Commanders Ordered Not To Fire Gays Until War's End

[pepperbear]

has anyone else seen this?

To me, it's the essence of bigotry.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/09/091305military.htm

[WI_DEM]

1. let me get this straight, it's ok for gays to serve in combat

but once the war is over--"get 'em out of here!" Amazing. Is this anyway to treat our heroic men and women in uniform?

[Voltaire99]

63. "Our heroic men and women in uniform."

Er, that's pushing it a bit far, I'd say. The Iraq debacle is many things, but it is no monument to heroism.

Yes, gays in the military deserve better. But to put this in perspective: most US service members are subject to low pay, awful conditions, constant lying from their civilian masters, and, since WWII, deployment as puppets of US imperialism to far flung corners of the globe having little or nothing to do with national security.

Viewed realistically, it's a rotten business for all involved, unless you're a senior muckety muck or can ply your post-service "bravery" into a position in the lucrative world of contracting.

Gays are simply treated worse than everyone else, who are already treated abysmally. Given this revelation that gays are literally disposable, it probably would be wise to take the honorable path of refusing to fight.

[terrya]

2. This just shows the farce that is "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

"DADT" is shown to be the blantant hypocrisy it is.

The idea of "preserving unit cohesion" that the homophobes used to keep the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military (which is used to justify their hatred towards gay people) is completely disproved here. If gay people can serve in wartime (as they apparently can right now, judging from this), then they can serve anytime.

[Zhade]

16. And yet, some here praise Clinton's passage of DADT.

They act like it was some historic landmark, rather than the cop-out it was (just like Clinton's decision not to include worker protections in NAFTA, even though he campaigned on those very protections).

[Lerkfish]

43. DADT was my first disappointment in Clinton

he ran on gays in the military, and I I approved of that. then, right after the election, it became that smarmy compromise.

I still think Clinton is 100 times the president shrub will ever be, but Clinton did disappoint me a few times.

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. Yes, "don't ask, don't tell" was a compromise,

but consider what was there before. Before DADT, it was only, "don't tell". Informing on other service members was expected and encouraged, and if a superior had an inkling about one of his people's inclinations he was free to harass and intimidate and haze that underling in his efforts to expose him. An officer could demand the lower rank to answer "are you a queer?", and if the service-person refused to answer he'd be brought up on charges, and if he lied and there was evidence to the contrary he'd be brought up on charges, and if he told the truth he'd be brought up on charges.

My understanding was that DADT was intended to give a little breathing room, acknowledging that there are gays in the military while stopping the witch-hunts. I give Clinton credit for trying.

As a disclaimer, I was a straight Marine, long years ago, and while I knew a couple gays I never had a problem with them. Of course, being a doper, I had some secrets of my own.

[Zhade]

58. DADT was the equivalent of "separate-but-equal" for us queerfolk.

Is getting stabbed better than getting shot? Yeah. Is it thus a good thing? No.

[Orsino]

44. Praise it for what it was:

A step forward. Sure, it was a cop-out, but it was all that could have flown in that era. It gave the bigots the immediate satisfaction of keeping gays second-class, while undermining their agenda in the long term.

DADT acknowledges that gays are already serving, and keeps more gays in uniform (maybe only a few, and the total would be impossible to measure), their records adding to our ammunition for future political battles.

[Inland]

3. It's the way that's always gone.

Getting rid of gays became a priority during the eighties when we weren't at war and the military became a competitive employer.

During the draft years, Vietnam, and now, they'll take them.

So it seems the more we our country needs volunteers, the more it needs gays in teh military. The greater the need, the greater the gays. So if gays in the military hurt the military, why, don't you think wartime is precisely when you would NOT want them around?

[Zhade]

17. Your last line is a FANTASTIC point.

NT!

[Lisa]

20. seconded!

Very well put.

Isn't one of the standard complaints "I wouldn't want one of those people in a foxhole with me" (and this also goes for African-Americans, women, etc.) -- yet when the shooting starts, suddenly the military gets a whole lot less choosy. It kind of undercuts their dire predictions that more diversity in the ranks would completely destroy morale and effectiveness.

[Kurovski]

37. I think the military promotes the discrimination of Gays

more heavily in peace time because, first of all and most obviously, they need manpower.

