Obama to Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,227
36
91
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-first-g_b_199070.html

"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."




Between this and his lack of support for federal laws regarding gay marriage, it looks like he is disappointing much of his die-hard supporters.
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
Mr. Obama needs to fulfill his promise. Yes, I am disappointed. Are you?
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
The military is not the place for social experiments. If allowing gay people to serve doesn't have negative impact on it's ability to do what it is tasked to do, then let them serve and stop all this DADT beating around the bush BS. However, if there is a negative impact, then they should not be allowed to serve. It's that simple. And no, looking at other military organizations in other countries and saying "see, it works fine for them!" does not qualify. Each situation in each country is different.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The military is not the place for social experiments. If allowing gay people to serve doesn't have negative impact on it's ability to do what it is tasked to do, then let them serve and stop all this DADT beating around the bush BS. However, if there is a negative impact, then they should not be allowed to serve. It's that simple. And no, looking at other military organizations in other countries and saying "see, it works fine for them!" does not qualify. Each situation in each country is different.

Of course looking at other countries and saying "see it works fine for them" does qualify as a valid argument.
Simply saying "each country is different" does not.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Interesting. People and the media need to start pressuring him on this issue, if he has the authority to effectively end "don't ask, don't tell" he needs to do it.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The military is not the place for social experiments. If allowing gay people to serve doesn't have negative impact on it's ability to do what it is tasked to do, then let them serve and stop all this DADT beating around the bush BS. However, if there is a negative impact, then they should not be allowed to serve. It's that simple. And no, looking at other military organizations in other countries and saying "see, it works fine for them!" does not qualify. Each situation in each country is different.

Of course looking at other countries and saying "see it works fine for them" does qualify as a valid argument.
Simply saying "each country is different" does not.

Yeah, because the fact that something can work in one country automatically means it will work just the same way in another :roll: We all know that societies are exactly the same, right? ...... or not.

I don't like the DADT nonsense. If they bring positive value to the military, let them serve. If they detract, then don't. I'm not arguing that they should or should not serve (there have been plenty of threads on that), just saying make a decision and go with it.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The military is not the place for social experiments. If allowing gay people to serve doesn't have negative impact on it's ability to do what it is tasked to do, then let them serve and stop all this DADT beating around the bush BS. However, if there is a negative impact, then they should not be allowed to serve. It's that simple. And no, looking at other military organizations in other countries and saying "see, it works fine for them!" does not qualify. Each situation in each country is different.

"Social Experiments"? What would those be?
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The military is not the place for social experiments. If allowing gay people to serve doesn't have negative impact on it's ability to do what it is tasked to do, then let them serve and stop all this DADT beating around the bush BS. However, if there is a negative impact, then they should not be allowed to serve. It's that simple. And no, looking at other military organizations in other countries and saying "see, it works fine for them!" does not qualify. Each situation in each country is different.

Of course looking at other countries and saying "see it works fine for them" does qualify as a valid argument.
Simply saying "each country is different" does not.

Yeah, because the fact that something can work in one country automatically means it will work just the same way in another :roll: We all know that societies are exactly the same, right? ...... or not.

I don't like the DADT nonsense. If they bring positive value to the military, let them serve. If they detract, then don't. I'm not arguing that they should or should not serve (there have been plenty of threads on that), just saying make a decision and go with it.

There is no evidence, and there are no logical arguments to support banning homosexuals from the military. DADT is simply discrimination based on prejudice, and needs to be stopped yesterday.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
LOL! Do you think that the military actually investigates a servicemember's claim of homosexuality? The vast majority of the people who get out under that provision do so very early in their careers and leave without prejudice after ZERO investigation. Why? They are second guessing their entry into military service, and it's an easy out. Ever watch M*A*S*H? Remember the guy trying to get a Section 8 discharge for being crazy? Same idea.

