White House: Law only answer for gays in military

[Freddie Stubbs]

WASHINGTON — The White House says it won't stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military while the Obama administration works to repeal a decade-old policy banning openly gay people from serving in uniform.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that President Barack Obama does not plan to intervene in current cases against men and women who announce their homosexuality.

Gibbs says the president wants to do away with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy through legislation.

Gibbs says the policy does not serve the national interest and that Obama is working with lawmakers for what Gibbs calls a "durable legislative solution." He says a repeal of the policy requires "more than the snapping of one's fingers."

more: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/shared-gen/ap/US_President_And_White_House_Advisers/US_Obama_Military_Gays.html

[cboy4]

1. How sad. An American citizen in the year 2009 fired for

workplace discrimination fired on Obama's watch.

That's nothing to be proud of.

[William769]

5. It's called being able to have 2nd class citizens.

God forbid we should all be equal in the eyes of the law. Oh wait I'm sure that was said 30 some odd years ago. What a fucking joke we have with the stewardship of this Country.

[charlie and algernon]

7. did I read a different article than everyone else??

the article says Obama is going to repeal through the LAW, so everyone WILL be equal.

[William769]

12. Talk is cheap

seems like alot of things he said in the campaign well... see subject line.

[Inuca]

15. This is BS

It is nit OK to shout that laws were broken on one hand, and then go and break other laws that you do not like. It is a stupid, outdated, and discriminatory law. It is still the law, and the president should the first one not to break it, not even to bend it to his own liking.

[William769]

18. Laws that do not protect citizens against discrimination should not be followed period!

Your right it is bullshit and anyone that tires to make excuses for the President or anyone else doing this is...

[cboy4]

28. You're defending discrimination by arguing it's the law

and a minority president shouldn't try to bend it to make what's wrong right?

Astounding.

[Thrill]

30. Its the fucking law. He said he wants it repealed. Now Congress has to do their job

There is a reason for co-equal branches of government. It was passed and signed by a sitting President. And the only way to overturn it, is the same way.

[cboy4]

35. Why doesn't Obama set a deadline for congress to get this

done?

[cboy4]

44. I thought so.

*****CRICKETS*****

[Inuca]

104. No, he should NOT try to bend it

he should try to CHANGE it, that's different.

[CTLawGuy]

72. That is a good point

thank you!

[AndyA]

23. Meanwhile...gay people are being discriminated against and being forced to give up

their careers on President Obama's watch.

Either that, or they lie to everyone about who they really are.

Not acceptable. Get the lead out, Barack.

[Baby Snooks]

68. How is he going to do that?

Is he just going to ask Congress to repeal it? Good luck.

[charlie and algernon]

6. which is why the article explicitly says that Obama is going to fix it through legislation

"Gibbs says the president wants to do away with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy through legislation.

Gibbs says the policy does not serve the national interest and that Obama is working with lawmakers for what Gibbs calls a "durable legislative solution." He says a repeal of the policy requires "more than the snapping of one's fingers."




What more do you need? The article says pretty clearly that the President is working to repeal it. The legislative process is slower, sure, but its longer lasting too. If Obama were to sign an executive order, the next republican pres can repeal Obama's order with his or her own the minute they take office.

[cboy4]

26. What more do I need? Maybe you should pose that question

to the linguist whose career is over.

How would that make you feel?

Sorry, but I think the people who are in no hurry to get this done .. just like the President .. are unaffected by the discrimination, and therefore it's low priority.

And whether you're in favor of repealing DADT now, later or never, I don't see how anyone can disagree.

It's a low priority to solve workplace discrimination.

The President has enough pull the get the Democratically controlled congress to get to work.

This is no different than if African Americans were told they can't serve in the military.

There would be marching in the streets if that were the case.

Gay people? Not as important, apparently.

[PatGund]

111. what's more...

"What more do you need? The article says pretty clearly that the President is working to repeal it. The legislative process is slower, sure, but its longer lasting too. If Obama were to sign an executive order, the next republican pres can repeal Obama's order with his or her own the minute they take office.'

And they would CAMPAIGN on such too. Making the repeal set in law makes it harder for such a Republican to overturn it

[riderinthestorm]

2. Weasel words.

I'm not military but doesn't the CIC have some authority here to issue an order changing this policy?

