What is the hold up on repealing Dont ask Dont Tell

[jtylerpittman]

I am a soldier. A straight one. But I know people who I serve with that live in constant fear. If it is not going to be done this year I do not think it will be done for awhile. DADT is a huge waste of money and it is wrong.

[FarLeftFist]

1. I heard it will be repealed in the 2011 defense bill.

[jtylerpittman]

4. That is risky

I think it should be killed in a stand alone bill. Right now I think there is the votes for it. But maybe not after the next elections.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Call your congressman.

There's a bill being worked on that they're planning to push through congress.

[fascisthunter]

3. politics

that's the hold-up.

[babylonsister]

5. Supposed to be a debate early this year...

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/congress%C2%A0pressures_pentagon_eve_of%C2%A0gays_military_debate%C2%A0

[lapfog_1]

6. If President Obama simply repeals DADT

The law (still on the books) that prohibits gays from serving at all remains in effect. All that DADT does is effectively say "if we don't KNOW that you are gay, we won't follow the law and get you dismissed". Repealing it goes back to the days of "we will try to FIND OUT if you are gay, and then dismiss you". The law has to be changed to allow gays to serve openly, President Obama, or any President, cannot issue a replacement executive order to ignore the law or remove it.

Congress has to change the law.

That said, President Obama could lobby Congress (and even introduce legislation) to repeal the law.

[IndianaGreen]

45. I suspect Obama thinks that LGBTs are yuckie

His words don't match his deeds, or lack of deeds in this case.

[Toasterlad]

49. Obama Can't Repeal DADT. He Can Suspend It.

And yes, he absolutely CAN issue an Executive Order to stop the investigation and discharge of gay soldiers. That is well within his purview as Commander in Chief.

However, Obama is UNWILLING to suspend DADT, because he is more interested in the support of religious nutjobs than he is in the well being of gay Americans. And despite promising to be a "fierce advocate" of gay equality, Obama has NOT lobbied against DADT, and, indeed, has pressured Congressmen who have tried to introduce legislation to withhold funding for DADT to withdraw said legislation.

Obama has no desire for DADT to be repealed.

[lapfog_1]

53. Sorry, he cannot issue an executive order

which is in direct conflict with a US law, specifically, 10 U.S.C. § 654.

Link to law here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_10_of_the_United_States_Code

Such an executive order is illegal, despite the years of Bush issuing executive orders which may have directly conflicted with US Code or the Constitution. The military would not follow such an executive order. Commander-in-Chief or not. If he were to issue such an executive order and the military brass (with the likely backing of the majority of Congress) disobeyed that order, it would be a constitutional battle that he is likely to not win AND would completely undermine his authority as Commander-in-Chief.

Clinton and the DADT policy skirted the law, and many in the military did not like it (both gays and anti-gay). But he got buy-in from the Pentagon on the issuance of that executive order.

Change the law. The House will vote for it, the Senate... who knows. Maybe they would. Bring it up every Congress (every 2 years). Eventually it will pass and President Obama will sign it. With the law repealed, the military will have to follow the law and their C-in-C. My guess is that a lot of older generation admirals and generals will retire in protest. Good. They need to go for a lot of reasons.

And of course Obama can issue an executive order RESCINDING DADT (which is simply another executive order issued by a previous President). Rescinding DADT returns the policy to that which existed BEFORE DADT, which is simply 10 U.S.C. 654. Which means that even if you keep your sexual preference status to yourself, the military can investigate based solely on rumor, and dismiss you if they have any evidence that you might be gay.

Why in the hell would the gay community WANT to rescind DADT without a corresponding change to the US Code?

[Toasterlad]

58. Um, I Guess YOU Know More Than CONGRESS About What the President Can and Can't Do.

Seeing as CONGRESS asked him to suspend DADT, I'm guessing they have a different view on what Obama can and can't do. Congress also knows that by suspending DADT, Obama would also be suspending the investigation and discharge of gay servicemen, which would enable them to keep their careers and livelihoods until Congress repeals the law.

Below is the letter Congress sent to Obama. P

June 22, 2009

The Honorable Barack H. Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama:

The United States of America prides itself on having the finest military in the world because of the hard work, dedication, and sacrifices of our brave servicemen and women. And yet, under 10 U.S.C. § 654 (Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces), better known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the talents and contributions of our openly gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) service members continue to be ignored simply because of who they are. Every day, we lose approximately two service members to this misguided, unjust, and flat-out discriminatory policy. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not only an injustice to them, but a disservice to the U.S. military and our country as a whole.

