Pentagon Prepares To Stop Enforcement of DADT -- But Don't Pop The Corks Just Yet
This back and forth must be nervewracking for gay members of the military, because they know nothing's final yet. The administration's DoJ has announced they will appeal the ruling:
The Pentagon announced Thursday that it will comply with a court order to stop enforcing its "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military, even as the Obama administration asked a federal judge to delay implementation of the ruling.
Officials say they need time to institute new policies to ensure that the change won't affect combat readiness or morale. The administration has said it will appeal the ruling to the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
In the meantime, "the Department of Defense will of course obey the law," Col. Dave Lapan, a department spokesman, said in an e-mail to reporters. The Pentagon will cease investigations and discharges of service members found to be in violation of the policy, officials said.
Despite the Pentagon's announcement, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund, a group that supports ending the ban, has encouraged gay military members not to disclose their sexual orientation.
"It is clear there is confusion, and this interim period is dangerous for service members," Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis said in a statement. "Our service members need finality."
Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund, a group that supports ending the ban, has encouraged gay military members not to disclose their sexual orientation.
What would they do? Get rid of all of them?
me-oww!
It's just that they can't right at the moment.
have you not been paying attention?
they get back in. Greta Kammermeyer did and served a few more years, that staff sgt at Ft Lewis entered the Army as openly gay, they pitched him out for that 16 years later, he was reinstated, same with the nurse. They have a dodgy rule that gets overturned on appeal, yet they insist.
And yeah. I've been paying attention.
me-oww!
until the day before they became eligible for a pension.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
... but apparently he'd prefer that Congress be in the driver's seat on this.
Seems a little odd.
Barack Obama is a Republican.
have demanded he show his voter registration certificate.
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
...is still a rose. The same holds true for Republicans.
Your shtick is worn out. People see right through what you're trying to do. There's too much at stake to let the GOp win. Yeah, I know. You've spent all this time trying to get people to turn on the Dems.
It won't work bud. I'm sure you think O'Donnell,Angle, Paul, Miller and all the rest would be better for the US. But, like I said above, people are seeing right through your shtick.
Worn out and boring.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
The policies will be the same whichever of the two major parties take control in January. Voting out Democrats though will at least give voters the chance to elect better Democrats in 2012.
As far as getting people to turn on the Democrats, that's not something I have to do. The Democrats are doing it themselves by adopting the policies and ideology of George W. Bush.
You also talk about my *shtick* being *worn out and boring.* Well, what do you call the constant fearmongering by Democrats? Yes, the ideas of Republicans are no good, but the mantra of *Republicans are worse, Republicans are worse* has gotten mighty old at this point. Any person with half a brain can see that Democrats do this only because they have absolutely nothing else to run on.
"Voting out Democrats though will at least give voters the chance to elect better Democrats in 2012. "
That makes sense....er? When will that fairytale happen? You have moonbat insane crap (the GOP/teaparty) and crap (the Democrats).
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
To vote republickin. So, explain to everyone here what the GOp positions are.
Your shtick is to get people to vote GOp. Why should they? What do they stand for? Other than just obstructing everything that is. Name one thing that the GOp have done that's a positive? List there political agenda. Surely you must know all of them by heart by now.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
If Republicans take over Congress, most of the corporatist policies of Obama and the GOP will be stopped, as gridlock will prevail and nothing of significance will get passed by anyone. This would also likely result in the removal of closet Republicans (Harry Reid) and elitists (Nancy Pelosi) from leadership positions in the Democratic Party. If the defeat is bad enough, it's possible an insurgent candidate will run against Obama in the 2012 primary.
Their position the whole time. Yet you continue to tell people to vote republickin.
Try again. You think that by electing more GOpers, that this will solve the problems facing the country. I have news for ya. They'll make it worse. You're logic is upside down and backwards. Did you by chance watch Real Time last night?
If not, I suggest you do.
Oh, one more thing about electing GOpers. I take it the last admin didn't show you enough of what they're all about.
And you want more of them elected? Seriously. Where were you during that time period?
Let me ask you a question.
