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

winston53660 · Oct 13, 2009

apdst said:
Those links show how sexual harrassment regulations have been abused in the military? I opened them and they didn't appear to support such claims.

Well then maybe what you claimed was flat out wrong?

roguenuke · Oct 13, 2009

apdst said:
All true. Can't expect an E-3 to know all that.

Not all true, and I'm an E-6.

The fact that Congress can change the UCMJ has been explained to you in earlier parts of this thread. No need to :beatdeadhorse

If a person is actually punished for a charge of sexual harassment for just opening a door and saying "I'm gay" (assuming DADT were removed), then I would hope that the person charged with SH actually files as many grievances against the command as possible. I however, doubt that most commands would allow this to get up to NJP anyway. The EO can advise the CO on what would actually constitute blatant sexual harassment, and what can be considered something that should be handled at the lowest level possible. So unless there is more to the story or the EO and CO are both paranoid, incompetent, or ignorant, then they would probably just have more sexual harassment/red-yellow-green light training. I learned a lot from my experience that I posted earlier.

And as for shipboard relations, you can't show public displays of affection on ship or while in public on base, but, with the exception of schools, you are allowed to have members of the opposite sex in barracks rooms. And you can have a romantic relationship with one of your shipmates as long as you are not violating fraternization regulations and it is in private off the ship. I've seen several cases where couples from the ship got married. The chain of command simply transfers one of them to another command, generally in the same area.

ReverendHellh0und · Oct 13, 2009

Redress said:
Gays have served in every branch of the military for years. I linked to a report that estimates over 1 million gay veterans, with them going back to Korea.

Even the Navy? :shock::2razz:

Redress · Oct 13, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Even the Navy? :shock::2razz:

You sir, are a smartass. When Clinton was elected, since he had promised to allow gays in the military, a poster was made that made the rounds in the navy, a silhouette of 2 male soldiers walking hand in hand into the sunset, with the caption "The Navy, it's not just a job, it's a date".

apdst · Oct 13, 2009

creation said:
Thank you.

But what the hell are you talking about? When a female medic is at an FOB, who is she with? A combat unit. When they all go out on patrol who is she patrolling with? A combat unit.

As a general rule, women don't go on combat patrols, with combat arms units.

In my experience co-ed units are less likely to tear up the bar when they have females around - the need to impress with calm maturity you see.

I haven't seen any pattern to suggest that.

What rights?

Soldiers, per the UCMJ, have the right to file grievances.

Exactly, so apply these higher standards of conduct and enforce them - simple.
In the end this argument is over in any case, both morally and effectively thanks to the British enforcement of anti-discrimination practices regarding gays. If the British are doing it, it wont be long before the worlds biggest and most modern army, the US armed forces is doing it also.

This ain't Britain. Besides, 99% of female soldiers in the British army say they experienced some form of sexual harassment. Is that really the standard we want to meet?

Sexual harassment rife in armed forces | UK news | The Guardian

apdst · Oct 13, 2009

roguenuke said:
Not all true, and I'm an E-6.

The fact that Congress can change the UCMJ has been explained to you in earlier parts of this thread. No need to :beatdeadhorse

No, they can't and no one has shown the process to do so, if that were true.

If a person is actually punished for a charge of sexual harassment for just opening a door and saying "I'm gay" (assuming DADT were removed), then I would hope that the person charged with SH actually files as many grievances against the command as possible. I however, doubt that most commands would allow this to get up to NJP anyway. The EO can advise the CO on what would actually constitute blatant sexual harassment, and what can be considered something that should be handled at the lowest level possible. So unless there is more to the story or the EO and CO are both paranoid, incompetent, or ignorant, then they would probably just have more sexual harassment/red-yellow-green light training. I learned a lot from my experience that I posted earlier.

Obviously, things are handled differently in the Navy. In the Army, a soldier that is charged with sexual harassment; and the incident proceeds beyond an on the spot correction, or personal counseling, is going to feel fortunate t dodge the charge and isn't going to file a grievance because he/she feels wrongfully accused.

