Obama to Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist

[sandorski]

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.

Copout.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: OCguy
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.

Only those supporters who can't possibly understand that Obama can't do everything all at once. Priorities are priorities. Let's get the economy fixed and our foreign policy obligations dealt with and then we can tackle gays in the military, right?

 

[Thump553]

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.

The exact same argument made when President Truman intergrated the military in 1948 by a stroke of his pen (Executive Order). This was years before even Brown v. Board of Education, and at least 15 years before the Civil Rights movement of the '60s. So it clearly qualified as a "social experiment" - and a damn successful one at that.

Ingrained intolerance and inertia is no reason to perpetuate bad social policy.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

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.

Exactly. And I was confused by some of the wording in that article:

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.

Well that's all well and good. But if a serviceman goes on national television and tells people he's gay, the Army doesn't have to do a whole lot of snooping into his sexuality. He laid it bare. And if DADT wasn't upheld in an extremely public case like this, you'd have a lot more discussion about Obama circumventing the law than trying to take the appropriate steps to remove it. I think DADT is an abhorrent law to have on our books, and I want it struck down, but I'm not naive enough to think that Obama should do it via executive order when his entire campaign has been about moving away from a unitary executive. Why not take advantage of the Deomcratic majority in Congress to repeal DADT?

 

[nageov3t]

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.

there are countries in the world where breeders and gays serve side by side openly.

their militaries have not fallen apart and I don't think anyone is going to say that the Israeli military is incapable of doing its job.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: OCguy

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.

He kind of has a lot going on. DADT should be repealed, no question. However, the unfortunate reality is that there are political issues involved in abolishing DADT that can't just be ignored.

And Obama has to show progress in two difficult wars. Turn around the economy, etc.

It's a shame that this issue has to take a backseat. But it's the right strategy. We'll get there.

 

[jonks]

Discharging gay military personnel is passe, and doubly so for the freaking arabic linguists. It was dispicable under Bush who started a war to "keep us safer" but then pointed to "failures in intelligence" for why so much went wrong, while simultaneously overseeing the dismissal of dozens of arabic translaters because they were gay. And it's wrong under Obama and it needs to go away fast.

But no, Obama should not abuse executive power to bring about any desired end the way Bush did whenever he wanted to get anything done. DADT is going away soon, and it will be done the correct way, not by executive fiat.

 

[WHAMPOM]

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.

After dropping that load, most people would see you as full of it.

 

[WHAMPOM]

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.

Are you advertising your ignorance or your prejudice?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

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.

After dropping that load, most people would see you as full of it.

Especially since gay people are already serving. They've served since before DADT was enacted, the biggest difference was that they stopped asking if you were gay when you enlisted. All that's left is to get rid of the "don't tell" portion.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Are you advertising your ignorance or your prejudice?

What an insightful post, you brought up some excellent points. Thank you for your contribution. :roll:

Originally posted by: Thump553

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.

The exact same argument made when President Truman intergrated the military in 1948 by a stroke of his pen (Executive Order). This was years before even Brown v. Board of Education, and at least 15 years before the Civil Rights movement of the '60s. So it clearly qualified as a "social experiment" - and a damn successful one at that.

Ingrained intolerance and inertia is no reason to perpetuate bad social policy.

When Truman integrated the military, it was not an experiment in that black soldiers had in fact already proven their mettle in battle during the previous war(s). There was no question that they were capable.

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Especially since gay people are already serving. They've served since before DADT was enacted, the biggest difference was that they stopped asking if you were gay when you enlisted. All that's left is to get rid of the "don't tell" portion.

They are not openly serving. Of course they are serving today, the question is, should they be allowed to serve as openly gay.

I think you guys are missing my point. You're taking my post to be an argument for not allowing gays to serve. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying it should not be half-assed (DADT), and it should not be made based on some social justice argument. It should be a logical decision based on what is best for the military. Each person might have an opinion on that one, but our government (starting with the CIC) should make a decision and go with it. That's leadership. Instead of leaders, we have politicians -- they'd rather straddle the fence and not tick off anyone than do what they think is right for the country.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

When Truman integrated the military, it was not an experiment in that black soldiers had in fact already proven their mettle in battle during the previous war(s). There was no question that they were capable.

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Especially since gay people are already serving. They've served since before DADT was enacted, the biggest difference was that they stopped asking if you were gay when you enlisted. All that's left is to get rid of the "don't tell" portion.

They are not openly serving. Of course they are serving today, the question is, should they be allowed to serve as openly gay.

I think you guys are missing my point. You're taking my post to be an argument for not allowing gays to serve. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying it should not be half-assed (DADT), and it should not be made based on some social justice argument. It should be a logical decision based on what is best for the military. Each person might have an opinion on that one, but our government (starting with the CIC) should make a decision and go with it. That's leadership. Instead of leaders, we have politicians -- they'd rather straddle the fence and not tick off anyone than do what they think is right for the country.

Gay soldiers have already proven their mettle as well. I'm not sure if you have any military experience, but I do. My ship had quite a few people who absolutely everyone knew were gay and they didn't try to hide it. Not all gay people in the military are serving openly, but there are plenty who are in everything but name.

Also this regulation should come from Congress, not the President. Congress has the priority in establishing the rules and regulations under which the armed forces are run, (they were the ones who created the UCMJ, etc.) and they created DADT. Because of this, they should be the ones to change it.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Squisher

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.

I think Moonie's commentary flew beyond your reasoning ...

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Especially since gay people are already serving. They've served since before DADT was enacted, the biggest difference was that they stopped asking if you were gay when you enlisted. All that's left is to get rid of the "don't tell" portion.

They are not openly serving. Of course they are serving today, the question is, should they be allowed to serve as openly gay.

