Don't Ask, Don't Tell...about the Hypocrisy

[Mabus]

Before the election, and even after, a certain candidate that became president promised to end "Don't ask, don't tell" as a military policy.

Even June 1st, in a presidential proclamation he stated:

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security.
(from: Press Release June 1, 2009 LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009, BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - A PROCLAMATION, bold my own)

So with these words (and many other promises to end the policy) why did they submit a brief asking that the Supreme Court allow them to continue the policy?

Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell' - AP (through Google) (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gY0fGi1hLfp2_NW6yO6Iblm2l16QD98MPOBO0)
From the article:

In court papers, the government said a Boston-based appeals court ruled correctly when it threw out Pietrangelo's case because the policy is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

In this case "the government" was the current administration.

Legal scholars have stated it is well within executive authority to change the policy, but as with other issues promises made do not equate to policy implemented.

Barack O'same.

[Androidpk]

Everyone knows that whatever candidates say during a campaign goes out the window if they get elected.

[Mabus]

Everyone knows that whatever candidates say during a campaign goes out the window if they get elected.
In this case it was stated before the election (many times), after the election and then June 1st of this year.

A troika of lies!
:)

[Back]

Who cares if gays and lesbians fight for our country?

Oh, Mabus does.

[Mabus]

Who cares if gays and lesbians fight for our country?

Oh, Mabus does.
I believe any citizen of this country that is able and fit should be able to serve. They choose to put their life on the line. Some highly qualified individuals that the military needs have been fired because of this policy, even under the current administration, and I do believe it is wrong.

Your president says he believes that the policy should end as well, but then had a brief filed in a SCOTUS case to keep it from coming about. He could come out anytime (pun intended) and issue an executive order to end the policy, but he has not.

Hence, the "don't tell...about the Hypocrisy" when dealing with your president.

[Hulkein]

Who cares if gays and lesbians fight for our country?

Oh, Mabus does.

That's not Mabus' point at all.

[Stanley Burrell]

Politics. I don't want Obama wasting time on this as is.

[ClydeR]

Legal scholars have stated it is well within executive authority to change the policy, but as with other issues promises made do not equate to policy implemented.

Those "scholars" probably want to remain anonymous.

The current law was enacted by Congress and signed by President Clinton. The only ways to change it are a new law passed by Congress and signed by the President, a court declaring the current law unconstitutional, or the President temporarily suspending the law because of an emergency.

There is no current emergency. We know from today's court action that the court is not likely to reverse it. That leave it to Congress, which has wisely declined to change the law.

Many people don't understand the reason for the policy. They erroneously think the reason for the current policy is to placate some ill defined "prejudice" that the existing members of the military would feel about homosexual soldiers. But that's not the real reason. The real reason -- the same reason why women aren't allowed in many parts of the military -- is that homosexuals would just be bad soldiers. They would not be able to perform at the same level as normal soldiers. There's no other explanation.

[Latrinsorm]

Legal scholars have stated it is well within executive authority to change the policy, but as with other issues promises made do not equate to policy implemented.

Barack O'same."A Democratic aide to the Senate Armed Services Committee called a review of the law "not a high priority" and said the panel will look at the issue sometime before the end of Obama's term — but would not specify when. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to speak freely about the committee's plans." (from the article you posted)

Barack Obama is the same as other politicians in at least the following way: he is not a magical elf or otherwise supernatural being, he is human. Humans cannot do anything instantly, and humans are furthermore incapable of immediately assessing and accounting for all the repercussions of their actions. It is at best naïve to equate "not occurring this instant" with "will never occur".

As an aside, I would like to see the statements from legal scholars that you describe. I was not aware that executive authority allowed the President to unilaterally sweep aside laws of which he disapproved 15 years after the fact.

[Mabus]

Those "scholars" probably want to remain anonymous.

The current law was enacted by Congress and signed by President Clinton. The only ways to change it are a new law passed by Congress and signed by the President, a court declaring the current law unconstitutional, or the President temporarily suspending the law because of an emergency.

There is no current emergency. We know from today's court action that the court is not likely to reverse it. That leave it to Congress, which has wisely declined to change the law.

