DADT Part 2

foundit66 · #1 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IP

All I can say on this matter is that the Uniform Code of Military Justice says otherwise and that really is the final authority. The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires intensive investigation upon report of homosexual activity and it requires that the activity be actively participated in, not just an identity as an orientation:

Uniform Code of Military Conduct

This is actually pretty shallow when you look at how it is ACTUALLY ENFORCED.
A guy goes 30 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. The cop writes him up and claims he was going 45 MPH.
Does pointing to the 35 MPH sign somehow refute what ACTUALLY happened?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IP

I suggest a good hard look at part (b) of the statute which actually lays down the guidelines for separation offenses. Also, if you look at MISC(2) of the statute and look at the implementation, you'll see that there are plenty of safeguards in place to prevent unlawful discharge (unlawful being under the UCMJ, which is the applicable law, not the constitution).

Yes. And there are laws which prohibit racial discrimination.
Doesn't mean racial discrimination doesn't happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IP

As interesting and emotionally appealing as your cut and paste arguments from various advocacy groups were, they are irrelevant to the issue because the military operates under a completely different set of rules.

How are they irrelevant?
These are people who ACTUALLY RESEARCH the issue.
DOCUMENTED INSTANCES of what ACTUALLY HAPPEN to people.

And you try to sluff it off by saying it was "interesting and emotional"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IP

Further, there is no "right" to serve in the military AND service is a strictly voluntary arrangement and subject to agreement by both parties. You may claim that some great injustice has been done here, but it is just emotional caterwauling with no basis in fact.

I never said there was a right.
But just because a "right" exists doesn't mean that unjustifiable discrimination and illegal actions never took place.

Idealogically Promiscuous · #2 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

This is actually pretty shallow when you look at how it is ACTUALLY ENFORCED.
A guy goes 30 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. The cop writes him up and claims he was going 45 MPH.
Does pointing to the 35 MPH sign somehow refute what ACTUALLY happened?

But that's not what happened at all. Homosexuality is forbidden in the UCMJ and any proof of homosexual activity or proof that homosexual activity is normal conduct for a person is grounds for removal. Further, you are hinging an argument loosely on constitutional grounds and the military does not act under constitutional law. It acts under military law.

Quote:

Yes. And there are laws which prohibit racial discrimination.
Doesn't mean racial discrimination doesn't happen.

And when it actually happens, there are protocols for addressing it.

Quote:

How are they irrelevant?
These are people who ACTUALLY RESEARCH the issue.
DOCUMENTED INSTANCES of what ACTUALLY HAPPEN to people.

And you try to sluff it off by saying it was "interesting and emotional"?

Actually, I said it was "interesting and emotionally appealing" which is different from just "emotional". I also think that it is irrelevant.

Quote:

I never said there was a right.
But just because a "right" exists doesn't mean that unjustifiable discrimination and illegal actions never took place.

Illegal actions take place across society. The military operates under strict guidelines...that's how it is successful. Illegal actions are an exception, not the norm. Also, keep in mind that what may be illegal in the civilian sector is not necessarily illegal under military code.

foundit66 · #3 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

But that's not what happened at all.

That's just plain inaccurate.
I have given a couple examples of how the "law" IS NOT how the system is working.
You can't just dismiss that by saying "emotional" or other snide and pointless commentary.
This IS happening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IP

Homosexuality is forbidden in the UCMJ and any proof of homosexual activity r proof that homosexual activity is normal conduct for a person is grounds for removal. Further, you are hinging an argument loosely on constitutional grounds and the military does not act under constitutional law. It acts under military law.

I have never claimed the military exclusion law should be removed because it is not constitutional. I whole-heartedly acknowledge that the military has several policies which violate the constitution, but they ARE LEGAL because military law is not subject to the constitution.

But with that said, I believe we should not blindly turn away from issues where the military law contradicts constitutional standards. While the military law is not held to constitutional standards, don't we owe it to our fighting men and women to not give away these constitutional standards without legitimately questioning whether or not it is worth it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IP

And when it actually happens, there are protocols for addressing it.

I have given examples of where the military "law" is violated by what ACTUALLY occurred.
These men and women are kicked out with little recourse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IP

Actually, I said it was "interesting and emotionally appealing" which is different from just "emotional". I also think that it is irrelevant.

I am not sure what you are labelling as "irrelevant".
Are you saying the comment you made "interesting and emotionally appealing" is irrelevant?
Or are you saying what you labelled as "interesting and emotionally appealing" is irrelevant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IP

Illegal actions take place across society. The military operates under strict guidelines...that's how it is successful. Illegal actions are an exception, not the norm. Also, keep in mind that what may be illegal in the civilian sector is not necessarily illegal under military code.

Again, you make claims and ignore the ACTUAL RESEARCH which was posted.
I asked you a few questions earlier which you ignored.
Do you actually know anybody who was kicked out of the military under the "homosexual exclusion law"?

Quite frankly, I DO and that's why I know that what you're trying to white-wash with "this is what the law says" and "strict guidelines" is NOT capturing the whole picture.
It is NOT reflective of how the system is ACTUALLY playing out.

During the years when racial prejudice was literally "enforced", we had laws that prohibited such practices. Yet these laws were ignored in favor of people employing their prejudices as they pleased.
Only by EXPOSING those practices were those practices stopped.

