Army: Gays still can be dismissed if they speak up

[American]

Link

Apr 1 07:17 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Reversing course, Army Secretary John McHugh warned soldiers Thursday that they still can be discharged for admitting they are gay, saying he misspoke earlier this week when he suggested the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy had been temporarily suspended.
The public stumble by a senior service official is an indication of the issue's legal complexity. The Pentagon has said it wants to hear from gay troops as it conducts a broad study on how it could lift the ban, as President Barack Obama wants.
But to do that, gay service members would have to break the law, which prohibits them from discussing their sexual orientation.
Defense Department officials say they plan to hire an outside contractor to survey the troops, and that gay troops won't be punished for sharing their views with that third party.
"Until Congress repeals 'don't ask, don't tell,' it remains the law of the land and the Department of the Army and I will fulfill our obligation to uphold it," McHugh said in a statement Thursday.

Well looks like progress is being made here. This should be good for a 100 page thread too. :mrgreen:

 

[Partisan]

Link


Well looks like progress is being made here. This should be good for a 100 page thread too. :mrgreen:

I wonder how many got nabbed in the 'sting'?.......:lol:

 

[Deuce]

I wonder how many got nabbed in the 'sting'?.......:lol:

It's ongoing. Not even really started yet.

Best way to abolish it? End it today, immediately. The units are already integrated, they just don't officially know they're integrated. Other countries have had homosexual troops for a while now and none of them have had problems with it. Why is America so backwards?

 

[American]

It's ongoing. Not even really started yet.

Best way to abolish it? End it today, immediately. The units are already integrated, they just don't officially know they're integrated. Other countries have had homosexual troops for a while now and none of them have had problems with it. Why is America so backwards?

Funny how you always view us as the problem. Let's see, United States has the best military in the world.....hmmmm. We MUST be doing something wrong.

 

[Deuce]

Funny how you always view us as the problem. Let's see, United States has the best military in the world.....hmmmm. We MUST be doing something wrong.

What you're telling me is literally "might makes right."

 

[Morality Games]

"Best military in the world" is a meaningless concept. We have a bloated and expensive juggernaut that we almost never use and which costs us even more money when we do, but which would theoretically be useful in a third world war which probably won't happen because of the proliferation of nuclear weapons among all potential superpowers. Standing militaries aren't supposed to be as big as the United States's, partially because you can assemble relatively large ones in the scale of a few months if the state assumes control of the relevant industries (as was the case in WWI and WWII). U.S. military size and spending policy is a cold war relic based on the perception there is going to be a third world war at any moment and the United States has sole responsibility for providing the core of the Allied side.

 

[Redress]

Funny how you always view us as the problem. Let's see, United States has the best military in the world.....hmmmm. We MUST be doing something wrong.

Since perfection is impossible, then yes, we are not doing some things the best way. Striving to do better should always be a goal, it's how we keep the number 1 military in the world.

 

[Redress]

no spin, here, i sincerely found the president's sotu bizarre

all his proposals that nite---the bank tax, the debt commission, the spending freeze...

it's like he forgot

i've never seen anything like it, a president to make a sotu and then, y'know, within just a FEW WEEKS to have dropped all his little, y'know, talking points, at least...

no?

well, one of the things he pushed that empty evening was this, dadt

it's turned out to be not so much of a priority, either

There is a topic to this thread. You might discuss it.

As I mentioned in the other thread, this points out the complete absurdity to DADT. They cannot even talk to gay soldiers about it, since then they have to kick them out, so they have to hire a third party(Rand probably?) to do it.

 

[The Prof]

this dadt was another priority for a wednesday nite

another of those now utterly forgotten positions staked out in a president's always consequential sotu

except in this case

cuz everything the president put forth that nite---the bank tax, the debt commission, the spending freeze...

it's like he forgot

i've never seen anything like it, a president making a sotu and then, y'know, just a FEW WEEKS later, to have forgotten all the talking points, at least

he's not gonna follow thru on dadt any more than he did on his bank tax, just words

 

[Vader]

Link


Well looks like progress is being made here. This should be good for a 100 page thread too. :mrgreen:

It's time for that General to receive a dishonorable discharge.

 

[braindrain]

"Best military in the world" is a meaningless concept. We have a bloated and expensive juggernaut that we almost never use and which costs us even more money when we do, but which would theoretically be useful in a third world war which probably won't happen because of the proliferation of nuclear weapons among all potential superpowers. Standing militaries aren't supposed to be as big as the United States's, partially because you can assemble relatively large ones in the scale of a few months if the state assumes control of the relevant industries (as was the case in WWI and WWII). U.S. military size and spending policy is a cold war relic based on the perception there is going to be a third world war at any moment and the United States has sole responsibility for providing the core of the Allied side.

Really so tell me how are you suppossed to train all the soldiers and get them experienced to do thier jobs effectively in just a few months. And how would we produce the tons of sophisticated equipment in just a few months if the factories are not already set up to build this equipment. Will the tooling and dies just be formed out of thin air. Do you have any idea how much R@D goes into building a new airplane. Let alone how long it takes to build and test one. I dont belive you have ever been able to build up an effective army in months and you for sure cant do it with the tecnology that is involved in the millitary today. Try and not talk about things you have no idea about please

 

[American]

What you're telling me is literally "might makes right."

We have the best trained troops in the world. There is plenty of PC policies being promoted in the military. It not about just might, it's about the quality throughout our military. All the OP says that the policy stands until it's officially resinded. But you have to be cautious how you change the military, and I don't give a damn what other countries do, because WE are the standard of the world for military quality, no them.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Yeah they're moving towards getting rid of "3rd party outing," which was the way DADT was supposed to be to begin with. I don't understand why they seem to think repealing DADT would require some complicated implementation. It's really no different from having females in the military. If somebody makes unwanted advances, then it's sexual harassment. I think the members of the armed service are mature and professional enough to function without DADT.

Funny how you always view us as the problem. Let's see, United States has the best military in the world.....hmmmm. We MUST be doing something wrong.

Yeah we spend too much on it.:2razz: