Six specific steps Gates can take now on DADT while Congress debates full repeal

[ruggerson]

Directly from the SLDN, which has been working tirelessly on this issue for fifteen long years:

"1. To be sufficient to support the initiation of an inquiry into a possible violation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the source of the allegation must be another service member. Information from a civilian is not sufficient.

2. An anonymous tip is not a sufficient basis to start an inquiry into a possible violation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

3. Hearsay cannot support the initiation of an inquiry; the allegation must be based on personal knowledge.

4. The alleged homosexual conduct must have occurred after the service member joined the armed forces.

5. Statements made to chaplains, doctors, psychologists and other health professionals cannot be a basis of an inquiry into a possible violation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

6. The Secretary should ensure that the court's decision in Witt v. Dep't of Air Force is faithfully implemented and applied throughout the armed services. This decision requires the armed services to handle DADT cases in a way that ensures that service members' constitutional rights are not violated."

"We encourage President Obama to support the underlying principle for the proposals above: to slow or stop the investigations under DADT. We also urge him to publicly support the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (H.R. 1283)."

http://www.sldn.org/news/archives/sldn-highlights-what-congress-pentagon-can-do-now-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/

(H.R. 1283 is the full repeal of DADT, now being sponsored by Rep Patrick Murphy.)

[riderinthestorm]

1. I'm not holding my breath waiting for any of these eminently sensible suggestions.

Obama isn't willing to spend one dime of his "political capital" on gay rights. Clearly.

Very disappointing.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Note that Murphy himself does not support the administration doing an end-run around Congress.

[ruggerson]

3. These specific steps have nothing to do with stop loss

and the administration (through Gates) announced they were looking at just these kinds of steps to try to make the law "more humane" (Gate's terminology) and slow the discharges.

Of course this was the day after Obama said the pace of the discharges served to ratchet up pressure on Congress, which is why they are not slowing them (tacitly acknowledging he COULD.)

Once Pres Obama and Gates get on the same page on strategy, the SLDN suggestions could be implemented immediately, while Murphy and others are moving the legislation.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Murphy said he was against the administration doing an end-run around DADT....

Cool if you disagree with him, just thought I'd point that out.

Murphy's basic argument: He hated how bush picked and chose which laws he would enforce via signing statements. He doesn't think Obama should pick and choose, either.

[ruggerson]

6. I doubt he would consider these steps an "end run"

they are administrative clarifications of the law perfectly within the purview of the SOD.

A stop loss could be more fairly characterized as an "end run", but to correlate even a stop loss (a perfectly legitimate use of CIC powers) with Bush's EXTRA-legal maneuvering on signing statements is not an honest comparison. So, yes, I disagree with Murphy, as, apparently, does Gates.

[BlooInBloo]

7. (shrug) I'm not going to acsribe thoughts to him, not knowing much about him.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. I disagree with your second point

What ratchets up Congress' action on this issue is Obama's refusal to unilaterally halt discharges, which would require him to circumvent exiusting law in the name of military exigency. It had nothing to do with maintaining a brisk pace of discharges, as you seem to imply. The suggestions above for slowing the discharges pending proper Congressional action (which seems to have come almost immediately after Obama refused to circumvent Congress, more or less as predicted) do, however, seem utterly reasonable, since they go to procedures for implementation of the existing public law, rather than twisting the competence of the executive branch to subvert existing law. It is, indeed, as you say: these specific steps have nothing to do with the stop loss provision and should be implemented immediately by the DoD. But that's not related to Obama's statement that he wouldn't use the stop loss provisions, since that would take the ball out of Congress' court, where it most certainly belongs.

If we get an actual repeal of the DADT provision through the legislative process, I think that would be 1000% better than any finessing of military exigency to solve a civil rights problem. Because, of course, once you get into that business, then military exigency turns out to be a pretty good way to subvert any standing public law whatsoever.

[ruggerson]

8. Well the counter argument on stop loss is

that if the law is essentially neutered by Obama and Gates, it makes it that much easier for Congress to pass a full repeal, with proponents then able to point out that DADT has not been enforced for the past (three, four, five, six +) months and that unit cohesion has not been affected one iota. All the dwindling arguments against repeal could be essentially vaporized with a stop loss.

As to your point, Obama's exact words last week were:

"I know that every day that passes without a resolution is a deep disappointment to those men and women who continue to be discharged under this policy — patriots who often possess critical language skills and years of training and who’ve served this country well. But what I hope is that these cases underscore the urgency of reversing this policy not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it is essential for our national security.

He is not saying that Executive action would somehow illegally or inappropriately circumvent the legislative process. He's saying that the volume of the discharges should "underscore the urgency" for Congress.

I disagree with his logic on this one, for the reasons I have expressed above.

But barring a stop loss, I back any administrative measures that would slow the discharges, until HR 1283 is signed into law. I also hope the President will explicitly endorse this particular legislation very vocally, and I imagine Murphy will be asking for just that endorsement over the next few weeks/months.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. The only executive action that would circumvent the law

is the proposal by the palm center, which is the use of the stop loss provision. My problem with that course of action - though it is ultimately just given the outrageous character of the existing law - is that it calls on the executive to finesse a civil rights issue under the cover of military exigency, which I consider dangerous and undesirable in the extreme. Executive action such as slowing discharges through the means outlined in the OP is not inappropriate because it goes to procedure in very specific ways.

As for Obama's words, I don't take his point to be "the more discharges the better," as you seem to. I take it as "these are terrible, and Congress needs to act." It's not a promotion of higher volumes of discharges at all, as I see it.

[ruggerson]

10. He is equating the continuation of the discharges with pressure on Congress

he is not saying that he can't do it, because it would be extra-legal. He is clearly saying the discharges ratchet up the urgency to repeal the statute.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. I don't know where your getting this extra-legal stuff

I never said extra-legal. I said inappropriate.

We should note that the steps outlined in the OP wouldn't STOP discharges, either. People would still be discharged. And those discharges WOULD BE an additional push on Congress to repeal this stupidity. He is saying that any discharge exemplifies the injustice of the existing law. I don't see him saying anything other than that.

The remarks:

"Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress.

"Someday, I'm confident, we'll look back at this transition and ask why it generated such angst, but as commander in chief, in a time of war, I do have a responsibility to see that this change is administered in a practical way and a way that takes over the long term. That's why I've asked the secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal.

"I know that every day that passes without a resolution is a deep disappointment to those men and women who continue to be discharged under this policy -- patriots who often possess critical language skills and years of training and who've served this country well. But what I hope is that these cases underscore the urgency of reversing this policy not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it is essential for our national security."