Gates Says 'Major Announcement on 'DADT' Set for Tuesday
A portion of the defense budget hearing will be set aside for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell,"
DC Agenda reports:
"Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) on Thursday told DC Agenda he’s reserving a portion of the budget hearing next week for lawmakers to ask questions on the 1993 law banning gays from serving openly in the U.S. military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen are set to testify at hearing, which is set for Tuesday. 'We’re going to have our hearing on the budget on Tuesday with Secretary Gates and Chairman Mullen, and then after that hearing is over on Tuesday, we’re going to move to a hearing with Gates and Mullen on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’' Levin said. Bryan Thomas, spokesperson for the Senate Armed Services Committee, later clarified that Levin’s plans means there 'will be a separate DADT portion of the hearing following the budget' testimony."
CNN reports that on Tuesday as well, Defense Secretary Robert Gates will make a "major announcement" regarding plans for the repeal.
However, Americablog says the White House may already be hedging on plans for this year.
Watch CNN's reports, and Ted Rowland's interview three gay servicemembers,
AFTER THE JUMP...
Posted Jan. 29,2010 at 9:24 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Military, News | Permalink
Guess we have to wait and see....
Posted by: DR | Jan 29, 2010 9:49:59 AM
I'm so tired of Americablog reporting on rumors, speculations and innuendo at every turn.
Would it really kill anyone to wait 24 hours to hear what's actually said and then find the inevitable faults?
It's becoming incredibly tiresome.
Posted by: Rob G. | Jan 29, 2010 10:11:11 AM
I hope people aren't getting their hopes up too high.
I sincerely doubt that there will be any announcement plans to actually repeal DADT. It's much more likely that what they are getting ready to announce is a plan to implement a "kinder gentler" enforcement of the policy.
There is NOTHING that strikes fear into the heart of the anti-gay religious right more than a seriously wounded soldier returning from combat, or the partner of a gay soldier killed in action, going on national television a asking for the rights and benefits that they sacrificed and died for. NOTHING!
Truth be told, THIS is the MAIN reason the religious right wants to keep DADT. They would actually prefer a No Gays Period policy.
The closet, self-imposed or institutionally imposed, has ALWAYS been the homophobe's best friend.
It has the same effect as racial segregation and serves the same purpose that segregation served for racists. The more isolate you can keep a group of people, the more you can keep people from getting to know them, the easier it is to mis-define them and convince the masses that they are dangerous, evil, threatening, immoral, unethical, etc. DADT and the closet are the homophobes answer to racial segregation.
Unfortunately it's working like a charm.
Posted by: TampaZeke | Jan 29, 2010 10:50:07 AM
Why do we have to debate human rights? Why does our government feel we have to discuss whether people should be granted rights? Why does the mob have to decide?
If any of these guys had any cojones, they would just legislate DODT out of the picture.
It's what Harry Truman did when he integrated the armed services in the 1940s - there was no debate - it was decided by executive order?
Posted by: Steve | Jan 29, 2010 11:17:22 AM
Well, at least they're STARTING to take action on removing DADT
Posted by: ravewulf | Jan 29, 2010 11:32:12 AM
There may be good reason for hope.
Secretary Gates's spokesman told the Atlantic that "The Department leadership is actively working on an implementation plan and will have more to say about it next week."
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/01/pentagon_to_announce_some_dont_ask_details_next_week.php
Posted by: Carlie | Jan 29, 2010 11:50:10 AM
As a hard core Dem I would like to put my party on notice that there can be NO backstepping on DADT without serious problems from the party's member base like myself.
Do the right thing , or......
Posted by: DEREK WASHINGTON | Jan 29, 2010 12:28:53 PM
So that's mandatory TV on Tues.
C-span II - the live Senate Channel???
Posted by: Jack | Jan 29, 2010 1:30:37 PM
If we agreed on everything all the time, then we wouldn't need a Congress, court system, or even democracy. We would have utopian anarchy. Government exists because people do not trust each other. It provides a playing field - preconditions if you will - where enemies can negotiate and deal with each other in relative peace. Mediation is the heart of what it does..
And that takes time.
Nelson Mandela was elected in 1994 on the promise of a "new" South Africa that included gays and lesbians. He mentioned sexual orientation in his inauguration speech. He met with some gay and lesbian activists. And the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military was lifted the very next day, right?