And as for shipboard relations, you can't show public displays of affection on ship or while in public on base, but, with the exception of schools, you are allowed to have members of the opposite sex in barracks rooms. And you can have a romantic relationship with one of your shipmates as long as you are not violating fraternization regulations and it is in private off the ship. I've seen several cases where couples from the ship got married. The chain of command simply transfers one of them to another command, generally in the same area.

In the Army, males aren't allowed to occupy female billets and vice-versa.

Redress · Oct 13, 2009

apdst said:
No, they can't and no one has shown the process to do so, if that were true.

This is just you being stubborn.

Obviously, things are handled differently in the Navy. In the Army, a soldier that is charged with sexual harassment; and the incident proceeds beyond an on the spot correction, or personal counseling, is going to feel fortunate t dodge the charge and isn't going to file a grievance because he/she feels wrongfully accused.

The rules are the same, though handling of them at command level might be different.

In the Army, males aren't allowed to occupy female billets and vice-versa.

That is different by base and barracks in the Navy. Barracks with private bathrooms opposite sex was allowed in rooms till 2000, in barracks with community bathrooms, opposite sex only allowed in common rooms was the general rule.

apdst · Oct 13, 2009

Redress said:
This is just you being stubborn.

Ok, then document the process that is used to change the UCMJ. Should be simple, right?

The rules are the same, though handling of them at command level might be different.

Exactly.

That is different by base and barracks in the Navy. Barracks with private bathrooms opposite sex was allowed in rooms till 2000, in barracks with community bathrooms, opposite sex only allowed in common rooms was the general rule.

There's very little variance in the Army.

Redress · Oct 13, 2009

apdst said:
Ok, then document the process that is used to change the UCMJ. Should be simple, right?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCMJ]Uniform Code of Military Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The current version is printed in the latest version of the Manual for Courts-Martial (2008), incorporating changes made by the President (executive orders) and National Defense Authorization Acts 2006 and 2007.

Hey look, Executive orders and acts of congress changed the UCMJ last time it was changed...

Exactly.

There is a framework within the UCMJ as to how these are handled. The differences would be largely at command level, and how investigations are done and what exact penalties are issued. The overall rules are the same. Sexual harassment is a red herring as far as gays in the military, since there is no evidence that gay soldiers are more prone to sexually harass some one than strait soldiers.

There's very little variance in the Army.

Does the Army have a wide variety of barracks types?

apdst · Oct 13, 2009

Redress said:
Uniform Code of Military Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey look, Executive orders and acts of congress changed the UCMJ last time it was changed...

Yeah, they added stuff to it. They didn't delete laws from it. If it's as easy as folks claim, what's the hold up?

There is a framework within the UCMJ as to how these are handled. The differences would be largely at command level, and how investigations are done and what exact penalties are issued. The overall rules are the same. Sexual harassment is a red herring as far as gays in the military, since there is no evidence that gay soldiers are more prone to sexually harass some one than strait soldiers.

It's not just about gay soldiers harassing straight soldiers. It's possible for straight soldiers to harass gay soldiers, as well. Did you factor that in.

Does the Army have a wide variety of barracks types?

Not really. But, regardless of the archetecture and floor plans, there are male areas and female areas. Males ans females can occupy the same building, but each floor is designated male, or female.

Redress · Oct 13, 2009

apdst said:
Yeah, they added stuff to it. They didn't delete laws from it. If it's as easy as folks claim, what's the hold up?

This is a question many of us are asking. It is as easy as that, and it's not done, and we are not happy.

It's not just about gay soldiers harassing straight soldiers. It's possible for straight soldiers to harass gay soldiers, as well. Did you factor that in.

Um, that is irrelevant to what I said. I did not mention strait or gay targets, simply that there is no evidence that gay soldiers are more prone to sexually harass any one(and evidence of the opposite, see study linked earlier). In other words, allowing gays to serve would probably have no effect on the number of sexual harassment cases in the military.

