only play politics when I cast my vote. I look to civilians like you and the government to tell me how to serve. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a federal law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Change should be delivered by those out of uniform without the guns, not Lieutenant Choi. Don't blame me or the military. Blame yourselves.

[DontSayBanana]

I only play politics when I cast my vote. I look to civilians like you and the government to tell me how to serve. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a federal law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Change should be delivered by those out of uniform without the guns, not Lieutenant Choi. Don't blame me or the military. Blame yourselves.

I know you didn't just say that once you put on that uniform, your responsibility was magically taken away? So much of the military's public face is pride, ethics, and a commitment to responsibility. Many of "us civilians" view the DADT laws as a source of national embarrassment because they strip those values from gay personnel. Not speaking for more than myself, but I see Lt. Choi's actions as commitment to those values, and outweighing your bleating the prejudice of your COs.

[Phillip V]

I know you didn't just say that once you put on that uniform, your responsibility was magically taken away? So much of the military's public face is pride, ethics, and a commitment to responsibility. Many of "us civilians" view the DADT laws as a source of national embarrassment because they strip those values from gay personnel. Not speaking for more than myself, but I see Lt. Choi's actions as commitment to those values, and outweighing your bleating the prejudice of your COs.

The military should not meddle in politics. Just as the military was ordered by President Bush to invade Iraq in 2003 and followed orders, the military is now withdrawing from Iraq in accordance with President Obama's wishes. How would the military function in its duty to submit to the civilian government, if Soldiers began refusing to deploy en masse due to their opinions? Or if they did refused to withdraw from Iraq? From a financial and career point of view, perhaps I should campaign to continue and expand the war. It would ensure more pay, large military budgets, and increased promotion opportunities. I would say it is our duty and right to free the world and be safe.

If "you civilians" are embarrassed by the law, get your Congressmen and President to repeal it. Do not drag Soldiers into that political shit when they have a mission to do. That would set a dangerous precedent.

[DontSayBanana]

The military should not meddle in politics. Just as the military was ordered by President Bush to invade Iraq in 2003 and followed orders, the military is now withdrawing from Iraq in accordance with President Obama's wishes. How would the military function in its duty to submit to the civilian government, if Soldiers began refusing to deploy en masse due to their opinions? Or if they did refused to withdraw from Iraq? From a financial and career point of view, perhaps I should campaign to continue and expand the war. It would ensure more pay, large military budgets, and increased promotion opportunities. I would say it is our duty and right to free the world and be safe.

If "you civilians" are embarrassed by the law, get your Congressmen and President to repeal it. Do not drag Soldiers into that political shit when they have a mission to do. That would set a dangerous precedent.

You keep missing the point: homosexuality is not a belief; it is a part of your identity. Masking that is declaring yourself a John Doe, and DADT forces personnel to do so when they're not even active, for fear they won't be re-activated. This is putting unnecessary additional strain on homosexual servicemen, so until someone recognizes DADT as bad law and/or bad orders, you're going to keep seeing incidents like this. This is all strictly stating the obvious, BTW. I'm a little disappointed by your parroted "sir, yes, sir" responses; nothing's going to shake you from the belief that you had to turn your brain off to become a soldier, but at least we can be confident you'll welcome the change if/when it does arrive and simply continue to blindly follow your orders.

[Phillip V]

You keep missing the point: homosexuality is not a belief; it is a part of your identity. Masking that is declaring yourself a John Doe, and DADT forces personnel to do so when they're not even active, for fear they won't be re-activated. This is putting unnecessary additional strain on homosexual servicemen, so until someone recognizes DADT as bad law and/or bad orders, you're going to keep seeing incidents like this. This is all strictly stating the obvious, BTW. I'm a little disappointed by your parroted "sir, yes, sir" responses; nothing's going to shake you from the belief that you had to turn your brain off to become a soldier, but at least we can be confident you'll welcome the change if/when it does arrive and simply continue to blindly follow your orders.

My point is not about whether the law is good or bad. It is about whether a Soldier should follow it.
When you sign that contract, you surrender part of your individuality - your identity - to execute the mission and defend our laws. There are currently two Sikh US Army officers who are complaining because their faith mandates that they wear a turban and beard, but that is against Army regulation. Do we let them be as they are even though they cannot properly wear their Advanced Combat Helmets or cannot form a proper seal on their gas mask? Even though the contract they signed in the beginning said that no religious accommodations could be made?



"I, Phillip V, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

[Martinus]

This is a totally crappy comparison. Gays in the army are not asking for a right to wear rainbow uniforms or leather ass chaps - they are just asking to be able not to hide who they are. If anyone who declares himself to be a Sikh would be fired from the army, then yes the situation would be similar.

[Syt]

If they want gay uniforms, they should go for the Marines, anyways.