But they otherwise promote it to assuage all the young and confused, the dim-wits and closet-cases who might otherwise shy away from the military out of fear. I think this may be the only reason the ridiculous DADT policy is in place. A good soldier is a good soldier.

I wonder if the military has studies done on that subject. My guess is yes.

My observation is that the military always has plenty of Gay and Lesbian folks working for it. I think there is a good deal of "looking the other way."

But that is merely my observation.

[baron j]

39. Thriced.

Thirded?

Anyway, I'd never thought of it that way. You are sooo right.

[Imagevision]

50. Volunteer recruits is at an all time low for all the branches

No surprise there, 9-11 Bush had the country behind him -- Iraq-Katrina gas prices? -- the country is getting more pissed off at Bush's role as president with each passing week.


republicans will pay dearly in 2006!!!

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

[donco6]

4. Remember South Park, the Movie?

The scene where the white commander introduces Operation Dark Shield - where all the whites are surrounded by blacks? Why not just call this Operation Rainbow Shield.

We're good enough to be cannon fodder, but not career militarists. Hmm.

[sonicx]

7. It was Operation "Get Behind the Darkies"

great movie. :)

[donco6]

13. That's right! Couldn't remember.

Leave it to them to be even more blatant - "Get Behind the Darkies" - Jeez.

I'm not sure "Operation: Get Behind the Faggots" would work quite the same way. Big Gay Al would probably be squealing with glee.

And I'm gay, so I can say this!

[TheWraith]

60. Actually, you were close.

The blacks were assigned to "Operation Human Shield," and the whites to "Operation Get Behind The Darkies."

That is a weird, fun, dirty, and sometimes very pointed movie.

[darkism]

5. Well, at least they have lifetime job security now.

:eyes:

[Zhade]

18. Ouch.

NT!

[onenote]

6. well since the war on terror will last forever,

there's no more need for "don't ask, don't tell".

onenote

[David__77]

8. Well then, they should come out of the closet 100%.

They should be as out as possible and then we'll see what happens. The more openly they serve, the harder to eject them later.

[Up2Late]

9. Here's the original source at UCSB's (CSSMM)

RESEARCHERS LOCATE ARMY DOCUMENT ORDERING COMMANDERS NOT TO FIRE GAYS

Regulations Seem to Contradict Pentagon Denial That Military Retains Gays During War

SANTA BARBARA, CA, September 13, 2005 - Scholars studying military personnel policy have found a controversial regulation halting the discharge of gay soldiers in units that are about to be mobilized. The document is significant because of longstanding Pentagon denials that the military requires gays to serve during wartime, only to fire them once peacetime returns. According to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, gays and lesbians must be discharged whether or not the country is at war.

The regulation, contained in a 1999 "Reserve Component Unit Commander's Handbook" and still in effect, states that if a discharge for homosexual conduct is requested "prior to the unit's receipt of alert notification, discharge isn't authorized. Member will enter AD with the unit." The 1999 document was obtained by researchers at the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM), a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara during research for an ABC Nightline story.

Gay soldiers and legal groups have reported for years that known gays are sent into combat, and then discharged when the conflicts end. Discharge statistics corroborate a pattern of rising expulsions during peacetime and plummeting rates during military conflicts, and Pentagon statistics confirm that, as has been the case in every war since World War II, gay discharges have declined during the current conflict in the Middle East.

But the Pentagon has consistently denied that, when mobilization requires bolstering troop strength, it sends gays to fight despite the existence of a gay ban, and some observers have insisted there is no evidence of such a practice. During the first Gulf War, Pentagon spokesman, Bill Caldwell, said the military would "absolutely not" send gays to war and discharge them when the conflict ends. "The policy on gays continues that homosexuality is incompatible with military service," he said.

<http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/PressCenter/press_rel_2005_0913.htm>
<http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/>
(more at link above)

[damntexdem]

10. Use them while we need them, ...

then toss them into the trash.

Bigotry? Sure. But also SOP.

[LostinVA]

11. Happened in WW II, KOrea, Vietnam...

Why would the Iraq Farce be any different? It's sick.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

12. Makes sense

The military has a man power problem and this exposes the abusrdity of discrimination of gays in the military.

[David Zephyr]

14. Kick and Nominated.

Kick this up.

[Orsino]

15. How ya gonna keep 'em down at the salon...

...once they've seen Paree?