Of course not.
That didn't happen until 1999 - the final year of Mandela's term.
In the United Kingdom, Tony Blair made similarly vague promises during the 1997 election campaign. He won a landslide victory. But Labour didn't get around to lifting the ban until his third year in office. And he was forced into a full repeal by a European court ruling that made an American style DADT situation impossible to sustain.
Likewise, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder in Germany ignored the issue until an officer who was fired for homosexuality sued the SPD-Green government for discrimination in 2000. He decided the embarrassment of going to trial to defend a policy he said he's against was a little too much on the hypocritical side. So, the Defense Ministry quietly changed the rules on their own.
Democracy takes time.
American liberals are the only people who will angrily pull the plug on a government for moving too slowly towards what they want and replace it with one that's totally against their agenda. It makes absolutely no sense. It is indicative of our childish attitude towards entitlements. And it will be our undoing.
Posted by: John | Jan 29, 2010 1:35:12 PM
If you manage to repeal DADT, try to add an amendment which allows previous victims of this policy to re-enlist or at least have their discharges converted to honorable discharges.
Posted by: Chris | Jan 29, 2010 1:52:38 PM
There's only one compelling argument against the stop-loss. It is possible to implement, that can't be denied plausibly. But it's a good argument. Politics is about right now; that is, unless a legitimate complaint is constantly being aired, it won't gain any attention from politicians nor the traction for its removal. DADT is a law that requires congress to override it; the stop loss would suspend its implementation. The purpose of the mission critical victims of DADT publically airing their personal stories highlight the injustice of the law while underscoring how it compromises national security and military preparedness. If their termination were suspended, their complaints would lose the immediacy and definitiveness of the injustice perpetrated, and no one would respond to the long term goal of repeal as there would no immediate need. Their dismissals and sacrifice, though unjust, are required to attain the long term goal of repeal; as no one harmed right now by an unjust law is no strike against the law.
That, in essence, is the best argument against the issuance of a stop-loss I've encountered.
As to this, I think DADT repeal is dead under this president and in this congress. If my suspicions prove valid, third party is the only politically viable way of voicing dissent on this issue at this point in time (democratic and republican politicians have been harassed about getting on board...as much as can be to still believe that that's a worthwhile strategy).
Posted by: TANK | Jan 29, 2010 7:13:59 PM
@ Chris:
One of the signs that this process is likely to take far longer than some believe it's going to is that mainstream media is reporting that "questions they are looking at include"
"Will military members who were discharged under DADT be allowed back in?"
Now one can be angry at Obama for waiting so long [and I am] but he clearly stated in November of 2007 that:
"I will direct my Secretaries of
Defense and Homeland Security to develop procedures for taking re-accession requests from those qualified service members who were separated from the armed forces under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and still want to serve their country."
So in all this Pentagon posturing over the last year that they "understand what Obama wants" there should be no question about that, and he's to be applauded for it. Whether MSM or the Pentagon dinosaurs have it wrong is yet to be seen, but I expect it to be the issue most quickly resolved positively. I've lost count of the number of discharged servicemembers who have said they'd eagerly go back in, including Alex Nicholson of Servicemembers United, Dan Choi [tho, techically, he's still in], and even former Navy Top Gun Trace Thorne-Begland [who was discharged TWICE] despite the fact that he's too old now to be a pilot again.
And another upside of repeal that speaks directly to both the benefits to national security and the business case against DADT too rarely talked about are the thousands of unidentified gays who would stay rather than choose not to reenlist as an estimated 4500 do every year...nearly seven times the number of identified gays discharged each year.
As for discharge characterizations, though there are still some rare instances of it, it's a myth that every gay discharged gets a "Dishonorable" discharge. That change predates DADT. If there are extenuating circumstances, such as being caught boomshakalacking in the barracks or with a subordinate, a lower characterization is likely to be recommended...as it would be for a nongay servicemember.
There have been reports of homophobic commanders trying to trick people who've done nothing wrong but "be gay" into accepting a "General" discharge....which would, e.g., prevent them from getting GI Bill benefits, but that's not the policy.
Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Jan 29, 2010 7:19:21 PM
Excuse me...my suspicions can't prove valid...I meant correct. LOL! CHrist...ha ha ha ha
Posted by: TANK | Jan 29, 2010 7:20:08 PM