Yes, this is based on facts as I went through case files on two separate installations. It's at least true for the Air Force, and I've not heard anything from other services that would make me doubt its applicability there.
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
LOL! Do you think that the military actually investigates a servicemember's claim of homosexuality? The vast majority of the people who get out under that provision do so very early in their careers and leave without prejudice after ZERO investigation. Why? They are second guessing their entry into military service, and it's an easy out. Ever watch M*A*S*H? Remember the guy trying to get a Section 8 discharge for being crazy? Same idea.

Yes, this is based on facts as I went through case files on two separate installations. It's at least true for the Air Force, and I've not heard anything from other services that would make me doubt its applicability there.

This guy was kicked out of the Army for saying, "I am gay" on TV.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The military is not the place for social experiments. If allowing gay people to serve doesn't have negative impact on it's ability to do what it is tasked to do, then let them serve and stop all this DADT beating around the bush BS. However, if there is a negative impact, then they should not be allowed to serve. It's that simple. And no, looking at other military organizations in other countries and saying "see, it works fine for them!" does not qualify. Each situation in each country is different.

"Social Experiments"? What would those be?

The military is not where you "try it out" in the name of fairness or some other social cause. The military has specific objectives, it's not intended to reflect society in demographics. It all comes down to the determination of whether the impact would be positive or negative. If the CIC (Obama) feels it would be a positive thing to allow gays to serve, then make that decision and stand by it. If not, then make that decision and stand by it. Why do some subtle maneuver to "in effect" remove the DADT policy? Either remove it, or don't.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,326
6,039
126
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The military is not the place for social experiments. If allowing gay people to serve doesn't have negative impact on it's ability to do what it is tasked to do, then let them serve and stop all this DADT beating around the bush BS. However, if there is a negative impact, then they should not be allowed to serve. It's that simple. And no, looking at other military organizations in other countries and saying "see, it works fine for them!" does not qualify. Each situation in each country is different.

Yup, and white folk, by this reasoning shouldn't have to tolerate black people along side them.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The military is not the place for social experiments. If allowing gay people to serve doesn't have negative impact on it's ability to do what it is tasked to do, then let them serve and stop all this DADT beating around the bush BS. However, if there is a negative impact, then they should not be allowed to serve. It's that simple. And no, looking at other military organizations in other countries and saying "see, it works fine for them!" does not qualify. Each situation in each country is different.

Of course looking at other countries and saying "see it works fine for them" does qualify as a valid argument.
Simply saying "each country is different" does not.

Yeah, because the fact that something can work in one country automatically means it will work just the same way in another :roll: We all know that societies are exactly the same, right? ...... or not.
Doesn't mean it's automatically going to work, but it does mean it's more likely to work than it if it didn't work in any other country. Saying "each country is different" provides no information either way.
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,207
66
91
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The military is not the place for social experiments. If allowing gay people to serve doesn't have negative impact on it's ability to do what it is tasked to do, then let them serve and stop all this DADT beating around the bush BS. However, if there is a negative impact, then they should not be allowed to serve. It's that simple. And no, looking at other military organizations in other countries and saying "see, it works fine for them!" does not qualify. Each situation in each country is different.

Yup, and white folk, by this reasoning shouldn't have to tolerate black people along side them.

Are you saying that black people don't make for valuable members in a fighting unit? I'd have to say facts are against you. And, every member of that of that fighting unit probably understands that.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The military is not the place for social experiments. If allowing gay people to serve doesn't have negative impact on it's ability to do what it is tasked to do, then let them serve and stop all this DADT beating around the bush BS. However, if there is a negative impact, then they should not be allowed to serve. It's that simple. And no, looking at other military organizations in other countries and saying "see, it works fine for them!" does not qualify. Each situation in each country is different.

"Social Experiments"? What would those be?

The military is not where you "try it out" in the name of fairness or some other social cause. The military has specific objectives, it's not intended to reflect society in demographics. It all comes down to the determination of whether the impact would be positive or negative. If the CIC (Obama) feels it would be a positive thing to allow gays to serve, then make that decision and stand by it. If not, then make that decision and stand by it. Why do some subtle maneuver to "in effect" remove the DADT policy? Either remove it, or don't.

That is not true, there are plenty of social experiments that were tried in the military. Tuskegee airmen, Nissei fighting in Europe in WW2, were all social experiments at the time, where a group that was previously discriminated against and deemed unable to fight or unloyal, was given a chance to prove itself in battle. Gays are simply the next in line to do so. Don't ask don't tell is itself a social experiment, and an immoral one at that. Basically it is telling people to lie or tell half truths about who they are. It is rewarding hypocrites and punishing people who tell the truth. Are these the sort of moral standards we want to set for our armed forces?
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,207
66
91
Originally posted by: n yusef
Equal Protection is not a "social experiment."

Yes it is when you put this country's fighting men and women in harm's way. Does instituting this thing, make them more or less able to do their jobs? No matter how noble your cause, you have to evaluate this based on these results. If the results are sexual orientation neutral, well then let me stand aside. If how ever if this in any way can deter from the fighting unit dynamic, then it is reckless in its implementation. Whether it should or shouldn't is a moot point.


 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
Originally posted by: Squisher
Are you saying that black people don't make for valuable members in a fighting unit? I'd have to say facts are against you. And, every member of that of that fighting unit probably understands that.

Are you saying that gay people don't make for valuable members in a fighting unit? I'd have to say facts are against you. And, every member of that of that [sic] fighting unit probably understands that.
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: n yusef
Equal Protection is not a "social experiment."

Yes it is when you put this country's fighting men and women in harm's way. Does instituting this thing, make them more or less able to do their jobs? No matter how noble your cause, you have to evaluate this based on these results. If the results are sexual orientation neutral, well then let me stand aside. If how ever if this in any way can deter from the fighting unit dynamic, then it is reckless in its implementation. Whether it should or shouldn't is a moot point.

An Arabic linguist in the Army National Guard was terminated not for his actions, but because he dared speak three words on TV. This is a travesty, plain and simple.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: n yusef
Equal Protection is not a "social experiment."

Yes it is when you put this country's fighting men and women in harm's way. Does instituting this thing, make them more or less able to do their jobs? No matter how noble your cause, you have to evaluate this based on these results. If the results are sexual orientation neutral, well then let me stand aside. If how ever if this in any way can deter from the fighting unit dynamic, then it is reckless in its implementation. Whether it should or shouldn't is a moot point.

The burden is on those who want to discriminate to prove that it is a necessary evil, not the other way around.
Apparently this guy was able to serve just fine, and the only ones doing damage to this country and making the military less able to do its job are those firing him, and losing a valuable specialist. They should have to defend their actions.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,399
136
No, Obama is not going to provoke a constitutional fight with Congress over DADT by attempting to circumvent federal law with an executive order, especially when he knows that he can pass actual legislature through Congress to repeal it, and do so easily. He has already said he supports the elimination of DADT, and I'm pretty confident it will be repealed during his first term. To attempt to eliminate it through executive order would be really dumb for a whole host of reasons.

As others have said, it's not like the military investigates sexuality now. They are already actively trying to avoid DADT related discharges, and they only take action when they don't have much other choice.

Finally, I'm not even sure what 'federal laws regarding gay marriage' would be. Obama already publicly supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the primary federal anti-gay legislation.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
No, Obama is not going to provoke a constitutional fight with Congress over DADT by attempting to circumvent federal law with an executive order, especially when he knows that he can pass actual legislature through Congress to repeal it, and do so easily. He has already said he supports the elimination of DADT, and I'm pretty confident it will be repealed during his first term. To attempt to eliminate it through executive order would be really dumb for a whole host of reasons.

As others have said, it's not like the military investigates sexuality now. They are already actively trying to avoid DADT related discharges, and they only take action when they don't have much other choice.

Finally, I'm not even sure what 'federal laws regarding gay marriage' would be. Obama already publicly supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the primary federal anti-gay legislation.

That sounds reasonable but I hope he follows through on putting something through congress.