I'm reminded of a previous minority allowed to serve in wartime.

[OneBlueSky]

19. what absolute pricks! . . . we can't serve in peacetime, but . . .

we're good to go as cannon fodder . . . fuck 'em! . . .

[Kailassa]

21. you wouldn't .....

OneBlue, I'm sure you're choosier than that ;-) The only way to fuck that mob is the way "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography" says GW used to fuck frogs.

I've no idea how truthful that book is, but it sure makes a good read, and is online.

[Olney Blue]

22. When is this bigotry going to end?

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

[BulletproofLandshark]

23. The only right that right-wingers are willing to give gays

is the right to die.

[Mike_The_Computer]

24. Please, Jeebus, PLEASE have the mainstream media follow up on this!

This news makes me want to break stuff. But I won't.:mad:

[despairing optimist]

25. Nothing newsworthy here. Just read "Conduct Unbecoming" by

Randy Shilts. Gay people have been some of the most decorated among the military when allowed to serve, and when wartime ends they're swept into the gutter.

I'm not shocked or surprised at all, other than that this is in LBN and on the front page to boot.

[rodeodance]

27. good gawd --an actual document was found!

Scholars studying military personnel policy have discovered a document halting the discharge of gay soldiers in units that are about to be mobilized. The document was made public Tuesday by Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM), a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara. It was found during research for a story for the ABC news program Nightline.......


It states that if a discharge for homosexual conduct is requested "prior to the unit's receipt of alert notification, discharge isn't authorized. Member will enter AD with the unit."

The document is significant because of longstanding Pentagon denials that the military requires gays to serve during wartime, only to fire them once peacetime returns. According to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, gays and lesbians must be discharged whether or not the country is at war.

Gay soldiers and legal groups have reported for years that known gays are sent into combat, and then discharged when the conflicts end. Discharge statistics corroborate a pattern of rising expulsions during peacetime and plummeting rates during military conflicts, and Pentagon statistics confirm that, as has been the case in every war since World War II, gay discharges have declined during the current conflict in the Middle East. .......

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. I thought their big fear was "What if you are in a foxhole with one?"

[Miss Chybil]

28. This is a good thing... in a way.

If someone is gay in the military and wants to stay in the military, there is no way he, or she, will be involuntarily discharged on the grounds of homosexuality after this. No way. Never. This sets the precedent for gays in the military. The discrimination will stand no more. The bigots have cut their own throats.

[spacelady]

29. Who in the military has such a useless excuse for a job that it is his or

her duty to be concerned about this BULLSHIT. Grow up and get a sex life of your own PERVERTS.

[kineneb]

30. bigotry and desperation

they need every body, even gay ones...what is next, old men and boys (last days of Third Reich)?

[Kailassa]

31. relief

I had thought I saw "Commanders Ordered Not To Fire on Gays Until War's End"

[sui generis]

52. That would be unfortunate

especially if gays returned fire. Or were the commanders.

Could be trouble.

[AnnieBW]

32. Well,

They need the gays to make the military seem more fabulous!

[spacelady]

33. Perhaps they don't have to worry, maybe the War will never end. n/t

[Hissyspit]

34. Good enough for cannon fodder, not good enough for equal rights.

Height of asshole hypocrisy.

[rocktivity]

35. I honestly do not know whether to

:rofl: or :cry:.
rocknation

[Neshanic]

36. Good thing they also can't drink if under 21. Bummer.

Our pious new Puritan society only looks the other way when "disposable" people serve their needs.

All that developable land in NO now that can be taken and redeveloped by rich whites.

Gays as cannon fodder.

Poor and minorities as cannon fodder.

Those uppity gays. The next thing you know they will want veterans benefits.

[genieroze]

38. Don't fire em, put em on the front lines. They can't reproduce anyway.

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

I swear I can hear these snakes thinking.

[sui generis]

51. that's too funny. As if some of "them" weren't already

officers, generals, admirals, major decision makers; these idiots with nothing better to do than ponder the problem of evil military infiltrating gays need to be VERY careful how they try to apply policies like this if they don't fully understand all the consequences.

We aren't just for breakfast any more.

[Catfight]

40. Blacks and gays protecting the rights of whites while protecting

the laws that exclude them. It never made sense to me why blacks and gays wish to die for white men in power.