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. No. DADT is the law. The President is supposed to follow the law, isn't he?

Or is it ok for to ignore the law, as long as it is a law which we do not like?

[riderinthestorm]

8. Of course he should follow the law but what about an executive order here?

Wouldn't that be the appropriate usage in this circumstance?

And as someone else posted downthread, Obama is perfectly okay with ignoring laws when it suits him (not prosecuting anyone who tortured for example). Why not "ignore" this law and not "prosecute" anyone for revealing their sexual orientation until the law is changed? There's a lot of discretion on the part of law enforcement over what actually gets prosecuted and what doesn't. This would appear to be ripe for that kind of judgement call.

[onenote]

14. an executive order would be unconstitutional

The Constitution commits the power to regulate the land and naval forces to Congress, not the President, which is why it will take legislation to reverse DADT.

Of course, under the bush theory of executive power, Obama could do it. Only thing is...bush was wrong in his view of executive power and returning to a proper balance between the branches of government was one of the things Obama's election was about.

[charlie and algernon]

17. exactly, I'm glad someone else gets it!

Sometimes I get the impression that people here are just looking for a democratic version of Bush, someone who has near dictatorial powers.

[riderinthestorm]

20. Got it and I answered your other post.

So here's my other question, why does he have to enforce this law? It's clearly discriminatory, wrongheaded and against the 14th Amendment? I know the military is a bit different with military laws but certainly there's a reasonable argument to be made here.

[Thrill]

27. He can't overturn Law. With an executive order. It was passed by Congress and signed by a sitting

President.

[riderinthestorm]

38. Now I understand. On to pt #2, why does it have to be enforced while we wait for it to be changed?

There's a real case that it's discriminatory and clearly against the 14th amendment. Suspending enforcement while it's reviewed/changed?

[William769]

9. You want to talk about laws, what a fucking joke!

The highest law of the land The U.S. Constitution under amendment 14 guarantees equal protection under the law! So to quote you "Or is it ok for to ignore the law, as long as it is a law which we do not like?" Boy that says alot about you. :eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. If this is the case, why haven't any courts overturned DADT?

In fact, such a challenge was thrown out last year:

http://abajournal.com/news/appeals_court_throws_out_challenge_to_dont_ask_dont_tell/

Congress needs to send the President a bill repealing the law.

[William769]

22. Why didn't the courts abolish slavery?

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. They didn't have the power to do so. A political/military solution was required

[William769]

25. And why is that not the case now?

Seems to me we go back to thyour original post in this thread of only enforcing lasw that we want to. What a fucking sorry ass copout. Have a nice day and enjoy your freedoms.

[Zenlitened]

53. The law appears to give him broad authority to suspend discharges...

... while Congress moves forward on repealing DADT:


§ 12305. Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation

...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.

Link:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/12305.html

[Orsino]

105. Slavery was the law, too, and so was Jim Crow.

It's not okay to follow a law which is so wrong, unfair to individuals and demonstrably bad for the military.

An Executive Order could be used to delay discharges, giving Congress time to get its corrupt ass together.

[Freddie Stubbs]

107. Slavery was abolished by the 13 Amendment, Jim Crow by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and

the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

[Orsino]

108. The dates on which the law caught up to morality are irrelevant.

Obeying corrupt law was and is still corrupt. Slavery and Jim Crow were wrong long before they were illegal.

And an Executive Order could still delay enforcement of DADT.

[onenote]

11. no. per the constitution, Congress sets the rules for the military

Article I, Section 8: Congress shall have power "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."

[riderinthestorm]

16. Ok, thanks but that still leave part II unanswered, why doesn't Obama just not enforce this law

until it's repealed?

This is way bigger than say letting a lovely speeding blonde get off with a warning - speeding laws get ignored all the time at the judgement of law enforcement for example. It makes no sense for the Obama Admin to go all hardcore on this if you ask me. It's discrimination of the worst sort and clearly wrong.

[BlooInBloo]

99. Do you really want a President to pick and choose which laws to enforce?

I thought we just got done with 8 years of that.

[Zenlitened]

51. See also:

§ 12305. Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation

...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.

Link:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/12305.html

[tkmorris]

101. Well, there ya go then

Legal authority under the law. He CAN do it, but he isn't. I'm not going to offer any opinion on whether that is the right thing for him to do but I don't want to see anyone claiming he can't any longer. Yes he can.

Thanks for posting that Zenlitened.

[noamnety]

95. absolutely weasel words

I cannot believe people still fall for this crap. He "wants" to repeal it is not the same as an article "explicitly says that Obama is going to fix it through legislation"

"Wants" to repeal is the way politicians word crap they could do but won't do because it will hurt their re-election, so they can have the excuse that those other people obstructed it, or the timing wasn't right.

We've come a long way since the days of "The buck stops here." The buck seems to have morphed into something they are trying to scrape off the bottom of their shoe without anyone noticing.

[zipplewrath]

3. Doesn't have their backs

Funny. Torture is suppose to be illegal too. But he's "got their backs" over at the CIA.

[polichick]

82. That's a good point.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. it's like saying you can't join the military because you have a defect

has society not learned yet that it should be fair to ALL people. I'm tired of these politicians saying that they have to say openly that they oppose gay marriage etc when in themselves they agree with it. This society can't have one rule for one section of the community and one rule for the rest. Society in America needs to grow up. Gay people should have the same rights as non gays.

[William769]

19. I'm tired of the fucking people who keep making excuses for the people that do this.

[SWr]

73. actually

Actually you cant join if you a have a "defect" (by that I assume you mean physical challenge).

The military has strict physical standards and fitness and health standards.

You dont pass ... you dont get in.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

110. but I think you know what I mean

[Dark]

13. Grrr. It's a stupid fucking law, but it's the law. However, aren't there a whole bunch of idiotic

laws that we have on the books that everyone kind of agrees to ignore?

Still, we didn't like it when Bush did it, so I don't know if it'd be a good idea to encourage Obama to.

[Thrill]

29. I don't see what else people want from Obama. He said he wants it overturned. Now its up to you

to get on the ass of your representatives in Congress to get it on his desk.

[cboy4]

31. No it's up to him to get on the asses of his Democratic

Leaders and light a fire.

He has the power to get this done if he wants.

[Thrill]

32. No. You have to. There is a reason you elected members of Congress

He can't sign something thats not passed.

And I certainly don't want to see him making this a priority before Healthcare is done. Learn from the Clinton. Don't make the same mistakes

[cboy4]

37. You don't fool anyone. LOL!!

I knew there would be a "let's not make this a priority" excuse.

:puke:

[Orsino]

109. Waiting for someone else to fix it is an excuse in itself.

We have no excuse for not acting to drive Congress toward new law that recognizes equality.

American have Congressional representatives for a reason--not as an excuse.

[Creideiki]

40. "And I certainly don't want to see him making this a priority before Healthcare is done."

Of course not.

What else needs to come first?

I just want to know where on the totempole civil rights fall for you.

[Thrill]

43. Yup. I'd like to see this President. Not get into a fight thats going to damage

his ability to get other things done. DADT doesn't need to be dealt with before Healthcare.

[Bluebear]

45. Yes, equal rights can always wait. Thanks for your support.

[Creideiki]

93. See how easy it is to break the Democratic Coalition?

Especially since Healthcare will get screwed up by rightwing "Democrats" like Baucus and (Shhhh....) Obama because single-payer healthcare is off the table officially.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Lulz.

If Obama went around Congress and illegally let gays stay in the military, the same people would be attacking Obama for abusing his power, while at the same time attacking Obama for the law still being on the books as a matter of pure principle.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tkmorris]

102. He can do it. Legally.

See this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8403293&mesg_id=8403576

[Creideiki]

33. This isn't hard:

suspend enforcement pending legislative action.

Let me break it down for the, "You don't want him to break the LAW, do you?????" crowd.

Stop kicking people out while Congress takes care of this.

That happens all the freaking time. Enforcement of a law will be delayed or halted pending judicial review or further legislation.

Crap. Long words again.

This happens all the time. The governor of a state will tell the police not to enforce something while the courts and the law-making people (sorry, I know legislator is a long word) do what they're going to do.

