Secretary Of The Army: Military Ready To Lift Ban On Openly Gay Service

[brooklynite]

Source: Huffington Post

In an interview with the Army Times published Sunday, Secretary of the Army John McHugh indicated that the army would be ready to lift the ban on gays serving openly if both Congress and President Obama decided to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." The ending of the policy has come to seem more likely in recent weeks, with Obama reaffirming his campaign pledge to do so in a speech at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group. "We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country," Obama said, though he did not offer a timetable regarding when such action might be taken.

McHugh speculated that gays might be allowed to serve in some units but not others, while also stressing that no such plans had been discussed. More importantly, he told the Army Times there was no reason to believe major disruption would ensue in the army if the ban was lifted.

"Anytime you have a broad-based policy change, there are challenges to that," he said. "The Army has a big history of taking on similar issues, predictions of doom and gloom that did not play out."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/secretary-of-the-army-say_n_335335.html

[EFerrari]

1. Wow. This is a very encouraging statement. n/t

[kestrel91316]

2. Dear Sec. McHugh: Congress's approval is not necessary.

If our president issues an executive order to the effect that DADT is dead and gone, you and your military will say YES SIR and obey said order.

[TheWraith]

5. YES, it IS NECESSARY.

Sorry for shouting, but I get really tired of explaining this to people here. You can NOT remove DADT by executive order. It is statute law established by an act of Congress. Only an act of Congress can strike it from the law. Period. End of story. Obama issuing an EO to get rid of DADT would be equivalent in terms of lawbreaking to Bush saying that the laws against torture no longer applied. Just because the President says something doesn't make it law.

[JonLP24]

7. He can during a time of war -- they done it before

He can stop discharges in a time of war but it is up to Congress to change the law but the President has the authority to stop the discharges -- like they did in the Gulf War which the link explains.

10 U.S.C. § 654 (“Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces”) states that a
“member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made
and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations”: (1) “the
member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a
homosexual act or acts”; (2) “the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or
bisexual, or words to that effect”; or (3) “the member has married or attempted to marry a
person known to be of the same biological sex.”
The President of the United States has authority under the laws of the United States and
the Constitution to suspend all investigations, separation proceedings, or other personnel
actions conducted under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 654 or its implementing regulations.
Below we explain the basis of such authority.
I. The Laws of the United States.
Federal law recognizes that the President and Congress share authority to govern the
military. In fact, by law currently in effect, Congress has already granted the President
authority with respect to military promotions, retirements, and separations in a time of
national emergency. This authority includes the power to suspend laws such as 10 U.S.C.
§ 654. Under 10 U.S.C. § 12305 (“Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws
Relating to Promotion, Retirement, and Separation”), Congress grants the President
authority to suspend any provision of law relating to the separation of any member of the
armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the
United States, during any period of national emergency in which members of a reserve
component are serving involuntarily on active duty. The statute states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members
of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to
active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title,
the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion,
retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces
who the President determines is essential to the national security of the
United States.
This law is colloquially referred to as “stop-loss” authority, and it has been used to
suspend the voluntary separation of members of the military who have reached the end of
their enlistment obligation or have qualified for retirement. The law, however, gives the
President authority to suspend “any provision of law” relating to separation of members
of the armed forces, including involuntary separations under 10 U.S.C. § 654. The Army
has announced it will phase out the “stop-loss” program, which forcibly retains soldiers
who wish to leave after their tours. It is important to point out that this use of stop-loss
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops%20-%20final.pdf

But you're right it is necessary to change the law.

[TheWraith]

14. There was no legally established statute policy at the time of the Gulf War.

It still amounts to the President ordering the military to ignore US law, which is a bad precedent.

[JonLP24]

16. By US law he can stop discharges of those being kicked out for "homosexual conduct"

Sec. 2. Authority of the President. Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the
Constitution of the United States, the President has authority as Commander-in-Chief to
retain members of the armed forces serving under his command when essential to the
national security of the United States. Under 10 U.S.C. § 123 (“Authority to Suspend
Officer Personnel Laws During War or National Emergency”) and § 12305 (“Authority of
President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement, and Separation”),
Congress also has given the President authority to suspend any provision of law relating
to the separation of any member of the armed forces who the President determines is
essential to the national security of the United States, during any period of national
emergency in which members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active
duty.