Many people don't understand the reason for the policy. They erroneously think the reason for the current policy is to placate some ill defined "prejudice" that the existing members of the military would feel about homosexual soldiers. But that's not the real reason. The real reason -- the same reason why women aren't allowed in many parts of the military -- is that homosexuals would just be bad soldiers. They would not be able to perform at the same level as normal soldiers. There's no other explanation.
To the puppet master behind Clyde:

Are you just pissed you didn't get a chance to put a "spin" on this in your own "special" way?

See: 10 U.S.C. § 12305
"Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement, and Separation"

We are on two war fronts. He could issue an executive order to end the policy today, as allowed by the law.

Here is one study on the issue, there are many others.
How to End “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment - Palm Center, University of California, Santa Barbara (pdf) (http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops%20-%20final.pdf)

You can Google others if you are truly interested.

So go on back to your little pretend posts, and leave the real politics to the rest of us.

[Ignot]

To the puppet master behind Clyde:

Are you just pissed you didn't get a chance to put a "spin" on this in your own "special" way?



Yes.




















I mean...hey... I am not Clyde so why would I care?

[Mabus]

I was not aware that executive authority allowed the President to unilaterally sweep aside laws of which he disapproved 15 years after the fact.
The law itself grants the authority.

Even before "Don't ask, don't tell" the firing of gays from the military was suspended during the first Gulf War by GHW Bush. The current law also allows the suspension of the policy.

It would be best to repeal the policy legislatively, but it is not likely to happen quickly. There is an effort underway (Military Readiness Enhancement Act - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Readiness_Enhancement_Act)) but it has yet to be brought to the floor.

[Parkbandit]

Who cares if gays and lesbians fight for our country?

Oh, Mabus does.

Did you even read his post?

In Obama's defense, perhaps this was his first step.. allow the Supreme Court hear this argument and make a decision.

Then again, Obama hasn't really been a "friend" of the gay movement imo.. so who knows. Personally, I think they should do away with it.

[Androidpk]

In Obama's defense, perhaps this was his first step.. allow the Supreme Court hear this argument and make a decision.




He didn't want the Supreme Court to hear the argument.

[Parkbandit]

He didn't want the Supreme Court to hear the argument.

Like he doesn't want to be in the car ownership business?

Or like he is giving 95% of Americans a tax break?

Or like he's going to have all bills up on the Government website before he signs them into law?

Yea.... it's difficult to believe much that he wants or doesn't want.

[Androidpk]

I don't believe anything he says anymore, clearly he has his own agenda.

[Ignot]

Like he doesn't want to be in the car ownership business?

Or like he is giving 95% of Americans a tax break?

Or like he's going to have all bills up on the Government website before he signs them into law?

Yea.... it's difficult to believe much that he wants or doesn't want.

I guess this is considered a "great contribution to a political thread?" Oh shit I just opened the flood gates! :popcorn:

[Gan]

Everyone knows that whatever candidates say during a campaign goes out the window if they get elected.

Glad I did not buy into all the promises.

[Warriorbird]

Smart political strategy. Attempted "Don't ask, don't tell" reversal damaged Clinton.

[Parkbandit]

I guess this is considered a "great contribution to a political thread?" Oh shit I just opened the flood gates! :popcorn:


Yes.

I mean...hey... I am not Clyde so why would I care?


I'm not asking you to have any "great" contribution to a political thread.. I'm merely asking you to post something remotely close to an intelligent thought pertaining to the political thread you post in.

I realize what I'm asking for is a miracle... so I doubt it will ever happen. You posting something intelligent AND on topic in a political thread could be the sign of Armageddon.

[ClydeR]

We are on two war fronts. He could issue an executive order to end the policy today, as allowed by the law.

Here is one study on the issue, there are many others.
How to End “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment - Palm Center, University of California, Santa Barbara (pdf) (http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops%20-%20final.pdf)

That's almost right. The President, as I said in my first post above, has the authority temporarily to suspend the current policy if there is an emergency. He does not have the authority permanently to end the policy.

One of the reasons President Bush had to exercise his emergency authority to end some discharges, such as people convicted of certain felonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_waiver), was because of the large numbers of homosexuals who illegally entered the military. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell#Statistics), the military has been forced to discharge 12,500 service members under the current policy. That's 12,500 fewer soldiers to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan, which is a large percentage of the number of soldiers in those two countries.

If there hadn't been so many homosexuals who entered the military illegally and had to be kicked out, then President Bush wouldn't have had to force the National Guard and others to stay in the military beyond the end of their contract periods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy), which was an extreme hardship on those soldiers and their families The blame for the extra hardship placed on those soldiers and their families falls squarely on the shoulders of homosexuals who were illegally in the military.

Because Bush acted, there is no emergency now. I think Obama recognizes that, thanks to President Bush, there is no current emergency, which is why he cannot exercise his emergency power to suspend the homosexual policy, even though he may want it suspended.

[ClydeR]

Smart political strategy. Attempted "Don't ask, don't tell" reversal damaged Clinton.

If nothing else, Obama is smart about politics. The public would never go along with allowing homosexuals in the military.

[Bobmuhthol]

hahaha I read the first post and thought it was a ClydeR thread.

[Mabus]

That's almost right. The President, as I said in my first post above, has the authority temporarily to suspend the current policy if there is an emergency. He does not have the authority permanently to end the policy.

Oh, foul puppet...

1) The authority of the president to end the policy today currently exists in the law.

2) The authority of congress to block executive authority on internal military policy is a matter for the courts. Portions of the law may well be unconstitutional.

3) I have already spoken to the matter of legislatively ending the policy.

Point #1:
We are in military combat actions in two countries. The use of "stop loss", and the firing of necessary translators (some of who happen to be gay), creates enough of an emergency to allow the president to end the policy by executive order.

Point #2:
Constitutional congressional authority over the military is in declaration of war and funding. I highly doubt congress will take away funds for the troops because of an executive order ending "don't ask, don't tell".

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
"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."
(bold my own)

As the armed forces have been called into service this clause does not allow for congress to interfere with executive orders dealing with the military. Their only recourse would be to stop funding for the operations, which (as I previously stated) is within their authority.

Point #3:

It would be best to repeal the policy legislatively, but it is not likely to happen quickly. There is an effort underway (Military Readiness Enhancement Act - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Readiness_Enhancement_Act)) but it has yet to be brought to the floor.

[Slider]

But that's not the real reason. The real reason -- the same reason why women aren't allowed in many parts of the military -- is that homosexuals would just be bad soldiers. They would not be able to perform at the same level as normal soldiers.

Ok, this "point" you just made is a steaming pile of bullshit. I have known, personally, many openly homosexual people in the military, and they are no different than straight people who serve. Some where good, some where bad, and some where outstanding. One guy (whose name I will not mention for a lot of reasons) I would want at my back in any combat zone anywhere in the world, and he was a flaming homo. He would tell you straight to your face, "Hi, I am so-and-so, and I am GAY". Guess what you festering pile of dogshit, no one CARED. Everyone knew about it, and not ONE person in my unit gave a flying fuck. That would include everyone up to, and including, the CO.

Don't ask, don't tell was a bad law when it was made, it continues to be a bad law now, and it has nothing, get it? NOTHING to do with the way the people actually serving in the military feel about homosexuals, nor on their ability to be good soldiers. It should be repealed, and Obama is a balless puss-bag for not doing so.

[ClydeR]

Point #1:
We are in military combat actions in two countries. The use of "stop loss", and the firing of necessary translators (some of who happen to be gay), creates enough of an emergency to allow the president to end the policy by executive order.

Suspend, not end.


Point #2:
Constitutional congressional authority over the military is in declaration of war and funding. I highly doubt congress will take away funds for the troops because of an executive order ending "don't ask, don't tell".

I had to get my copy of the Constitution just to double check that you were quoting the right thing. While I was checking that, I happened to run across Article I, Section 8, which says that Congress has the power, among other things,



"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"


"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions;"


"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The President has military conduct rule making powers when Congress specifically delegates those powers to him, as they have in a limited way in the case of the homosexual policy, or when Congress is silent on a subject, as they were on the subject of racial integration, which allowed Truman to integrate the military without the need for legislation. But on the issue of homosexuals, Congress has not been silent. Congress clearly has the power to make rules governing the military. There's nothing the President can do about it -- officially -- without the consent of Congress, except to exercise his delegated emergency power to suspend the homosexual rules temporarily. Unofficially, the President can use the bully pulpit to urge Congressional action. But that would make me and other conservatives very sad. And it would backfire, just like it did with Clinton.

So says Clyde.

[ClydeR]

...it has nothing, get it? NOTHING to do with the way the people actually serving in the military feel about homosexuals...

Well that's what I've been arguing all along. If the basis for the policy is the perceived belief of other members of the military, then it is doomed to eventual repeal. It has to be based on the inadequacies of those excluded under the policy, not on the beliefs of those currently in the military.


...nor on their ability to be good soldiers.

Congress should resist having any hearings or debates on this matter. It's better just to leave it as is. Now is not the time for radical social experiments with our military. But if Congress must debate the matter, then they should focus on your second "point" regarding the inability of homosexuals to be good soldiers, just like they have with women soldiers in the past.

Your personal homosexual experiences do not establish that all or most or even a few homosexuals would be good soldiers. Assuming your assessment about the homosexual soldier you knew was correct, he may have been an exception. The United States has the best military in the world. People who want to change our military should have the burden of proof that the change would be for the better. You have not offered any proof. No one in this thread has.

[Mabus]

Suspend, not end.
If the current administration wanted to challenge the law they could. The armed services are currently serving during conflict (and will be doing so for quite some time by the looks of things) and this allows the executive great authority.





"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"


"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions;"


"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The President has military conduct rule making powers when Congress specifically delegates those powers to him, as they have in a limited way in the case of the homosexual policy, or when Congress is silent on a subject, as they were on the subject of racial integration, which allowed Truman to integrate the military without the need for legislation. But on the issue of homosexuals, Congress has not been silent. Congress clearly has the power to make rules governing the military. There's nothing the President can do about it -- officially -- without the consent of Congress, except to exercise his delegated emergency power to suspend the homosexual rules temporarily. Unofficially, the President can use the bully pulpit to urge Congressional action. But that would make me and other conservatives very sad. And it would backfire, just like it did with Clinton.

So says Clyde.
And the puppet would be incorrect.

If the administration wanted to end "don't ask, don't tell" they would not have filed a brief with SCOTUS to keep the policy intact.

If the administration wanted to end "don't ask, don't tell" the president could issue an executive order to do so, as provided by the current law. No additional authority is needed.

If the administration wanted to end "don't ask, don't tell" they could ask the congress (which is controlled by the same party as the administration) to put the issue on the floor, and to a vote.

Since in each of these cases the administration has went against ending the policy (or failed to act) the administration is hypocritical in its stated goals of ending the policy before the election, after the election and in the presidential proclamation issued just a week before the president again broke his word.

This issue is a civil rights issue, and the person behind the puppet should be ashamed of the president's lack of support for the brave men and women of our armed forces negatively impacted by both his inaction and actions.

[Mabus]

Ok, this "point" you just made is a steaming pile of bullshit. I have known, personally, many openly homosexual people in the military, and they are no different than straight people who serve. Some where good, some where bad, and some where outstanding. One guy (whose name I will not mention for a lot of reasons) I would want at my back in any combat zone anywhere in the world, and he was a flaming homo. He would tell you straight to your face, "Hi, I am so-and-so, and I am GAY". Guess what you festering pile of dogshit, no one CARED. Everyone knew about it, and not ONE person in my unit gave a flying fuck. That would include everyone up to, and including, the CO.

Don't ask, don't tell was a bad law when it was made, it continues to be a bad law now, and it has nothing, get it? NOTHING to do with the way the people actually serving in the military feel about homosexuals, nor on their ability to be good soldiers. It should be repealed, and Obama is a balless puss-bag for not doing so.

Close to 70% of the active duty military agrees. The could not care less about the sexuality of those they serve with, although many of the retired military (including 47 admirals and four-star generals) are against overturning the policy.

Over 50% of the public agrees with ending the policy as well.

And when we look at advocacy groups:

"Every day, patriotic lesbian, gay and bisexual service members continue to be discharged under this discriminatory policy. Every moment that the Administration and Congress delay repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” our nation is robbed of brave men and women who would risk their lives to keep our country safe." -Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign President

"Military service is a privilege, not a right, and anything that detracts from the ability of our service personnel to fulfill their mission should be prohibited," -Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council

Strange to see this president standing with the FRC over the HRC.

[Androidpk]

People who want to change our military should have the burden of proof that the change would be for the better. You have not offered any proof. No one in this thread has.

Like you have offered any proof?

[Slider]

Well that's what I've been arguing all along. If the basis for the policy is the perceived belief of other members of the military, then it is doomed to eventual repeal. It has to be based on the inadequacies of those excluded under the policy, not on the beliefs of those currently in the military.



Congress should resist having any hearings or debates on this matter. It's better just to leave it as is. Now is not the time for radical social experiments with our military. But if Congress must debate the matter, then they should focus on your second "point" regarding the inability of homosexuals to be good soldiers, just like they have with women soldiers in the past.

Once again, more BS. Get it through your tiny little mind, the guys in the trenches, actually out there doing the shooting, don’t care. They are already serving, they are already there, and we know it. There is no “radical social experiment” here, just more political BS. And your drivel about there perceived “inability” to be good soldiers is more BS.
Your personal homosexual experiences do not establish that all or most or even a few homosexuals would be good soldiers. Assuming your assessment about the homosexual soldier you knew was correct, he may have been an exception. The United States has the best military in the world. People who want to change our military should have the burden of proof that the change would be for the better. You have not offered any proof. No one in this thread has.

Wow, another steaming pile of BS courtesy of ClydeR. And "assuming" my assessment was correct? I am not assuming anything you idiot, I have actually been in combat with that guy, and trust me, he was one damn good soldier, and I would choose him over anyone to be at my back in the jungle any day.

And it is obvious from your post that you have no clue whatsoever as to why homosexuals are even banned from being in the military. It has nothing to do with any of the BS "straight people would be uncomfortable to share showers with them" or any of the other mindless drivel like this that idiots keep spewing up. Because after sharing a foxhole (or a hooch, or whatever) with some guy for an extended period of time, you know things about him you probably don't know about your own family. And he you. And neither one of you gives a fuck. You may not even like the guy, but when it all goes to hell, he is gonna have your back, and be putting round downrange, and that is all that matters.

As to why the military is against homosexuals serving in the military, it is partly because back when the policy was first enacted, homosexuals where deemed to be psychologically unstable; it was not “normal” to be gay, so there was a school of thought that labeled homosexuality as a mental illness. Basically, they where considered unfit due to mental illness, and thus could not be good soldiers because of it. The same as saying that someone suffering from, say, MPD, or schizophrenia could not serve. The other reason is the very same drivel you posted above. They lack the necessary “discipline” to make good soldiers. Which is another steaming pile of BS BTW. The idea that they lack this because of sexual orientation is mind numbingly stupid. There are plenty of people out there that lack the discipline to be good soldiers, both straight and homosexual, hell, I have known people IN the military I would consider to be in that category, but it has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Like you have offered any proof?>>


People who want to change our military should have the burden of proof that the change would be for the better.

[ClydeR]

Strange to see this president standing with the FRC over the HRC.

Two words. Rahm Emanuel.

Mr. Emanuel was an important staffer in the Clinton White House from its beginning. He was in the middle of Clinton's disastrous attempt to force the military to accept homosexuals. I think the primary reason Obama changed his mind, or at least postponed taking any action, was because of Emanuel's advice.

The lesson Emanuel took from the early Clinton years, I believe, was that a new President should not stary far from core issues. Clinton's efforts on homosexuals in the military and health care reform were big parts of the reason that, for the first time in 40 years, Republicans gained control of Congress from Democrats in the mid-term elections of Clinton's first term.

[Mabus]

The lesson Emanuel took from the early Clinton years, I believe, was that a new President should not stary far from core issues.
So you are saying that neither your president, nor his advisers, believe that civil rights for millions of American citizens is one of the "core issues" of this presidency.

Even after he promised to make the changes repeatedly, and as recently as June 1, 2009...

Gotcha.

[Bobmuhthol]

Since the military is separated in every way from civilians, I don't think being an openly gay member of the military is a civil right.

[Keller]

If the current administration wanted to challenge the law they could. The armed services are currently serving during conflict (and will be doing so for quite some time by the looks of things) and this allows the executive great authority.


And the puppet would be incorrect.

If the administration wanted to end "don't ask, don't tell" they would not have filed a brief with SCOTUS to keep the policy intact.

If the administration wanted to end "don't ask, don't tell" the president could issue an executive order to do so, as provided by the current law. No additional authority is needed.

If the administration wanted to end "don't ask, don't tell" they could ask the congress (which is controlled by the same party as the administration) to put the issue on the floor, and to a vote.

Since in each of these cases the administration has went against ending the policy (or failed to act) the administration is hypocritical in its stated goals of ending the policy before the election, after the election and in the presidential proclamation issued just a week before the president again broke his word.

This issue is a civil rights issue, and the person behind the puppet should be ashamed of the president's lack of support for the brave men and women of our armed forces negatively impacted by both his inaction and actions.

Maybe I'm missing something, but where exactly do you prove that the President has the authority to end the policy?

I think, by calling Clyde incorrect, Mabus is a big, fat, liar.

[Ravenstorm]

Maybe I'm missing something, but where exactly do you prove that the President has the authority to end the policy?

I think, by calling Clyde incorrect, Mabus is a big, fat, liar.

It's the authority to suspend the policy, not end it, by issuing a stop-loss order. The law would still be on the books but unenforced.

[Mabus]

It's the authority to suspend the policy, not end it, by issuing a stop-loss order. The law would still be on the books but unenforced.

TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART II CHAPTER 37 § 654 (e)

Rule of Construction.— Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—
(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and
(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.
Specifically (2).

All the president has to do is issue an executive order stating it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces" to continue the policy, and instruct the Secretary of Defense to change the regulation.

That would stand until a President rescinded the executive order and the Secretary of Defense changed the regulations again.

This would give plenty of time for Congress to revisit the issue, if it was even needed.

So for:
* Don't Ask, Don't... 06-10-2009 04:21 PM Obama is a fag. That is your answer.
* Don't Ask, Don't... 06-09-2009 09:06 PM first Keller, not Clyde? Soon Daniel will be proving you're an idiot.

There is your answer. Calm, reasoned and factually correct.

[Mabus]

Since the military is separated in every way from civilians, I don't think being an openly gay member of the military is a civil right.
Being discriminated against because of sexual orientation is a violation of human and civil rights, in my opinion.

You opinion, as well as that of many others, obviously differs.

[Keller]

All the president has to do is issue an executive order stating it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces" to continue the policy, and instruct the Secretary of Defense to change the regulation.

That would stand until a President rescinded the executive order and the Secretary of Defense changed the regulations again.

This would give plenty of time for Congress to revisit the issue, if it was even needed.


I missed the part where the President has anything more than the ability to suspend the law.

Where was that again?

[ClydeR]

The president's ability to suspend the law applies only when there is an emergency. The president has to ask himself if it would be honest to declare an emergency now. He's supposed to enforce the law faithfully. It's not his role to make the law. I have to side with Obama on this. He has been honest in interpreting and applying the law. Even though many of his supporters have encouraged him to twist the meaning of the law in a way that would allow him to suspend the homosexual policy, he has dutifully resisted.

It's true that he does not appear to have kept his campaign promise to end the current policy. If he really wanted to end it, he could probably persuade the Democrat Congress to do just that.

It's pretty funny that the liberals insist that Obama should immediately do both health care and homosexuals in the military. That's exactly what Clinton tried to do at the beginning of his term. I'm sure PB could supply a folksy cliché about being doomed to repeat past mistakes because of ignorance of history.

Instead of criticizing Obama, liberals should praise him for having the courage to do the right thing.

[Mabus]

The president's ability to suspend the law applies only when there is an emergency.
Where did you see that in the posted portion of the actual law dealing with the policy?

(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.
The word "emergency" does not appear in the law.

I felt mislead when I actually looked it up, as I was under the belief that an emergency would have to be declared as well. Instead of relying on what I had heard, I looked the law up and read it.

Take a look for yourself:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html#b

After all the "findings" and the actual policy it comes down to the portion I have previously posted.

All that is required is that the Secretary of Defense change the regulations to state that "separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.".

This (not in the best interest) is entirely true, as we have lost several translators of the Arabic tongues, as well as many other military members, during a time when we are sorely in need of such translators, use a "stop loss" policy and force our troops on multiple deployments.

I will also reiterate that the law may well be unconstitutional, and without the provision allowing the executive (through the Department of Defense) the ability to nullify the policy it could be challenged and would be even more likely to be found so. Its interference with the Presidents powers to control the military put it on shaky, balance-of-power-grab ground, even as it stands.

But we do not know how the SCOTUS would rule, as they (following the advice of a brief submitted by the current administration) refused to hear a case challenging the policy.

Even if found Constitutional, the president has refused to test the law, issue the new regulations, or push for congress (a congress his own party controls) to revisit the issue. This flies in the face of multiple promises (and some even after the campaign was over; see previously referenced Presidential Proclamation of June 1, 2009) that he has made about this human/civil rights issue.

[ClydeR]

Where did you see that in the posted portion of the actual law dealing with the policy?


Quote:
(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.

The word "emergency" does not appear in the law.

I'm starting to like you. Most people believe whatever they read without ever taking the initiative to look up anything for themselves.

There are two issues here. First is the issue that you have raised about the president's ability to allow particular service members to remain in the armed forces when separation is not in the best interest of the armed forces. Second is the president's ability to suspend the policy in the event of an emergency.

First issue. About separation not being in the best interest of the armed forces, below is the full subsection. The word "and" is the downfall of your interpretation.


(e) Rule of Construction.— Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—


(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and

(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.

That subsection forces fakers to stay in the military.

Second issue. The PDF file to which you linked in post #10 in this thread says that the president has the authority to suspend the policy in the event of a national emergency.


The President has the authority to issue an executive order halting the operation of "don't ask, don't tell." 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 the separation of military members during any period of national emergency in which members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty. We believe that issuing such an order would be beneficial to military readiness, as it would minimize the chances of replaying a debate that is already largely settled but could still inflame the passions of some in the military. Once gay people are officially serving openly in the military, it will become clear to those with concerns about the policy change that service by openly gay personnel does not compromise unit cohesion, recruiting, retention or morale. This in turn will make it easier to secure the passage of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (MREA) in Congress, which would repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

To his credit, Obama has not adopted that strategy to achieve his goal. There is no national emergency. It would be dishonest for the president to declare one solely to make it easier to get Congress to change the law. Also, I think that strategy would backfire.

You may or may not be correct about Obama breaking his campaign promises. He may have changed his mind. He may plan to do something about it in the future. He may be laying the groundwork with military leaders now for future action. He's only been in office five months, and there are only so many things he can ruin in such a short time.

So says Clyde.

[Mabus]

Second issue. The PDF file to which you linked in post #10 in this thread says that the president has the authority to suspend the policy in the event of a national emergency.

That pdf is not a law, it is an opinion, one that I mainly agree with. It was provided for those that disagreed (including you when you stated "Those "scholars" probably want to remain anonymous.") that scholars had researched and spoken out about the issue.

The "and" issue is one that may carry more weight. That was a good catch.

Neither addresses the lack of the president working to overturn the policy, his administration filing a brief to keep the SCOTUS from addressing the issue on Constitutional grounds, nor his unwillingness to ask Congress to confront the issue through passage of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act.