A Deal on DADT?

[metta]

A Deal on DADT?
http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/05/24/Deal_on_DADT/

 

[Txgoodoldboy]

Thanks for the info. I wish they would bite the bullet and get rid of it. The same rules that apply to hetero troops, would also apply to homo troops. Like sexual harassment, rape, etc.

 

[hotatlboi]

That's sounds good although I'm not too sure on this.

The language would not include a nondiscrimination policy but rather will return authority for open service by gays and lesbians to the Pentagon.

That would mean the next time we have a Republican president, he could appoint homophobic military leaders and start kicking gay people out again.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Thanks for the info. I wish they would bite the bullet and get rid of it. The same rules that apply to hetero troops, would also apply to homo troops. Like sexual harassment, rape, etc.

Since the current situation is that 30% of female members of our armed forces have been sexually assaulted and half of the cases reported and subsequently investigated result in no action taken, with only 1/3 of the remaining half resulting in courts-martial, I'm not sure how much of a comfort that is...

 

[TickTockMan]

That's sounds good although I'm not too sure on this.

That would mean the next time we have a Republican president, he could appoint homophobic military leaders and start kicking gay people out again.

Seems it's just a way to get votes without doing anything.

Seems like it could become even worse to me.

 

[evanrick]

justice for all? not in the military. they have been actively perpetuating homophobia and i doubt this "deal" will prove equitable.

 

[Lube]

That's sounds good although I'm not too sure on this.



That would mean the next time we have a Republican president, he could appoint homophobic military leaders and start kicking gay people out again.

Yes that's awful. This is not a solution.

 

[metta]

Video: Choi Responds to Repeal Deal


http://digg.com/d31S85b


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJiExTVewws&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[Centexfarmer]

Since the current situation is that 30% of female members of our armed forces have been sexually assaulted and half of the cases reported and subsequently investigated result in no action taken, with only 1/3 of the remaining half resulting in courts-martial, I'm not sure how much of a comfort that is...

Here's another take on it;

How many "suspected" (with suspected being the keyword under the current DADT policy) how many suspected Gays and Lesbians have been "sexually harassed/assaulted" but were unable to report it because of the current DADT policy?

As a current veteran of the U.S. Military to abolish DADT would "level" the playing field quite a bit (when it comes to "sexual harassment)!

If anything it would give some of those currently serving to turn the tables on those harassing/assaulting/asking/closeted assholes to put up or shut up!

"I'm sorry, but you're Married! You're going to "blackmail" me into having sex with you under the DADT Policy IF I don't have sex with you? Ask and Tell, because my "morals" and "values" exceed yours, you pathetic piece of shit!"

I'm just saying.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

That's sounds good although I'm not too sure on this.



That would mean the next time we have a Republican president, he could appoint homophobic military leaders and start kicking gay people out again.

No future republican president could just kick anyone out. Obama would only take part in signing the final deal and that would be the end of it. Because it would be legislation passed by congress that requires a waiting period for the pentagon review then is enacted once obama then certifies it. Then the law that is passed by congress can't just be changed overnight at the snap of a fingers because some homophobic redneck that might be elected (hey look at the last alcoholic we had that started a war for his daddy.) Any future president can't just change the law passed by congress because he doesn't like it. It would be a tough process again because it's congress that has to change the law. It all depends if you are responsible enough to stay informed and actually vote for people with a bold liberal view in terms of house reps and senators. Don't you now how the legislative process works? It only has to be certified ONCE and then its done.

Anything that may shine a positive light on Obama you will try to contest because you have a burning hatred of him but can't say why. Were you raised in a trailer park with some rebel flag for a curtain? You been watching fox news before work in the morning? Did you pass 8th grade American Government? Obama TRULY has alot on his plate and that is a solid FACT. Let's throw you in his position and we will watch your hair grey faster then flies on shit because you got handed the biggest deficit in this nation's history.

 

[JB3]

No future republican president could just kick anyone out. Obama would only take part in signing the final deal and that would be the end of it. Because it would be legislation passed by congress that requires a waiting period for the pentagon review then is enacted once obama then certifies it. Then the law that is passed by congress can't just be changed overnight at the snap of a fingers because some homophobic redneck that might be elected (hey look at the last alcoholic we had that started a war for his daddy.) Any future president can't just change the law passed by congress because he doesn't like it. It would be a tough process again because it's congress that has to change the law. It all depends if you are responsible enough to stay informed and actually vote for people with a bold liberal view in terms of house reps and senators. Don't you now how the legislative process works? It only has to be certified ONCE and then its done.

Anything that may shine a positive light on Obama you will try to contest because you have a burning hatred of him but can't say why. Were you raised in a trailer park with some rebel flag for a curtain? You been watching fox news before work in the morning? Did you pass 8th grade American Government? Obama TRULY has alot on his plate and that is a solid FACT. Let's throw you in his position and we will watch your hair grey faster then flies on shit because you got handed the biggest deficit in this nation's history.

You misunderstand. This law will essentially give the pentagon the power to decide the policy, and the pentagon is run by a presidential appointee and will follow their policy stances. The only involvement congress will have is with this bill. After that, its up to the pentagon. (Congress will have NO say in the policies unless they change the law again, which they'll be hesitant to do) There is NO reauthorization process every time they want to change the policy, and I'm not quite sure where you got that idea from.

 

[JB3]

Hmmm, looks like heckling and lighting a fire under Obama's feet wasn't such a bad idea after all. Now was it?

Obama had nothing to do with this. The bill's sponsors crafted this compromise on their own and told the white house it was going to happen, with or without their help.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

You misunderstand. This law will essentially give the pentagon the power to decide the policy, and the pentagon is run by a presidential appointee and will follow their policy stances. The only involvement congress will have is with this bill. After that, its up to the pentagon. (Congress will have NO say in the policies unless they change the law again, which they'll be hesitant to do) There is NO reauthorization process every time they want to change the policy, and I'm not quite sure where you got that idea from.

I Never said that. I was responding to someone else that said that. YOU misread ME. I know there is no re-authorization process. Someone else stated that any republican president can come and change it right back. I gave facts on why it would not be so simple to do so as he implied.

 

[JB3]

I Never said that. I was responding to someone else that said that. YOU misread ME. I know there is no re-authorization process. Someone else stated that any republican president can come and change it right back. I gave facts on why it would not be so simple to do so as he implied.

I did not misread you at all. And yes, you were completely incorrect in your post. This bill gives final authority to the pentagon regarding these policies, and it does not require any reauthorization as you implied.

So yes, the other poster was quite correct when they said that a republican president could roll back some of the changes. And you were (as usual) very, very wrong.

 

[hotatlboi]

I Never said that. I was responding to someone else that said that. YOU misread ME. I know there is no re-authorization process. Someone else stated that any republican president can come and change it right back. I gave facts on why it would not be so simple to do so as he implied.

Actually, Droid is right, and you did misread my post.

Yes, a Republican president would not be able to easily change the law.

What you're not getting though is that this law returns authority for deciding the policy to the Pentagon, so the policy is what could be changed in future administrations. Under DADT, the gay service policy is explicitly given in statute. This revision removes that.

What it will do is allow DADT to be swept away right now, since the current leaders oppose it and would institute a policy of open service, however since the authority would now rest with the Pentagon, a similar policy banning gays could be reinstated without changing the law in the future.

In summary, this is an improvement for now, but it provides a tenuous prospect for the long term.

Still, while this isn't as good as it should be, if this is the best we can do then I still support it. If we do not repeal the current law before the next Congress, there's no guarantee we'll be able to anytime in the near future, since Republicans might make large gains. Further, once a policy of open service is instituted, that will be the status quo, and it's always harder to implement broad changes than to continue the status quo. If we have several years of successful military operations with gays allowed, that will be a serious refutation of the absurd arguments of the bigots who say it would impact the effectiveness of the service, and at that point returning to discrimination would hopefully face opposition.

 

[metta]

Petition to request a repeal of DADT this year and to issue and executive order to end military discharges immediately:

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6535/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=2142

 

[hotatlboi]

The Pentagon couldn't stuff tens of thousands of homosexuals back in the closet if it wanted to.

No, but it could kick them all out if the policy was changed.

It would be hard to go back yes, and it would face opposition I would hope, but it would be possible if a Republican admin made that a priority.

 

[hotatlboi]

It would just blithly dismiss tens of thousands of troops? Just like that?

That's exactly what DADT has done.

I'm not saying that's necessarily the most likely scenario as soon as we have another Republican president, just that, with nondiscrimination not specified in the new law and it left up to a Pentagon policy decision, you can't take it for granted that this issue would never be revisited.

 

[NickCole]

That's sounds good although I'm not too sure on this.

"The language would not include a nondiscrimination policy but rather will return authority for open service by gays and lesbians to the Pentagon."

That would mean the next time we have a Republican president, he could appoint homophobic military leaders and start kicking gay people out again.

Without a nondiscrimination policy included in the repeal, gays can be discriminated against.

Period.

Brings us back to where we were in 1992.

 

[hotatlboi]

Without a nondiscrimination policy included in the repeal, gays can be discriminated against. No matter who's President.

Um, no not really. Not if people care about their jobs. With the current plan, the military will put in place the nondiscrimination policy, so no gays cannot be discriminated against as that will be against the regulations. It will just not be against the law. The military has all sorts of rules that soldiers have to follow that are not laws.

Brings us back to where we were in 1992.

Also wrong. In 1992 gays were prohibited from serving under any circumstance by statute. DADT was better than that. Being permitted to serve by regulation is better than DADT. The last step would be explicit protection by statute. They must not have the votes for that right now, but this is still an improvement.