Not really. But, regardless of the archetecture and floor plans, there are male areas and female areas. Males ans females can occupy the same building, but each floor is designated male, or female.

It was somewhat different, and we could visit opposite sex rooms up to a certain hour, and the rules regarding that where mostly ignored.

apdst · Oct 13, 2009

Redress said:
This is a question many of us are asking. It is as easy as that, and it's not done, and we are not happy.

I think the answer is: it ain't as easy as you think. Between the dad-burn laws and the blowback that will surely come from the military, it's going to be damn near impossible to change the law. I mean, we're talking about abolishing the article in the UCMJ that forbids sodomy.

Um, that is irrelevant to what I said. I did not mention strait or gay targets, simply that there is no evidence that gay soldiers are more prone to sexually harass any one(and evidence of the opposite, see study linked earlier). In other words, allowing gays to serve would probably have no effect on the number of sexual harassment cases in the military.

It has everything to do with what you said. The argument is that gays will harass straight soldiers. The argument is that both gays and straights could be subject to a whole new environment of sexual harassment. Gay soldiers have rights, too. Look, let's be realistic. Gay soldiers are human. They're prone to the same shortcomings as straight soldiers. If gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, expect gay on gay harassment, gay on straight harassment and straight on gay harassment. It's statistically impossible for it not to happen.

It was somewhat different, and we could visit opposite sex rooms up to a certain hour, and the rules regarding that where mostly ignored.

If you ignored those restrictions in the Army, you could realistically be charged with intent to rape of every female that lives in that billet.

You gotta stop and think that there's a big difference between the kind of person that joins the Navy and the kind of person that joins the Army. Army personel require alot more tough love than navy personel do. The school of thought being, if you can't depend on a soldier to do what he's told in the safety of the garrison, how can you depend on him to do what he's told amidst the dangers of the battlefield? Discipline in an infantry unit does and must come swift and harsh. Gay soldiers can, will and must be held to the same standards.

Like I said in a past post, Army officers are going to take the path of least resistance when it comes to sexual harassment cases. That path is to crucify the accused and move on with their careers. It might not be like that in the Navy, but trust me, that's how it works in the Army.

creation · Oct 13, 2009

apdst said:
As a general rule, women don't go on combat patrols, with combat arms units.

As a general rule neither do most men.

I haven't seen any pattern to suggest that.

I certainly have.

Soldiers, per the UCMJ, have the right to file grievances.

And in what sense are these rights restricted by allowing gays?

This ain't Britain. Besides, 99% of female soldiers in the British army say they experienced some form of sexual harassment. Is that really the standard we want to meet?

Sexual harassment rife in armed forces | UK news | The Guardian

Why do keep saying this aint Britain? Of course it isnt. But Britain is much like the US armed forces, and its far more traditional and regimented to boot with much more macho BS in its ranks given the society its based on.

But, your argument is that harrassment will increase. The counter is that gays will be able to defend themselves in the open with real and legal means, rather than hide their suffering. Plus he US gets to keep soldiers that it so badly needs. Besides, women are not going to be removed from the army. It is the army that must adapt not the women. So why not for gays too?

apdst · Oct 13, 2009

creation said:
As a general rule neither do most men.

Male soldiers don't do combat patrols in combat arms units? Who does?

I certainly have.

I've enver seen soldiers from a combat arms unit become more unrully on their off time than soldiers from other branch of arms.

And in what sense are these rights restricted by allowing gays?

I never said it was. You sated, "what rights?", as to say that soldier don't have rights.

Why do keep saying this aint Britain? Of course it isnt. But Britain is much like the US armed forces, and its far more traditional and regimented to boot with much more macho BS in its ranks given the society its based on.

British forces are nothing like US forces. US forces consists mostly of Americans. British forces consist mostly of Britons. Two different cultures and one can't be used as exmaple of how the other should operate it's miltiary.