When does the fiscal year start for the government?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Democrats have been in control of the Presidency and at least one House of Congress for most of the last two decades. During all this time, they have never supported any progressive ideas or used the filibuster to block any Republican policies. In fact, they have been active supporters of most of the RW policies that have driven this country into the ground:
- the unfunded mandates law
- DADT
- DOMA
- NAFTA
- welfare *reform*
- mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenders
- telecommunications de-regulation
- the repeal of Glass-Steagall
- the bombings of Kosovo and Iraq
- Patriot Act I and II
- the military surge in Afghanistan
- drone attacks in Pakistan
- TARP
- the health insurance mandate (aka Romneycare)
- appointments of Wall Street insiders to Treasury and other cabinet-level positions
- no prosecutions of corporate criminals
- no investigations into the criminal activities of the Bush administration
- permits for mountaintop removal in coal-producing states
- guns in national parks
- the weak response to the Gulf oil spill
While I agree that Republicans aren't likely to produce better policies, I refuse to support any more Democrats until the Democratic Party starts acting like a real opposition to the GOP. Maybe a lot of young people are too naive and idealistic to see what the Democrats have become, but those of us who've followed politics for 20 years or more can see precisely what these people are trying to do, and all the fearmongering in the world isn't going to distract us from that.
Cool! that means the Thugs will win!
me-oww!
Dems in the House. 1992, 256 to 176 GOp.
Dems in the House 1994, 198 to 236 GOp.
Dems in the House 1996, 206 to 228 GOp.
Dems in the House 1998, 211 to 223 GOp.
Dems in the House 2000, 212 to 221 GOp.
Dems in the House 2002, 204 to 229 GOp.
Dems in the House 2004, 202 to 232 GOp.
Dems in the House 2006, 233 to 202 GOp.
Dems in the House 2008, 257 to 178 GOp.
The Senate:
Dems in the Senate. 1992, 56 to 44 GOp
Dems in the Senate. 1994, 47 to 53 GOp.
Dems in the Senate 1996, 45 to 55 GOp
Dems in the Senate, 1998, 45 to 55 GOp.
Dems in the Senate, 2000, 50 to 50 GOp.
Dems in the Senate, 2002, 49 to 51 GOp.
Dems in the Senate, 2004, 45 to 55 GOp.
Dems in the Senate 2006, 51 to 49 GOp.
Dems in the Senate 2008, 59 to 41 GOp.
Try as you will, you need to do better research. Do whatever your heart desires. Go ahead, I really don't care. As you can see from what I posted above, you are wrong. Go ahead, twist it, spin it, twirl it around on your head. I don't care. You are misguided. Go ahead, vote for the party of No.
The obstruction party. It fits you perfectly.
Keep on saying vote GOper. No ones paying any attention to you anymore. Most folks just look and shrug at what you post. Not worth responding to anymore. Multiple shades of gray here bud. Shades you can't even begin to see. So go ahead and have at it.
I could take on your list above. But I've done it so many times now that it's boring to try to convince you otherwise. Plus, I'm tired of trying.
But the part that gets me is, you say vote GOp. Vote for the very same people who really fucked this country up. That makes no sense.
You may be willing to risk it. But I'm not. If you're waiting for a perfect President , Run for office.
What about the fiscal year? You didn't answer that? Oh never mind. It would probably just sail right over your head anyway.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
The Obama Administration is not legally required to take any case to the Supreme Court, yet time after time on issues of equal rights for gays, that is exactly what President Obama has pushed for. President Obama gives great lip services to the concept of equal rights for gays, but hasn't really done much to walk the talk.
The military ban on gays under "Don't Ask Don't Tell" could be dead and buried, but instead its alive and kicking because the Obama Administration is appealing the judge's ruling. DOMA could be dead and buried, but again, the Obama Administration is appealing that judge's ruling. Giving us gays little shiny trinkets in the guise of giving us equality just doesn't cut it.
Mr. President, in the words of *cough* Sharon Angle, "man up".
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
We watched the "town hall" gathering online, on MTV/BTE live. A question was about whether he thinks being gay is a choice, and to his great credit, he explained, "No, I think people are born the way they are." Looked like he was sincere.
"Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned. Love is given." --Unknown author, found in Guide to Texas Etiquette by Kinky Friedman
Really? you shits haven't had enough TIME?
How long did you fucks need to end segregation, after the order was signed?
me-oww!
The Cherokee Tribe won a Supreme Court decision in their favor, that they couldn't be kicked off their land, but it wasn't enforced. Thus they were the last tribe to get to Oklahoma. The part of the tribe that had seen the writing on the wall and went willingly was not on the Trail of Tears, got choicer land, and that split within the tribe was reflected a half-century later when the Katy Railroad route was hijacked by the descendants of the same early-bird Cherokee, and went through their town of Vinita rather than where it was planned. Even today there is still a split amongst these people.
Integration in rural western Alabama didn't happen until the mid-1970s when the Feds went and enforced the law on the education level; the white families immediately formed a private, Baptist school and so the black children inherited the nicer buildings but weren't really integrated.
My point is, the Pentagon will probably drag their feet on this, because they really hate civilians telling them what to do.
"Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned. Love is given." --Unknown author, found in Guide to Texas Etiquette by Kinky Friedman
Seven if you count the two years it took Truman after appointing a commission to issue the executive order in 1948.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/stud...
This is why I laugh at all the "Obama should do it like Truman" nonsense. And Truman did not have statutory law to overcome.
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
at least they had a decision and weren't having a snowball's chance in hell of walking it back. With all this bitching about the dire straights about the economy, surely we could save some minor ducats by just letting it run its course.
me-oww!
The Feds do whatever the Military Industrial Corporate Complex tells them to do.
Holder: US will enforce marijuana laws despite how Californians may vote
Screw Holder. He isn't upholding justice in our country!!
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
Surprise!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaCPlKlFqXg&fe...
Don't pop the cork
Or shoot your wad yet...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I was a teenager when this got passed. But I thought gays were not allowed to serve in the military and DADT was put into place to allow gay men and women to serve as long as they never admitted to being gay.. If DADT is repealed will they go back to not allowing gays to serve in the military? (at least the ones not very good at hiding that they are gay, kind of like before, kind of like now.)
DADT was a product of the times and it did allow gays to serve in the military. It wasn't exactly a Jim Crow law. Times have changed, thankfully, and it's time for DADT to go. Other countries have stopped this sort of discrimination without adverse consequences.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
A little list of countries that allows gays in the military
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientati...
* 2.1 Albania
* 2.2 Argentina
* 2.3 Australia
* 2.4 Austria
* 2.5 Belgium
* 2.6 Canada
* 2.7 Colombia
* 2.8 Czech Republic
* 2.9 Denmark
* 2.10 Estonia
* 2.11 Finland
* 2.12 France
* 2.13 Germany
* 2.14 Ireland
* 2.15 Israel
* 2.16 Italy
* 2.17 Lithuania
* 2.18 Luxembourg
* 2.19 Malta
* 2.20 The Netherlands
* 2.21 New Zealand
* 2.22 Norway
* 2.23 Peru
* 2.24 Philippines
* 2.25 Poland
* 2.26 Romania
* 2.27 Russia
* 2.28 Slovenia
* 2.29 South Africa
* 2.30 Spain
* 2.31 Sweden
* 2.32 Switzerland
* 2.33 Taiwan
* 2.34 United Kingdom
o 2.34.1 Bermuda
* 2.35 Uruguay
Makes you wonder.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
Officials say they need time to institute new policies to ensure that the change won't affect combat readiness or morale.
I fail to see how it would affect mission readiness. Gays are already serving "secretly" and no one has complained about mission readiness.
And as for morale, if gays are doing their jobs, they're not the problem. Kick out the ones who aren't doing their jobs. Homophobes are not the victims here, they're the problem.
far left loon >.<
I always cringe at the desegregation comparison because gays are already serving in the military. All they need to do is to you know.. stop investigating them and kicking them out.
It depends. Before DADT, there wasn't a legislative order regarding gays in the military. At that point the executive (president) set policy regarding gays, which is why Clinton was poised to allow gays to serve by executive order. Then congress got involved and passed DADT and there were enough Democrats voting with the Republicans on it to override presidential veto.
So once DADT was overturned by the courts, the ability for gays to serve openly will again be at the discretion of the executive.
In addition, the language of the so called legislative repeal of DADT pretty much does the same thing; i.e. move DADT repeal to be at the discretion of the executive and the pentagon. Which means should the DADT repeal in the defense authorization pass and the Obama administration implements it, there is no congressional law preventing a future Republican president from banning gays from serving altogether.
What investigations?
Isn't an investigation like "asking"?
Talk about dishonerable.
So now the ultraconsertive military is actually ahead of the Obama administration on this issue. What does that say about this administration?
than in the admin.
me-oww!
That they are gay?
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
Comments are closed on this entry