Obama, activists lose momentum over 'don't ask'

[boston bean]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Dan Choi, a gay National Guard platoon leader, will be discharged from the military under the Obama administration, which has quietly shelved the president's campaign promise to repeal the 16-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy with the tacit acquiescence of Washington's gay lobbying establishment.

Choi is among 38 West Point graduates who came out of the closet in March with an offer to help the military recognize the contributions of gay military members..........

Choi, a 2003 West Point graduate and fluent speaker of Arabic who served an extended combat deployment in Iraq, received his notice Wednesday.

The letter told him that because of his public expression of his homosexuality, "I have negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard, the entire New York National Guard," Choi said. "That's what the letter says. I didn't feel that. The person that wrote the letter doesn't know me. I don't know him. He's never been in my unit. He doesn't know any of the soldiers in my unit."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/08/MN9L17GJM3.DTL

[BlooInBloo]

1. I'm with Yglesias on this...

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/obama-administration-set-to-fire-its-first-gay-military-linguist.php

"I totally understand that the White House political team doesn’t really want to deal with this issue, but absurd as firing soldiers for being gay was under George W. Bush it’s double-absurd for it to be happening under a president who’s acknowledged that it’s an unjust policy.

The fact of the matter is that on any given week, it’ll be more convenient to deal with this issue next week. But that just means you never get around to dealing with it. May as well just suck it up and do the right thing. "

[undergroundnomore]

2. My nephew is Gay

and he and so many others want to live a "normal" life recognized for their achievements without waiting until it is politically expedient for others to allow them to do so.

I'm glad that more states are beginning to recognize gay Marriage (which btw I will be happy when it's all just called marriage instead of a separate category such as gay marriage).

Obama promised to help those who are fighting for our country live their life without fear of repercussion for being gay. I'm saddened by this.

My nephew, my students who are gay, and my friends who are gay deserve better. I hope Obama will say "Yes we can eliminate this craziness of the don't ask don't tell policy."

Obama is better than that. I voted for him because I believed that everyone should be able to pursue their dreams unfettered.

[marshall]

3. I thought Obama had already repealed this

Wasn't it taken care of several weeks ago?

[bicentennial_baby]

4. Nope

[24601]

9. He can't repeal it - it's a law, not an EO He can, however,

stop all discharges by reserving original jurisdiction. In effect, DoD would have to refer all cases to the president for permission to discharge anyone - and nobody in DoD wants that hassle. While the law would still be on the books, the effects would stop for his term and he wold have time to work on repeal.

[No Elephants]

12. He can do better than that. He can order the military not to enforce it. It

should never have been a law to begin with. Congress had no authority to enact it. If Clinton wanted that result, he should have just issued an executive order. He did not have courage either.

[David__77]

5. It's a critical moment for Obama, and Congressional Democrats.

Will the right thing be done?

[No Elephants]

13. The right thing would have been to sign an Executive Order right after lunch on

Inauguration Day, as Carter did with amnesty. It was a campaign promise. he got elected. Elections have consequences. The flap would have been over long before now.

Time is of the essence. Will it happen at some point? Yes. Meanwhile, how many careers and lives are getting ruined.

And an Arabic linguist gone? The army has next to none of those. We are less safe because of that.

[xchrom]

6. recommend

[Mark Twain Girl]

7. I don't care who doesn't want to deal with this. This is unjustifiable. K&R. nt

[Triana]

8. This has got to be one of the stupidest f*cking laws we have...

...letting this guy go is just assinine.

Where is Obama on this? Is this YET ANOTHER damn promise he's shelving?

WHY?

Hell, THIS is an easy one.

[ldf]

10. i hate to say it

but i am not surprised in the least.

but we will still be expected to pony up money, and march in lockstep to the polls....

and i think the chances of THAT continuing to happen are going down every day.

[Psychic Consortium]

11. There will be full equal rights under Obama.

Give him time to do the job.
It will happen.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Obama can stop the discharges by executive order

and then he can push Congress to repeal DADT.

What are you waiting for, Barack?

[CreekDog]

15. 60 votes and we/he don't have them yet

it's that simple, it sucks, it's wrong and it's reality.

don't forget that LBJ had to beg and bribe southern senators NOT to filibuster civil rights legislation and it still took time to get it passed, and in fact years later, more civil rights legislation and voting rights legislation were needed.

right now with enough knuckleheads, including some in our party, a filibuster against repealing DADT will likely not be able to be ended. not only that, as happened with Bill Clinton's effort, a parade of military people will go on cable and dial up whatever doomsday scenario they can to stop the repeal.

so, yes, this needs some coordination. the civil rights acts of 1957 and 1964 required advanced planning and coordination --don't think this civil rights legislation will need any less.

you think your problem is Obama? think back to the stimulus, just barely passed and he went all out for it and it passed by one vote --and some of those votes are NOT votes you will be able to count on for repeal of DADT.

[No Elephants]

16. It doesn't take 60 votes. All it takes is Obama's signature. See Post 14--and also see

the Constituion of the United States. Obama is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Clinton could certainly have put DADT in place all by himself. Instead, Clinton chose to have Congress take care of DADT for him, for political cover.

Obama is doing the same thing, for the same reason--political cover. This does NOT "need" Congress, only the CIC. He could sign an order telling the military not to enforce DADT.

This was a campaign promise and Obama got elected. End of story. He should have signed an executive order on Day One.

Every military career that has ended and every life that has been ruined because of this since his Inauguration Day is his responsiblity. Not Congress's and certainly not the Republicans. And before that, it was Bush's responsiblity. And before that, Clinton's.

From Article II, Section 1

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


From Article II, Section 2

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. "

End of story.

Truman ended racial segregation in the military with an executive order. Obama could have halted enforcement of DADT the same way.

[CreekDog]

17. .

[Zhade]

18. Thank you for the truth.

NT!

[No Elephants]

19. Wow.. You're welcome.