--same link--

I'm not saying he can overturn DADT but he can stop discharges like Lt. Dan Choi in a time of war by law which I now posted twice. You're still correct though that it's up to Congress and Obama's pen to overturn the law to accept enlistments.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

25. And even supposing that's legal, then the policy is still not gone.

And I'm sure the same people who are currently complaining that he hasn't suspended it would then be up in arms because he'd only suspended the policy, not eliminated it.

My "anti-gay agenda"? I'm sorry that dealing in facts about the law upsets your view of the world.

[Ruby the Liberal]

23. It is my understanding that an EO could be overturned by a later President

where an act of Congress would take another act of Congress.

Can anyone confirm?

[TheWraith]

24. You are correct. An EO is made by the POTUS, and the POTUS can get rid of it.

Which is another good reason to change the law instead of just waving the magic wand and saying "this law doesn't exist anymore."

[old mark]

3. I predict the Army will be the first to actually do this, with little fanfare.

If the Navy follows its tradition of racism, it might take them a few years of footdragging.

mark

[SIMPLYB1980]

4. Good news. nt

[Soylent Brice]

6. nice to see a voice of reason coming from the military.

[Toasterlad]

18. I Wouldn't Call "Serve In Some Units But Not Others" a Voice Of Reason.

I'd call that a voice of discrimination.

[Soylent Brice]

20. being open to lifting the ban, in and of itself, for the military

is shocking as it is.

a total repeal of DOMA/DADT would be sufficient to avoid any discrimination from any unit.

i didn't mean to imply that this guy is a fucking hero or anything. just shocked to see momentum of any kind coming from the military.

[Toasterlad]

26. I Know What You're Saying.

All I'm saying is, I will accept nothing less than full equality.

[Soylent Brice]

27. 100% AGREED!!

[Solly Mack]

8. Training material is ready to go once the ban is lifted

Just add it to the regular scheduled EO classes

[GodlessBiker]

9. Serve in some units but not others? What, there are super straight units? Whacked.

[eggplant]

10. It would be cool if...

Obama would (could?) issue pardons to everyone previously dishonorably discharged for being openly gay. Perhaps this would affect pensions, VA benefits, etc?

[musicblind]

11. I really hope that is the case.

That should be a top priority once this ban is lifted.

[Jkid]

13. Actually anyone who serves openly gay under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy

Will be honorably discharged. They still get VA benefits and,if they served long enough ,pensions.

[Tx4obama]

12. What I've heard...

1) Last week Congress announced that they will hold a hearing on DADT in November.
2) A congressman said that they'd be voting on a bill to repeal DATA after the first of the year.
3) Apparently the bill is also supposed to re-instate military personnel that had been previously discharged due to DADT.

That's what I've heard lately.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. The big qestion is whether or not Congress is ready

I'm not convinced that there are the votes in the House to pass this.

[Toasterlad]

17. Who Gives a Fuck If They're "Ready"?

You're fucking soldiers. You'll do what you're fucking told.

So sick of coddling bigots. So VERY FUCKING SICK of it.

[tazkcmo]

21. It's about friggin' time.

During my 5 years on active duty (Army), I sure met a lot of really smart, tough, brave men and women. I am confident that our military members are ready for the "challenge" of accepting what they have known all along. Some folks are gay.

[Politicub]

22. "Allowed to serve in some units but not others" - huh?

Get rid of DADT - completely!

We don't want some kind of stupid "split the baby" Bushian decision on this issue.

DADT is vile and immoral. It never should have been passed in to law, but the dems have a chance to correct this injustice.

[Orsino]

30. This is not so different from the path African-American soldiers took...

...or that taken by women even today.

Nothing less than equality is going to make me stand up and cheer, but I suppose I should applaud even a half-assed kind of desegregation.

[Politicub]

31. Yeah - maybe give a watered down version courtesy applause

But I'm holding out hope the the whole thing will be thrown out the window.

[Vidar]

28. Good news.

[TomPaine76]

29. Awesome!

Thanks for the heads-up!