Let me make this plain for some people:

Congresswoman DeGette, Senator Udall and Senator Placeholder. No vote for you. Submit legislation today. I will be supporting any progressive that runs against any of you unless you fix this because the damned President of the United States is too much of a coward to man up and do the right thing.

[high density]

36. Isn't it nice to have a President that follows the law. NM

[cboy4]

41. It sure is!

I think discrimination is fantastic!

Hopefully, people will wise up and kick black people out of the military also!

[riderinthestorm]

42. Does DADT supercede the 14th Amendment?

Look DADT is clearly discriminatory. I'm not sure why enforcement can't be suspended while it's changed. And enforcement is entirely reliant upon the discretion of the enforcing agency. People get off for speeding violations if the enforcing officer decides for example - isn't this entirely more serious?

[Baby Snooks]

70. No it doesn't....

But for some reason Lambda Legal and Human Rights Campaign and all the other "activist" organizations for some reason haven't felt the need to file a lawsuit and have a court rule on it. Some of their attorneys will tell you that homosexuals are have no established rights under the 14th Amendment and Congress must first establish those rights.

Despite the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals having already said they do have those rights under the 14th Amendment.

The real reason they haven't is they are putting all their focus on marriage equality.

To hell with gays and lesbians being dishonorably discharged from the military simply because they are gay or lesbian.

To hell with a lot of things to be honest.

[BlooInBloo]

100. So now Obama is the entire Supreme Court?

[Bluebear]

46. Wasn't it nice when segregation was law? And that people upheld it?

Yeah, that was awesome!

[SeattleGirl]

47. Apples and oranges, Bluebear

Apples and oranges.

I don't think the poster was saying things like DADT are okay; rather, what I took from it is that it's good to have a President who doesn't run roughshod over laws, but instead, works to get them changed or eliminated.

Yes, things like DADT are abominations, but that doesn't mean it's okay to just blow them off. Must better to actually, LEGALLY change such laws or, again, eliminate them.

[Bluebear]

49. Discrimination and discrimination.

If it's an abomination, then an executive order is appropriate to intervene.

[SeattleGirl]

50. Apples and oranges.

[Bluebear]

52. OK thanks

[SeattleGirl]

57. You seem to think I'm saying discrimination is okay. I'm not.

I'm talking about how to approach DADT. DADT needs to go away. Frankly, I'd rather Obama did it in a way that actually eliminated the law, rather than "suspend" it or whatever an executive order would do.

Isn't throwing around executive orders (and signing statements) what Bush did? Lots of us didn't think that was okay, and for myself, I'd rather not see Obama get too comfortable with doing that either. There's been too much ignoring of, or changing of the law by one person without so much as a "what do you think about this" from the one who did it.

[Bluebear]

59. He can suspend any more people being fired from the military while the law works out

That is all he would have to do.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. Only if they were essential to national security.

Going around congress on claims of national security?

Where have I heard that before?

[Zenlitened]

69. Movin' movin' movin', keep them goalposts movin'...

:rofl:

Yeah, no national security issues involved in firing skilled linguists, computer experts, seasoned officers and career soldiers.

Now, if we wuz at war, on the other hand...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

74. Moving goal posts?

This is a civil rights issue, not a national security issue.

Come up with another loophole that doesn't require a threat to national security.

[Zenlitened]

76. Uh huh. Yeah. Suspending discharges while Congress updates law...

... would be Just Like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc.

Riiiiight.

[LostinVA]

56. I violently disagree with you on this, Old Friend

I'm sorry to see you feel this way.

:sigh:

[SeattleGirl]

71. And I'm sorry you don't understand what I'm saying.

I'm not saying discrimination is okay. It's not, and I sure hope your "violent" reaction doesn't mean you think I do feel it's okay. What I'm saying is I'd rather see DADT done away with through the process of law. Seems to me that an executive order doesn't have as much weight to it as a law that is put into action via Congress.

I don't want a temporary change; I want to see a more permanent one. Yes, a law can be changed later on, but it's harder to do.

[LostinVA]

81. I do -- teh "apples and oranges" upset me

[SeattleGirl]

84. Again, I was addressing the approach to something, not the thing

itself. Just because we may disagree on how to approach something, or because I think one way is better and you may think another way is better, doesn't mean that one way is all wrong and the other all right, or vice versa.

[riderinthestorm]

86. Do you think Obama should NOT suspend discharges pending review of the law? You think that's better?

Just trying to be very clear here. You believe that the law shouldn't be suspended pending review? Or that the President doesn't have the authority (as has been clearly spelled out here numerous times) to suspend enforcement of that law pending review or for national security? And does that further mean you don't believe Arab linquists are somehow critical for US national security right now?

[SeattleGirl]

90. See my response to your post just below this one.

And please don't presume to know what I think. I really hate hypotheticals, which is what you are voicing here.

My saying "A" should not lead to you conclude that I think "Z" about it.

Anyway, please look at my response to your other post.

I think you will see that I believe none of the things you just wrote here.

[riderinthestorm]

91. I apologize.

:blush: Jumped in before you had a chance to respond.

I guess it just really irritates me seeing these service members getting canned when a very elegant and easy solution to the problem is right there. WHEN glbt service members have even a few days to show they are not the big bad bogeyman by serving openly in the military, Congress will be shown for the hypocrites that they are. Even if the policy stays in place for a few weeks - I'd risk that in order to make a point - GLBT servicemembers serving openly demonstrates it is no big deal.

More than anything, that easily demonstrable fact will change the law imho.

[SeattleGirl]

92. Thank you; accepted.

Irritates me too. If they are doing their jobs, there is no reason to discharge them, imho. To say someone can't be a good soldier, Marine, Airman or sailor because they're gay makes about as much sense as saying they can't be good military people if they have red hair.

[riderinthestorm]

85. I agree with everything you say but suspend the discharges while the law is changed.

I'm sure this can be done. There's been enough links posted on this thread alone to prove Obama can do this if he wanted to. Today. Immediately.

Then make the law permanent. But why wait even a single second longer?

(last question mostly rhetorical as I'm getting the sneaking suspicion I already know the answer...)

[SeattleGirl]

88. If it can be done in a way that sticks while the law is changed, then

yes, absolutely.

My point is that I want something that sticks, not something that can be changed willy nilly, or batted around by this court or that court, or this referendum or that one, like with gay marriage. If Obama can say, "stop the discharges of gays from the military, because we're going to change the law", they yes, do it.

But if he says stop it, yet there are ways around that (and I don't know if there are or aren't), the what would be the point? Might that not be worse, if say, tomorrow, Lt. Choi is NOT discharged because Obama says stop, but the following week, Lt. Choi IS discharged because someone in the military or in Congress dug up some obscure part of some law that says "stop" can be ignored? Again, I don't know if there would be ways around a "stop" order by Obama, but I'll bet if there is, some homophobe would find it. I'd rather make it damned hard for that to happen.

[Two Americas]

63. really?

In January 1948 President Truman decided to desegregate in the armed forces and the civil service through executive orders. As a Southerner from Missouri, he recognized his own innate prejudice, but he also knew the difference between right and wrong, and he knew it was wrong for servicemen who had offered their lives for their country to suffer discrimination. On February 2, 1948, he announced in a special message to Congress on civil rights issues that he had "instructed the Secretary of Defense to take steps to have the remaining instances of discrimination in the armed services eliminated as rapidly as possible." Truman's steps cost him politically in the South—in that same year Southern Democrats bolted the Party, formed the States' Right Democrats, or “Dixiecrat” Party and nominated South Carolina Governor J. Strom Thurmond as their candidate for president in 1948. Thurmond carried four states and won 39 electoral votes.

Here is EO 9981

WHEREAS it is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense:

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, and as Commander-in-Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.

2. There shall be created in the National Military Establishment an advisory committee to be known as the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, which shall be composed of seven members to be designated by the President.

3. The Committee is authorized on behalf of the President to examine into the rules, procedures and practices of the armed services in order to determine in what respect such rules, procedures and practices may be altered or improved with a view to carrying out the policy of this order. The Committee shall confer and advise with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force, and shall make such recommendations to the President and to said Secretaries as in the judgement of the Committee will effectuate the policy hereof.

4. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Committee in its work, and to furnish the Committee Such information or the services of such persons as the Committee may require in the performance of its duties.

[LostinVA]

65. I was told on here the other day that this wasn't true

Glad to see you made the EXACT same thing up, TA.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. And when Johnson declared the Civil Rights Act?

That was awesome.

[Zenlitened]

54. I wish he'd follow this one:

§ 12305. Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation

...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.

Link:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/12305.html

[Bluebear]

55. Noo!!! 1 DADT is the **LAW** OK!????

[vaberella]

58. Yeah...that actually goes against the law..hence the reason he doesn't use it.

Remember he's a constitutional lawyer, we're not. We don't know the implications of calling such mandates.

[Bluebear]

60. A code of law violates law?

All he would have to do is suspend any more people from being fired while Congress pursues changing the law. Anyhow, this article points out he is unwilling to do that so it's a moot point.

[vaberella]

62. To be honest...I don't get the whole thing.

I don't understand the code of law...and the law itself and executive orders. This whole process is convoluted. At this point I just think the US government hates homosexuals---although I see O is working to get rid of it. So I hope that works out. And I think Repubs just hate Americans---I just read that the Dodd's credit card bill passed but with a provision that allows people to carry hand guns into parks. I have no idea why this is part of a credit card bill. Not to mention they hate the idea of a public option or single payer plan in health care.

[LostinVA]

66. An honest questtion: how is President Obama working to get rid of DADT?

[LostinVA]

106. *crickets*

[Creideiki]

96. I agree. He's a constitutional lawyer.

A constitutional lawyer who keeps showing that he holds GLBT people with the utmost disdain.

How many states did he win with less than 7% margin? GLBT people GAVE HIM Colorado. We leave the party, and he goes back as another one-term Democrat.

[high density]

94. It's essential to national security of the US to have gay people in the military?

That's like using the budget to protect polar bears.

[Creideiki]

97. What an apt user name

Yes. In time of war, when the military keeps lowering the bar to get into service, it's national security interest. When ASVAB scores are lowered every year to be considered "fit for service", it's national security interest. When anti-social creeps that go on rampages are allowed to serve, it's national security interest. When you no longer need to have a high school diploma, it's national security interest.

I'm sure you don't think GLBT people deserve the same rights as you. You probably think that it's completely okay because all the GLBT person has to do is agree to never so much as date someone while they're in the military (like the Marine Corps has become some kind of monastery). You're probably one of the "people" that think that GLBT can "pass" so it's okay to punish them for "behavior, not orientation".

[riderinthestorm]

98. And how many gay Arab linquists have been discharged?

Do some research.

These are strategic assets the military is losing because of this fucked up policy. Your position that you don't think gays have anything to contribute to our national security then says a lot more about you than I ever could.

[ecstatic]

64. If Pres. Obama issues an executive order, what's to stop the next president

from reversing it? I think that is the angle that Obama and his advisors are looking at. They want lasting change, not temporary change.

[Zenlitened]

67. Executive order not needed. Existing code allows him to...

... suspend discharges while Congress works on repealing DADT for good. See:


§ 12305. Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation

...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.

Link:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/12305.html

[SWr]

75. not really

That only applies to the stop gap orders (as in groups).

It also DOES NOT apply unless your reserve called up to active duty.

The LT was in drill status not active duty so it doesnt apply.

[LostinVA]

77. Link on why it's not part of "any provision of law"?

[SWr]

78. first and second line

a) 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.

[LostinVA]

79. I don't see why that means the Lt. can't be "saved"

Nor does my BIL, who is a combat-decorated med-discharged Army Officer who thinks DADT is a literal crime, and who thinks the President should suspend it ASAP.

And, it definitely doesn't prove that the President can't suspend DADT.

[Zenlitened]

80. See also:

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops.pdf

Presidential Authority to Suspend Discharges for Homosexual Conduct

... 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.

[LostinVA]

83. Oops

[Teaser]

87. I love these threads

I can just laugh for hours and hours.

[LostinVA]

89. I think they are disgusting and not the least bit laughable

[JustinL]

103. I think the words of Martin Luther King are appropriate here

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html">Letter from Birmingham Jail