Here, you are doing the equivalent of saying "But we have laws against that.", while ignoring the fact that the laws against what is ACTUALLY happening are ACTUALLY NOT being enforced.

foundit66 · #4 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 04:26 PM

I feel I have to repost this again, because it clearly refutes the picture that IP is trying to paint.
Quite frankly, the military is NOT observing its own law, and the only way to STOP that from continuing is to expose it and demand that they change their practices.

Research Note Assessing "Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues," a Congressional Research Service Report for Congress

....

The CRS's current denial of the practice of retaining known gays during wartime is difficult to reconcile with the 1993 Congressional testimony of the report's principal author, which acknowledges this practice. It states, in part: "The situation that arises during a time of deployment place[s] homosexuals in a no-win situation. They are allowed or ordered to serve at the risk of their own lives with the probability of forced discharge when hostilities end if their sexuality becomes an issue. By deploying suspected homosexuals with their units, the services bring into question their own argument that the presence of homosexuals seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission."[7]

....

The CRS report mischaracterizes what "don't ask, don't tell" punishes so as to make the policy seem more tolerant of homosexual identity. The report claims that "don't ask, don't tell" in its statutory form is "based on conduct," while making "no mention of orientation.'" It says that individuals who "choose" to make their sexual identity public will be discharged.[8] The implication is that gay people who opt to conceal their sexual orientation can continue to serve so long as they do not engage in misconduct.

In truth, the current regulations are not based solely on conduct, but also punish people for having a gay or lesbian identity, even if they remain celibate. Those whose homosexual orientation becomes known, i.e. whether or not they choose to reveal it, must be discharged from the military, even if they do not engage in misconduct. Not only are service members discharged simply for saying they are gay, even if such statements are not accompanied by evidence of same-sex sexual conduct, but they are also discharged if, while not choosing to come out, they are outed by other people or by the surfacing of evidence such as romantic photos, letters, etc.[9]

Contrary to the assertion of the CRS report, the law makes clear that it targets people who have a gay or lesbian identity, not just those who engage in homosexual conduct. It stipulates that a service member will be discharged if he or she engages in same-sex sexual conduct unless "such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior" and it is "unlikely to recur," i.e. the person is straight.[10] Thus heterosexual people are allowed to engage in same-sex sexual conduct on a one-time basis, while gay people are not only punished for any same-sex sexual conduct, but are banned from service simply for being gay, whether or not they engage in sexual conduct.

By insisting that "don't ask, don't tell" targets conduct, the authors of the CRS report imply that anyone who is fired under the policy has willingly chosen to violate the rules. In reality, many service members are fired because of their sexual identity, even when they have done nothing wrong.Research Note Assessing "Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues" | Michael D. Palm Center

And a little bit about what the "Congressional Research Service" is...
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.
....
Congress created CRS in order to have its own source of nonpartisan, objective analysis and research on all legislative issues. Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress.Congressional Research Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It says it here in black and white. The GOVERNMENT'S OWN RESEARCH shows that the policy that IP discusses IS NOT being followed to protect the gay service members.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

Idealogically Promiscuous · #5 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

That's just plain inaccurate.
I have given a couple examples of how the "law" IS NOT how the system is working.
You can't just dismiss that by saying "emotional" or other snide and pointless commentary.
This IS happening.

I have never claimed the military exclusion law should be removed because it is not constitutional. I whole-heartedly acknowledge that the military has several policies which violate the constitution, but they ARE LEGAL because military law is not subject to the constitution.

But with that said, I believe we should not blindly turn away from issues where the military law contradicts constitutional standards. While the military law is not held to constitutional standards, don't we owe it to our fighting men and women to not give away these constitutional standards without legitimately questioning whether or not it is worth it?

I have given examples of where the military "law" is violated by what ACTUALLY occurred.
These men and women are kicked out with little recourse.

I am not sure what you are labelling as "irrelevant".
Are you saying the comment you made "interesting and emotionally appealing" is irrelevant?
Or are you saying what you labelled as "interesting and emotionally appealing" is irrelevant?

Again, you make claims and ignore the ACTUAL RESEARCH which was posted.
I asked you a few questions earlier which you ignored.
Do you actually know anybody who was kicked out of the military under the "homosexual exclusion law"?

Quite frankly, I DO and that's why I know that what you're trying to white-wash with "this is what the law says" and "strict guidelines" is NOT capturing the whole picture.
It is NOT reflective of how the system is ACTUALLY playing out.

During the years when racial prejudice was literally "enforced", we had laws that prohibited such practices. Yet these laws were ignored in favor of people employing their prejudices as they pleased.
Only by EXPOSING those practices were those practices stopped.

Here, you are doing the equivalent of saying "But we have laws against that.", while ignoring the fact that the laws against what is ACTUALLY happening are ACTUALLY NOT being enforced.

I would prefer to see the follow up to these meager few examples you provide and translate into some sweeping generalization of how the military conducts itself.

foundit66 · #6 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

I would prefer to see the follow up to these meager few examples you provide and translate into some sweeping generalization of how the military conducts itself.

I could quote examples until I'm blue in the face.
I don't see how that would change anything, especially considering the existing examples are not addressed.

Furthermore, I think I am doing a fairly adequate job of convincing others who are willing to listen.

Instead, I suggest you address Congress's own research on the issue.
I think they have more knowledge of the subject, via their research, than both of us.
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/civ...html#post13633
They clearly refute your claims, and your conclusion.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode