• 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"

Scorpion89 said:
This is why DADT can't be changed.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(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.

End of the discussion the reason why DADT was enacted was because of this section. The USSC has refused to rule this or any part of the UCMJ Un-Constitutional hence the reason DADT was enacted christ folks go and ****ing learn the UCMJ
Click to expand...

Scorp the UCMJ does not superceed the authority of the Commander in Chief.
 
Ethereal said:
Statutory law can be changed at anytime by the us congress.
Click to expand...

But it's not Satutory Law :doh what you don't think they would have changed it back in 1996 if they could have huh really think about it. Hence DADT was enacted.
 
goldendog said:
Scorp the UCMJ does not superceed the authority of the Commander in Chief.
Click to expand...

Yes it does the CoC can't just decide to change the UCMJ anytime he/she feels like it. Same as the CoC can't go and change any US Laws because he/she doesn't like them.
 
Scorpion89 said:
AND READ THIS SECTION OF THE UCMJ

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(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.

End of discussion DADT can't be changed.

So I expect all of you folks who work at the Pentagon to stop by my office on Tues. PM me and I'll give you my office and floor # and then we can have anice chat with some of the JAG folks at the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here wants you to get fired, so I don't foresee this happening.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Yes it does the CoC can't just decide to change the UCMJ anytime he/she feels like it. Same as the CoC can't go and change any US Laws because he/she doesn't like them.
Click to expand...

But do you know who can? I'll give you 3 guesses.
 
goldendog said:
Scorp the UCMJ does not superceed the authority of the Commander in Chief.
Click to expand...

Which has been my argument throughout this thread. Obama, as Commander in Chief, CAN issue an executive order ending Article 125, as well as DADT. Thank you for "getting it". :)
 
Last edited:
Scorpion89 said:
But it's not Satutory Law :doh
Click to expand...

Yeah: :doh

The UCMJ is 10 USC 47. I linked you to it a few posts back. It's statutory law. Period.

I guess you simply won't be deterred from looking like a fool here.
 
disneydude said:
Well if your Dad thinks the way you do. He is wrong too. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Actually my Dad was part of the Team the came up with DADT so once agin folks who might know something about this huh?????

When Section 925 Art. 125 was thrown into the mix the discussion went to the USSC for a ruling the USSC came back and stated that neither Congress nor the President could over tunr the UCMJ for politacl reason, the Military had the right ot have certain Laws that while outside the US Military could be consider UN-Constitutional with-in the Military it was decide for Good Order Section 925 Art. 125 couldn't be over turned.
 
Scorpion89 said:
AND READ THIS SECTION OF THE UCMJ

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(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.

End of discussion DADT can't be changed.

So I expect all of you folks who work at the Pentagon to stop by my office on Tues. PM me and I'll give you my office and floor # and then we can have anice chat with some of the JAG folks at the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

You know, I would dearly love to do just that. But I don't think you'd be able to take all the snickering you'll hear as you walk out of rooms for the next several weeks.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Actually my Dad was part of the Team the came up with DADT so once agin folks who might know something about this huh?????

When Section 925 Art. 125 was thrown into the mix the discussion went to the USSC for a ruling the USSC came back and stated that neither Congress nor the President could over tunr the UCMJ for politacl reason, the Military had the right ot have certain Laws that while outside the US Military could be consider UN-Constitutional with-in the Military it was decide for Good Order Section 925 Art. 125 couldn't be over turned.
Click to expand...

This did not happen.
 
danarhea said:
Which has been my argument throughout this thread. Obama, as Commander in Chief, CAN issue an executive order ending Article 125, as well as DADT. Thank you for "getting it". :)
Click to expand...

No he can't please go and try to learn something about UCMJ, it's slightly diferent then regual US Law. Exec. Order can't be used to change UCMJ it would be a violation of Excut. Power.

As I said if it could have been changed then in 1996 Mr. Clinton would have signed an Excut. order to do it.
 
Scorpion89 said:
No he can't please go and try to learn something about UCMJ, it's slightly diferent then regual US Law. Exec. Order can't be used to change UCMJ it would be a violation of Excut. Power.

As I said if it could have been changed then in 1996 Mr. Clinton would have signed an Excut. order to do it.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, I don't know much about the UCMJ, but I am not going to spend the time it takes to learn it all. After all, you didn't either. :mrgreen:
 
Scorpion89 said:
Actually my Dad was part of the Team the came up with DADT so once agin folks who might know something about this huh?????

When Section 925 Art. 125 was thrown into the mix the discussion went to the USSC for a ruling the USSC came back and stated that neither Congress nor the President could over tunr the UCMJ for politacl reason, the Military had the right ot have certain Laws that while outside the US Military could be consider UN-Constitutional with-in the Military it was decide for Good Order Section 925 Art. 125 couldn't be over turned.
Click to expand...

So oh wise one please explain how DADT came to be in the first place.
 
Scorpion89 said:
No he can't please go and try to learn something about UCMJ, it's slightly diferent then regual US Law. Exec. Order can't be used to change UCMJ it would be a violation of Excut. Power.

As I said if it could have been changed then in 1996 Mr. Clinton would have signed an Excut. order to do it.
Click to expand...

Dude.

Here you go.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

DADT was enacted as Public Law 103-160, passed by Congress, after which it became 10 USC 37 Sec 654.

US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
 
RightinNYC said:
This did not happen.
Click to expand...

Actually yes it did don't forget UCMJ is a set of Laws for the Military which as you know have different Laws then the General Puplic.

In the Real World Section 925 Art. 125 would be ruled UN-Constitutional as a matter of fact it has been Texas Case come's to mind.
 
Scorpion89

The UCMJ is statutory law:

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47) , is the foundation of military law in the United States.

Uniform Code of Military Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Statutory law can be changed at anytime by the US Congress:

The United States Statutes at Large, commonly referred to as the Statutes at Large and abbreviated Stat., is the official source for the laws and concurrent resolutions passed by United States Congress.

United States Statutes at Large - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Why are you unable to understand this!?
 
Oh, and note -- being part of Chapter 37 and not 47, DADT isn't even IN the UCMJ.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
If that is true....I wouldn't be bragging about it. DADT is the sorriest piece of **** that I have seen.
Click to expand...

Yea, Colin Powell doesn't know anything about the military.
 
How did we ever win ww2? Wasn't our policy the same?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom