• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

Yea, Colin Powell doesn't know anything about the military.


Sorry....but legislation that allows somebody to serve if they lie and kicks them out if they tell the truth.....makes no sense at all.

It doesn't take anyone with even 1/2 a brain to see that.
 
The Joint Chiefs Quarterly, which is the publication of said body, released the following editorial. It was written by Colonel Om Prakrash and vetted by the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i55/14.pdf

If you can't get any clearer on why the policy needs to end, then you're just not paying attention.

It emasculates the entire policy for placing the military in an ethical bind and compromising an organization that values its moral and ethical integrity as paramount.

Conservatives are fond of saying that we should let the military make military policy. Apparently that only applies when it doesn't offend their righteous sensibilities. You can say that you think gay people should have the same rights, but you cannot say that and mean it when the reason you provide for denying them the basic right to be openly homosexual is that they're too craven to control themselves. 12,000 men and women have been kicked out of the armed services since the adoption of the policy. They were told to leave for no other reason than they were biologically compelled to like the same sex.

In a nation that prides itself on openness and equality, on patriotism and on service to the nation, I find it sad and depressing that people who volunteered to put their life on the line are denied that right because they were simply different.

I know why Obama hasn't acted yet, and it annoys me, but yes, but I am also willing to give him time. He's less than a year into his presidency after all.

Link doesn't work.

My objection to abolishing DADT is about unit cohesiveness in infantry units. Doing so would add many “interesting” new elements to already volatile environment…

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it...
 
I edited the link.

And it is broke, so it needs fixing. Read the article.
 
Sorry....but legislation that allows somebody to serve if they lie and kicks them out if they tell the truth.....makes no sense at all.

It doesn't take anyone with even 1/2 a brain to see that.

Do you really think you know what's best for an American infantry unit?
 
From page 3 of the article I posted:

In 1993, as the language was drafted for
§654, there were no direct scientific studies
regarding the effects of acknowledged homosexuals
on either unit cohesion or combat
effectiveness.
Furthermore, it is incorrect
to equate the two because unit cohesion is
only one of many factors that go into combat
effectiveness. Potentially far outweighing unit
cohesion, for example, are logistics, training,
equipment, organization, and leadership, just
to name a few
.
 
Do you really think you know what's best for an American infantry unit?

I know what is inherently right and wrong.

We teach our children to tell the truth and the importance of being honest.

If you cannot see how this flys in the face of that than you have no understanding of the word "integrity".


(or does honesty not apply in the case of the military?)
 
I know what is inherently right and wrong.

We teach our children to tell the truth and the importance of being honest.

Sounds like it would make for a great Mr. Rogers episode but not something worth sacrificing military efficiency over.

If you cannot see how this flys in the face of that than you have no understanding of the word "integrity".

I guess I just care more about people dying than being sweet and honest.

(or does honesty not apply in the case of the military?)

Sign the papers and find out.
 
In 1993, as the language was drafted for
§654, there were no direct scientific studies
regarding the effects of acknowledged homosexuals
on either unit cohesion or combat
effectiveness.

So, there is no evidence either way.

Furthermore, it is incorrect
to equate the two because unit cohesion is
only one of many factors that go into combat
effectiveness. Potentially far outweighing unit
cohesion, for example, are logistics, training,
equipment, organization, and leadership, just
to name a few.

This is a valid contention. I would like to see some evidence of how each factor contributes to overall efficiency.
 
So, there is no evidence either way.

There actually is evidence. Military forces in other countries that do not disallow gays are not having issues, and the Israeli military is among the best in the world. Further, studies have been done which indicate that there would be no problem. Just one example: The New York Times > Log In

A 2006 poll of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans showed that 72 percent were personally comfortable interacting with gays. Bonnie Moradi, a University of Florida psychologist, and Laura Miller, a sociologist at the Rand Corporation, summarized the study this way: “The data indicated no associations between knowing a lesbian or gay unit member and ratings of perceived unit cohesion or readiness. Instead, findings pointed to the importance of leadership and instrumental quality in shaping perceptions of unit cohesion and readiness.”

The study referenced was contracted by the DoD and done by Rand Corp.
 
Sounds like it would make for a great Mr. Rogers episode but not something worth sacrificing military efficiency over.



I guess I just care more about people dying than being sweet and honest

Can you please present some evidence that the military will be inefficient and/or people will die if gays are allowed to serve openly in the military? :confused:

It's a shame that Scorpion's ignorant misinformation consumed 9 pages of this thread, when there is an actual policy discussion to be had.
 
All fine and dandy but who is going to go and tell the Military that they are going to have to change the UCMJ. Oh wait they can't because it's a US Code which can't be changed unless The United States Supreme court rule's it and the USSC has never overturned any UCMJ.

To say that the Congress and Senate can't change the UCMJ is to show that you have no understanding of how our system works.

Between the two they can add or change or take out ANY law or any part of a law in the US. Including what's in the Bill of Rights.

The only way that the USSC can affect a law is to determine weather or not it is Constitutional. Beyond that they have no power what so ever.
 
I am amazed people showed such patience, especially when there are some budding lawyers on this forum. But it also saddens me that one person (and maybe others) could have such a misinformed understanding of the doctrine of the separation of powers, and the power of Constitutional and Legislative review of the US Supreme Court.

Nevertheless interesting times indeed.

P.S why hasn't Navy Pride posted on this issue? ;)
 
All fine and dandy but who is going to go and tell the Military that they are going to have to change the UCMJ. Oh wait they can't because it's a US Code which can't be changed unless The United States Supreme court rule's it and the USSC has never overturned any UCMJ.

First of all, the UCMJ has been changed before. Article 120 for example used to have a caveat about rape that excluded the servicemember from being charged if the accusation came from his wife. This has been changed.

And for those who are not aware, Article 125, the Sodomy article, also applies to heterosexuals. However, rarely if ever is this article used against heterosexuals. The few times that it may be used is when there is another crime involved as well, such as rape or adultery, and then it is usually so the CO can add another charge and justify higher punishment. It is used as the primary law against homosexuals in almost every case. This is an obvious double standard.

Now, I will say that I have never actually seen either a heterosexual or a homosexual charged with Article 125. The few sailors that I did see get out due to homosexual behavior were all administratively discharged with no charges filed. Every command that I went to in the Navy tended to overlook certain Articles of the UCMJ specifically dealing with consensual sexual acts, such as adultery and sodomy.
 
I'm going to shoot for the moon here. But I'm thinking grand conspiracy to comply with Vatican masters.
 
You know if the rightwing really hated gays, we'd get them all in the military hoping they'd get shot, now wouldn't we?
 
You know if the rightwing really hated gays, we'd get them all in the military hoping they'd get shot, now wouldn't we?

Some one has been listening to Fear's Let's Have A War.
 
Some one has been listening to Fear's Let's Have A War.
Must be some leftwing radicals. They like to talk about the right pulling lunches away from starving school children as they eat.
 
Obama reaffirms will end 'don't ask, don't tell' - Yahoo! News

President Barack Obama pledged to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military in a speech Saturday, but acknowledged to a cheering crowd that the policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.


DADT was a horrible policy from the start. Clinton should have ended the ban on gays in the military rather than agreeing to this compromise.
Thank You President Obama for standing on your principles.

DADT rewarded lying and deceit and punished honesty. It doesn't take much of a brain to understand that there is obviously something wrong with that.

So once again, Obama didn't actually DO anything.

Someone give this President a Grammy.
 
No he can't because doing so then any open Gay Person in the Military will be subject to Section 925 Art. 125 this is why DADT came into being.

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural
carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex
or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight,
is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a
court-martial may direct.


10 U.S.C. § 925 : US Code - Section 925: Art. 125. Sodomy

Links FTW :2wave:
 
will obama end DADT before or after closing gitmo?
 
Hopefully Obama will actually do something about this. Repeal DADT and get rid of the stupid sodomy provision it was enacted for anyway. Seriously... what are they gonna do, follow all the men and women around and make sure they don't have anal sex? How do they prove in military court that someone had anal sex, anyway? Do they take pictures of every single one of their soldiers and then prosecute them if they catch them in the act of ****ing their girl or boy friend up the ass? Not to mention, where's the section that says it's a crime for a woman to have sex with another woman?

It's ****ing stupid. They need to fix it.

I'll ask you the same question how long have you been working for the DoD and how long have you been at The Pentagon huh, I might know a little bit more on said subject. He can't change DADT that was part of the Comp. when Mr. Clinton order DADT be enacted.

LMFAO

I worked for the DoD for awhile, and yes I had a Pentagon ID as well. That doesn't make you an expert on Military law since there are thousands of people who work for the DoD.

Dude, seriously.
 
Last edited:
So why doesn't he do it right now? What is he waiting for?

So once again, Obama didn't actually DO anything.

Someone give this President a Grammy.

He already has two

screenshot20091011at117.png


Link
 
Back
Top Bottom