Of course they should. My parents served with people that everyone knew were gay, and no one cared. I served with people that everyone knew were gay, and no one cared. The military has lost some good people due to DADT, be it because someone got fed up and came out, or they were caught in a compromising position by the wrong person.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Gay soldiers have already proven their mettle as well. I'm not sure if you have any military experience, but I do. My ship had quite a few people who absolutely everyone knew were gay and they didn't try to hide it. Not all gay people in the military are serving openly, but there are plenty who are in everything but name.

That sounds like a reasonable argument, the kind that should go into the discussion in making that determination. That fits exactly into my point. Have that discussion, make a decision based on what is best for the military.

Also this regulation should come from Congress, not the President. Congress has the priority in establishing the rules and regulations under which the armed forces are run, (they were the ones who created the UCMJ, etc.) and they created DADT. Because of this, they should be the ones to change it.

Agreed, that's why I said "leaders", meaning political leaders in congress along with the CIC / president. They need to stop being politicians and start being leaders. Stop worrying about offending or angering groups (either side) and start worrying about doing what is most effective to accomplish the goals.

 

[Harvey]

My e-mail to President Obama:

This is STUPID, this is MALICIOUS and this is just plain WRONG!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-first-g_b_199070.html

"Obama To Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist

Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.
.
.
(continues)"

There is no debate about this. There is NO excuse for this anymore than there would be if you wanted to fire him because he's Chinese American or if someone wanted to fire you because you are part African American.

You have the ability to rectify this by executive order. Please retain your humanity and do so.

Harvey Rubens
Sherman Oaks, Ca.
spambox2@originpoint.com

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Especially since gay people are already serving. They've served since before DADT was enacted, the biggest difference was that they stopped asking if you were gay when you enlisted. All that's left is to get rid of the "don't tell" portion.

They are not openly serving. Of course they are serving today, the question is, should they be allowed to serve as openly gay.

Of course they should. My parents served with people that everyone knew were gay, and no one cared. I served with people that everyone knew were gay, and no one cared. The military has lost some good people due to DADT, be it because someone got fed up and came out, or they were caught in a compromising position by the wrong person.

Anecdotal evidence is largely meaningless, but I see the point.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Harvey
My e-mail to President Obama:

This is STUPID, this is MALICIOUS and this is just plain WRONG!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-first-g_b_199070.html

"Obama To Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist

Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.
.
.
(continues)"

There is no debate about this. There is NO excuse for this anymore than there would be if you wanted to fire him because he's Chinese American or if someone wanted to fire you because you are part African American.

You have the ability to rectify this by executive order. Please retain your humanity and do so.

Harvey Rubens
Sherman Oaks, Ca.
spambox2@originpoint.com

This should NOT be done by executive order. If anything should be done, it should be done by passing the appropriate legislation, not by an executive end-run to get around the legislation. You were angry that Bush made end-runs around congress, and yet now you advocate doing the same thing when you agree with the goal. The end justifies the means?

 

[ProfJohn]

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.

50 years ago the same argument was made to keep blacks out of the military.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

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.

50 years ago the same argument was made to keep blacks out of the military.

Are you having difficulty reading? No argument to keep them from serving was made.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

This should NOT be done by executive order. If anything should be done, it should be done by passing the appropriate legislation, not by an executive end-run to get around the legislation. You were angry that Bush made end-runs around congress, and yet now you advocate doing the same thing when you agree with the goal. The end justifies the means?

In case you didn't know it, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is the direct result of a Presidential executive order under Bill Clinton. There is no reason it cannot be reversed by another Presidential executive order.

In this case, no such legislation could be passed in time in time to save Choi's military career. The only way it CAN be done is by executive order. Appropriate legislation can and should follow.

 

[ProfJohn]

I am sorry, but in a real sense Choi was not kicked out for being gay, but for knowingly and openly flouting army rules and regulations.

I am sure that there were plenty of people who served with him and knew he was gay and did nothing and said nothing about it. He may have even been openly gay among those he served with.

But you can not allow members of the military to go on national TV and openly violate rules and regulations without having them suffer the consequences. The military is an organization that is built on discipline and the actions of Choi are an attempt to undermine that discipline.

If you allow him to make his statement without any consequences then what comes next?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am sorry, but in a real sense Choi was not kicked out for being gay, but for knowingly and openly flouting army rules and regulations.

I am sure that there were plenty of people who served with him and knew he was gay and did nothing and said nothing about it. He may have even been openly gay among those he served with.

But you can not allow members of the military to go on national TV and openly violate rules and regulations without having them suffer the consequences. The military is an organization that is built on discipline and the actions of Choi are an attempt to undermine that discipline.

If you allow him to make his statement without any consequences then what comes next?

Right. The argument isn't to stop enforcing regulations, it's to get rid of dumb regulations like DADT.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am sorry, but in a real sense Choi was not kicked out for being gay, but for knowingly and openly flouting army rules and regulations.

I am sure that there were plenty of people who served with him and knew he was gay and did nothing and said nothing about it. He may have even been openly gay among those he served with.

But you can not allow members of the military to go on national TV and openly violate rules and regulations without having them suffer the consequences. The military is an organization that is built on discipline and the actions of Choi are an attempt to undermine that discipline.

If you allow him to make his statement without any consequences then what comes next?

It is immoral to force homosexuals into the closet. Full stop.

 

[ProfJohn]

I agree, get rid of the rule.

BTW If I was a gay activist I would focus less on gay marriage and more on this issue.

Look at the civil rights movement. One of the biggest steps on the march to equality was the decision to allow blacks and whites to serve together. This caused a lot of people who had never socialized or even met a black person to serve side by side with that person and destroy many of the myths and biases that may have existed in their minds. These people then went back to their communities and helped to break down those barriers as well.