[PurpleChez]

41. While I might condemn the bigotry and cynicism inherant in this "policy,"

I am nonetheless reminded that it is an all-volunteer army. I support all gay rights issues, I don't support most of our military exploits, and I know that some people join the armed forces because of economic necessity, but I am still cynical myself when I read about folks who sign up, accept the pay, training, and other benefits, and then want a way out when the threat of deployment arises. It's the ARMED FORCES. This policy is offensive but I don't think it rises to the level of other administrative evils by a longshot.

[shayes51]

42. New sticker: "Support the Gay Troops"

[marmar]

45. Unbelievable hypocrisy...

that sadly is nothing new for the military. It's similar to WWII & Vietnam, when black soldiers were welcome to go fight and die, then treated like sub-citizens on return to the U.S.
Now the message to gays and lesbians is that we need you as cannon fodder in Iraq, but we want nothing to do with you when it's all over. It makes you want to learn Dutch or pick up a Canadian accent and move!

:grr: :argh: :cry:

[johnlal]

46. What's the point, then?

I though the anti-gay policy was based on the belief that gays would be a liability to our forces in warfare. This policy shows just the opposite. Why, then, do we even need an anti-gay policy?

[0007]

47. Talk about rubbing shit into your face.....this is the bending end.

[madmark]

49. Real bigots do not want gays to serve in combat because if they did and

served nobly, they would command respect that bigots could not deny.

[PermanentRevolution]

53. Not looking for trouble...

But...

"The regulation was contained in a 1999 "Reserve Component Unit Commander's Handbook" and is still in effect, according to the Center.

It states that if a discharge for homosexual conduct is requested "prior to the unit's receipt of alert notification, discharge isn't authorized. Member will enter AD with the unit."

The 1999 date on the referenced regulation means this happened under Clinton, no?

[pepperbear]

54. it would appear that way...

***edited for spelling***

but I don't think this is all that partisan. this is about stubborn military hierarchy and power plays. I have no real proof, but I am of the opinion that clinton was somewhat "forced" politically into signing this bill. I recall he wasn't really gung ho. again, just how it. I haven't read his book yet, but i heard through the grapevine that he discussed this issue and the politics involved.

Anyone else remember it that way too?

[Laughing Mirror]

57. A Commander in Chief is the one who gives the orders

All he had to do was to order the generals not to discriminate in any way against gays, and the armed forces would have had to obey that order, nothing less.

But he did not do that, the big sissy.

[Laughing Mirror]

55. Clinton was Commander in Chief in 1999, so yes

But he'd already sold out gays the first thing he did when he got into office. After that, any gay person who expected anything better from "gay friendly" Bill Clinton were setting themselves up for terrible disappointment.

[northzax]

56. oh sure, and wear that beret?

not a chance, mister!

from the people I know who work in the Pentagon and in the military, this is a political issue and only the wingnuts give a damn, both inside and outside the military. Sure, it might come up in Basic, but after that, only the freaks care.

But then the people I know are professionals, they care if you do your job and respect your fellow servicemen and women, not who you fuck. (since after all, it's fine to be gay, you simply can't have homosexual contact)

was this ever a really big deal before about 1990? another culture war forced on the military. They were the first to fully integrate, this too shall pass.

[MADem]

59. This is called a FORCE SHAPING TOOL

Hang around the Pentagon, and check out all the obese people in uniform. They aren't kicking them out either. Flunk your PT test? No promotion, but no discharge either. A few years back, and a few pounds could cost you your retirement. If you could not get your ass around the track fast enough, off you went without a bye your leave.

For those who must take tests to advance, as the ranks thin at the top, the tests will get easier--sign your name, up you go. They'll even shorten the timeframes to advance. They'll even waive UP OR OUT timelines to keep people in.

They did this same shit during the Hollow Military years, eons ago...and they will do it again, when, and as, it suits them.

Is it right? Fuck no. Fair? Absolutely NOT. But they can pretty much do what they damn well please, and cite NATIONAL SECURITY as their reasoning.

It's all just a little bit of history repeating....

[deacon2]

61. Moving beyond "Don't Ask. Don't Tell."

Now it's "Use 'em. Then lose 'em." Despicable. But did you expect anything less from Rummy's military?

[David Zephyr]

62. Kick!

Keep this story alive. E-mail it to your friends, family and local media.