But, your argument is that harrassment will increase. The counter is that gays will be able to defend themselves in the open with real and legal means, rather than hide their suffering. Plus he US gets to keep soldiers that it so badly needs.

That's true, gays will be able to defend themselves against harassment and that's why you will see a sharp increase in sexual harassment, which will ultimately have a negative impact on our military's image.

Besides, women are not going to be removed from the army. It is the army that must adapt not the women. So why not for gays too?

You're wrong, females have to adapt to military life the same way that males do.

Harshaw · Oct 13, 2009

apdst said:
No, they can't and no one has shown the process to do so, if that were true.

Good God, man. :doh

Both houses of Congress pass a bill and the President signs it.

There. There's the process. You should have learned it in fourth grade, if not sooner.

apdst · Oct 13, 2009

Harshaw said:
Good God, man. :doh

Both houses of Congress pass a bill and the President signs it.

There. There's the process. You should have learned it in fourth grade, if not sooner.

I can't say this enough: if it's that easy, then what's stopping them?

Personally, I don't think it's as cut-n-dried as you believe. There's certainly no precedence for it.

Harshaw · Oct 13, 2009

apdst said:
I can't say this enough: if it's that easy, then what's stopping them?

Probably the same thing which stops them from passing any other law.

Personally, I don't think it's as cut-n-dried as you believe. There's certainly no precedence for it.

No precedent for the US Congress enacting a change to the US Code? Really? No precedent?

apdst · Oct 13, 2009

Harshaw said:
Probably the same thing which stops them from passing any other law.

We're not talking about passing a law, we're talking about abolishing a law.

No precedent for the US Congress enacting a change to the US Code? Really? No precedent?

There's a precedent for Congress abolishing a law? Ok, let's see it.

Glinda · Oct 13, 2009

apdst said:
There's a precedent for Congress abolishing a law? Ok, let's see it.

Prohibition.

apdst · Oct 13, 2009

Glinda said:
Prohibition.

Wrong. Wanna try again?

Harshaw · Oct 13, 2009

apdst said:
We're not talking about passing a law, we're talking about abolishing a law.

There's a precedent for Congress abolishing a law? Ok, let's see it.

US CODE: Title 34,TITLE 34—NAVY [REPEALED]

US CODE: Title 8,106 to 106c. Repealed. Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subch. V, 504, 54 Stat. 1172

12121. — Repealed. - US 12121. — Repealed. - US Code :: Justia

41 U.S.C. § 6 : US Code - Section 6: Repealed. Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, Sec. 1(98)-(105), 65 Stat. 705

21 USC 171 to 174 - US Code - Title 21: Food and Drugs - 21 USC 171 - Sec. 171 to 174. Repealed. Pub. L. 91-513, title III, Sec. 1101(a)(2), (4), Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1291 - vLex

50 U.S.C. § 351 : US Code - Section 351 TO 355: Repealed. Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 656, title III, Sec. 307, 69 Stat. 589

23 USC [ 313 - US Code - Title 23: Highways - [Sec. 313. Repealed. Pub. L. 89-564, title I, Sec. 102(a), Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 734] - vLex

US Code Title 50

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Repea...+passive+assets.(Tax+Executives...-a018067570

Never mind that any law passed which contradicts a previous law acts as a pro tanto repeal of that law. And besides, they don't even have to get that grandiose; all they have to do is amend the section.

Redress · Oct 13, 2009

Harshaw said:
US CODE: Title 34,TITLE 34—NAVY [REPEALED]

US CODE: Title 8,106 to 106c. Repealed. Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subch. V, 504, 54 Stat. 1172

12121. — Repealed. - US 12121. — Repealed. - US Code :: Justia

41 U.S.C. § 6 : US Code - Section 6: Repealed. Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, Sec. 1(98)-(105), 65 Stat. 705

21 USC 171 to 174 - US Code - Title 21: Food and Drugs - 21 USC 171 - Sec. 171 to 174. Repealed. Pub. L. 91-513, title III, Sec. 1101(a)(2), (4), Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1291 - vLex

50 U.S.C. § 351 : US Code - Section 351 TO 355: Repealed. Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 656, title III, Sec. 307, 69 Stat. 589

23 USC [ 313 - US Code - Title 23: Highways - [Sec. 313. Repealed. Pub. L. 89-564, title I, Sec. 102(a), Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 734] - vLex

US Code Title 50

Repeal of section 956A: excess passive assets. - Free Online Library

Never mind that any law passed which contradicts a previous law acts as a pro tanto repeal of that law. And besides, they don't even have to get that grandiose; all they have to do is amend the section.

I love it when you talk Latin!

Glinda · Oct 13, 2009

apdst said:
Wrong. Wanna try again?

Congress enacts prohibition Oct. 28, 1919
In February, 1933, Congress approved the 21st Amendment, which repealed the earlier amendment and made the Volstead Act unconstitutional.

:2wave:

apdst · Oct 13, 2009

Harshaw said:
US CODE: Title 34,TITLE 34—NAVY [REPEALED]

US CODE: Title 8,106 to 106c. Repealed. Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subch. V, 504, 54 Stat. 1172

12121. — Repealed. - US 12121. — Repealed. - US Code :: Justia

41 U.S.C. § 6 : US Code - Section 6: Repealed. Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, Sec. 1(98)-(105), 65 Stat. 705

21 USC 171 to 174 - US Code - Title 21: Food and Drugs - 21 USC 171 - Sec. 171 to 174. Repealed. Pub. L. 91-513, title III, Sec. 1101(a)(2), (4), Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1291 - vLex

50 U.S.C. § 351 : US Code - Section 351 TO 355: Repealed. Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 656, title III, Sec. 307, 69 Stat. 589

23 USC [ 313 - US Code - Title 23: Highways - [Sec. 313. Repealed. Pub. L. 89-564, title I, Sec. 102(a), Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 734] - vLex

US Code Title 50

Repeal of section 956A: excess passive assets. - Free Online Library

Never mind that any law passed which contradicts a previous law acts as a pro tanto repeal of that law. And besides, they don't even have to get that grandiose; all they have to do is amend the section.

Those laws that were repealed were nothing, really. One deals with the, "role of the United States Navy", which was repealed when the Navy's role was changed. Another deals with manufacturing misbranded foods in territories. Another excepted the amount payable for goods by the administrator of The Civil Areonautics Board when the amount didn't exceed $100. And, another deals with highways in some fashion.

We're talking about repealing the law that forbids sodimy. Can you really believe that a law forbidding sodomy is going to be repealed? Laws are repealed when they know long apply, usually. The sodomy law still applies.

But, hey, believe what you want. In October of 2012, you're going to sitting here bitching because PBO didn't abolish DADT.

Harshaw · Oct 13, 2009

apdst said:
Those laws that were repealed were nothing, really. One deals with the, "role of the United States Navy", which was repealed when the Navy's role was changed. Another deals with manufacturing misbranded foods in territories. Another excepted the amount payable for goods by the administrator of The Civil Areonautics Board when the amount didn't exceed $100. And, another deals with highways in some fashion.

We're talking about repealing the law that forbids sodimy. Can you really believe that a law forbidding sodomy is going to be repealed? Laws are repealed when they know long apply, usually. The sodomy law still applies.

But, hey, believe what you want. In October of 2012, you're going to sitting here bitching because PBO didn't abolish DADT.

This is a complete nonsense response to a post which obliterated every leg you have to stand on.

Congress can amend the US Code any time it wishes. Period.

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

winston53660

roguenuke

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

apdst

apdst

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

apdst

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

apdst

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

apdst

creation

apdst

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

apdst

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

apdst

Glinda

You kids get off my lawn!

apdst

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Glinda

You kids get off my lawn!

apdst

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot