05/04/2009
White House Corrects; 9 Voices Sound Off on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Last week there was some discussion of changes to civil rights language on the White House website. The changes were explained as an evolution from being campaign and transition-focused to "a more governance-focused site to reflect progress." However, specific language changes regarding repeal of the military's gay ban, from repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' to change 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', were troubling.
Americablog reports that the language has now been updated and the "repeal" language is back.
In its 'Room for Debate' blog, the NYT asks Aaron Belkin of the Palm Center, Aubrey Sarvis of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, retired Army officer Robert Maginnis, Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org, Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, former British Royal Navy officer Craig Jones, Brian E. A. Maue of the U.S. Air Force Academy, retired Air Force officer Edith A. Disler, and Oklahoma GOP Senator Jim Inhofe about what effect the President's repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' would have, and whether or not it should be done by executive order or an act of Congress.
In related news, the Des Moines Register reports that Iowa's new marriage equality laws will have no effect on whether or not gay servicemembers can be discharged under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy:
"The federal law, approved by Congress in 1993, takes precedence over the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in April that legalized same-sex marriage, according to legal experts. The ruling struck down Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act, which had limited marriage to a man and a woman. The federal law, approved by Congress in 1993, takes precedence over the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in April that legalized same-sex marriage, according to legal experts. The ruling struck down Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act, which had limited marriage to a man and a woman...None of the 9,400 soldiers and airmen now serving in the Iowa National Guard is known to have obtained a license for a same-sex marriage since the Iowa court ruling was issued, Hapgood said."
Posted 9:59 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Elaine Donnelly, Gay Marriage, Iowa, Military, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
No big surprise what the homophobic dinosaurs said but we're in deep shit if this old guy from SLDN is the one leading the fight against Don't Ask/Don't Tell.
He has a hissy fit about the first guy saying the President could temporarily halt gay discharges by Executive Order while people in Congress work to get the law eliminated because he claims that would cause all hell to break out.
But then claims that wouldn't happen if the President temporarily halted discharges by cutting off money in the defense budget to pay for them. In Toledo we call that a contradiction. Or craziness.
Posted by: Klinger | May 4, 2009 11:20:24 AM
Yeah, if you've read Nathanial Frank's "Unfriendly Fire," it's pretty clear that the only "consequence" of repealing DADT would be fewer Stop-Losses (though I think Obama has pledged to stop those), and a more competent, qualified military. Which, seeing as we're up to our eyeballs in shit, might be a good idea.
Also, I'm not a legal scholar, but the language of the DADT law allows for discretion in the chain of command in terms of firing gay soldiers. Since Obama is at the top of that chain of command, he should be able to stop via executive order all DADT discharges.
Posted by: Alex | May 4, 2009 12:19:41 PM
It should have been an executive order on day 1. But hey, what's another 16 years to think about it?
Posted by: paul c | May 4, 2009 12:33:03 PM
Obama has the smartest and most savviest political strategists at his disposal. I'm confidant and trusting that he knows the best time to push for and speak out on certain legislation and issues.
I'd rather have him around for 8 years than be radical when its not politically smart and be a one term president.
The tide is turning...
Posted by: Brian in Texas | May 4, 2009 1:58:23 PM
I agree with you Brian in the sense that my perspective is limited when it comes to advising Obama and I acknowledge that. At the same time, we can at least keep reminding those strategists and politicos that the research is conclusive so that the "debate" doesn't get bogged down where there is nothing to debate about.
Posted by: Indra Lusero | May 4, 2009 2:50:30 PM
Perhaps you're thinking of something else, Alec.
The screamingly hypocritical "Stop-loss" policy simply means that soldiers who would be subject to discharge otherwise are sometimes retained because the Pentagon chooses to have more bodies to fight/die over applying a particular policy. Thus, if Obama stopped "stop-loss" [without ordering that DADT not be enforced/or after repeal] it would result in MORE gays being discharged.
Even all the way back to WWII there were instances in which known gays were sent into combat and, if they survived, then kicked out. It could even happen after they'd served time in the brig as a convicted "sodomist."
In the "peacetime" between WWII and the 1950, discharges tripled, but when we entered the Korean War they dropped by half in the Navy, traditionally the most gay hostile branch. The year a truce was signed, discharges doubled again. The patterns repeated themselves, before, during, and after Vietnam.
Such games also happened in the first Gulf War and are happening now. The reality is that while the Pentagon has a history of contradicting itself about what the policy is, it varies with what they call "operational considerations" and the personal attitude of the person making the decision. One version is that if discharge hasn't been initiated before a known gay's unit is deployed, he/she will be sent to, e.g., Iraq, while his/her case is being "reviewed."
Their ongoing "solution" to replace the gays they do discharge [and make up for low new enlistments overall and the high number of those, gay and nongay, who choose not to reenlist] is to lower physical, mental, and moral enlistment standards. The number of enlistees with prior felony arrests or convictions has more than tripled since 9/11.
And, with respect, Brian, that tide your speaking of is still washing a lot of gay bodies onto the beach which is not only a moral wrong but it's ludicrously washing away a lot of taxpayer dollars, deepening our national debt——it typically costs over a million dollars to train a fighter pilot; so kicking out an outstanding gay one like Top Gun Tracy Thorne or causing others like Greg Mooneyham who flew 44 bombing missions in Desert Storm not to reenlist means both the loss to taxpayers of the original investment PLUS another $ million + to train their replacements.
In addition to the financial costs of training Arab-language linguists [and their replacements after they're discharged], there is the far more important cost to national security. As the head of Knights Out, the organization of gay West Point graduates recently said,
"On Monday, September 10th, 2001, a message was intercepted by the State Department that said 'tomorrow is zero hour'. Despite its simplicity, nobody was able to translate it. Any of the dozens of linguists already discharged for being gay at the time would have done so easily.”
If it would be "radical" for Obama to act to stop DADT, then 57 to 81% of the American people are "radicals" for, depending on which poll one reads, at least that many support open gays being allowed to serve in the military.
Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | May 4, 2009 3:38:54 PM