As you know, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was signed into law in 1993 by former President Bill Clinton as a compromise to allow gay and lesbian service members to serve in the military - so long as they did not disclose their sexual orientations. Fifteen years later, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is instead negatively impacting the lives and livelihoods of these military professionals and depriving our Armed Forces of their honorable service. Since you took office on January 20, 2009, more than 250 gay and lesbian service members have been discharged under this law, which continues to undermine and demoralize the more than 65,000 gay and lesbian Americans currently serving on active duty.

Although we are confident that you will remain true to your campaign promise to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, our LGBT service members and our country’s national security will continue to suffer if initial action is delayed until 2010 or 2011. We urge you to exercise the maximum discretion legally possible in administering Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell until Congress repeals the law. To this end, we ask that you direct the Armed Services not to initiate any investigation of service personnel to determine their sexual orientation, and that you instruct them to disregard third party accusations that do not allege violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is, we request that you impose that no one is asked and that you ignore, as the law requires, third parties who tell. Under your leadership, Congress must then repeal and replace Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell with a policy of inclusion and non-discrimination. This bilateral strategy would allow our openly gay and lesbian service members to continue serving our country and demonstrate our nation’s lasting commitment to justice and equality for all.

As the United States continues to work towards responsibly ending the War in Iraq and refocus on the threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, our LGBT service members offer invaluable skills that enhance our country’s military competence and readiness. Despite the great strain on our military’s human resources, the Armed Forces have discharged almost 800 mission-critical troops and at least 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the last five years. This is indefensible. The financial cost alone of implementing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell from Fiscal Year 1994-2003 was more than $363.8 million. Our nation’s military has always held itself to the highest standards, and we must recruit and retain the greatest number of our best and brightest. To do anything less only hurts our country’s military readiness and our service members.

We also want to bring to your attention the most recent examples of the failed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in action. New York National Guard First Lieutenant Dan Choi and Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach are two exceptional servicemen who have dedicated their lives to defending our country and protecting the American people. Their bravery and abilities have been tested in combat, and now they face impending discharge under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

First Lieutenant Choi, a current National Guardsman with the 1st Battalion of the 69th Infantry in Manhattan, is a West Point graduate, Arabic language specialist, and Iraq War veteran who is under investigation for refusing to lie about his identity.

Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, Assistant Director of Operations for the 366th Operations Support Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, has honorably served his country for 18 years as an F-15E pilot. He has received nine air medals, including a Medal for Heroism during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and was hand-picked to protect the airspace over Washington, D.C. after the Pentagon was attacked on September 11, 2001. Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, who has flown combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda, continues to serve while the recommendation for his honorable discharge moves forward to a review board, and eventually to the Secretary of the Air Force. Just two years away from his 20-year retirement, he stands to lose $46,000 a year in retirement and medical benefits for the rest of his life if discharged.

The American people and service members of the Armed Forces overwhelmingly support the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. According to a national Gallup poll conducted in May 2009, 69 percent of Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military. Furthermore, a 2006 poll of 545 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan by Zogby International and the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara revealed that 73 percent are personally comfortable with gay men and lesbian women. John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Clinton administration, and more than 100 retired admirals and generals support this repeal, in addition to the Human Rights Campaign, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and Knights Out, an organization of LGBT West Point alumni co-founded by First Lieutenant Choi.

Mr. President, we cannot afford to lose any more of our dedicated and talented service members to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. On behalf of First Lieutenant Choi, Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, and the more than 12,500 gay and lesbian service members who have been discharged since Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was implemented in 1994, we stand ready to assist you in repealing this dishonorable and debilitating law as soon as possible, and in restoring justice and equality in our Armed Forces.

Please know that we will continue to monitor this situation and are hopeful that, together, we can address this urgent issue soon. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Alcee L. Hastings
Barney Frank
John Conyers, Jr.
Fortney “Pete” Stark
Edward J. Markey
Gary Ackerman
Louise Slaughter
Eliot Engel
Jim McDermott
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
José Serrano
James Moran
Jerrold Nadler
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Ed Pastor
James Clyburn
Anna Eshoo
Bob Filner
Luis Gutierrez
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Carolyn Maloney
Robert “Bobby” Scott
Bennie Thompson
Nydia Velázquez
Melvin Watt
Lynn Woolsey
Lloyd Doggett
Chaka Fattah
Jane Harman
Lois Capps
Donna M. Christensen
Diana DeGette
Bill Delahunt
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick
Dennis Kucinich
Barbara Lee
James McGovern
Brad Sherman
Robert Wexler
Tammy Baldwin
Shelley Berkley
Michael Capuano
Joseph Crowley
Rush Holt
John Larson
Grace Napolitano
Jan Schakowsky
Anthony Weiner
David Wu
William Lacy Clay
Mike Honda
James Langevin
Betty McCollum
Diane Watson
Tim Bishop
Raúl Grijalva
Linda Sánchez
Emanuel Cleaver
Doris Matsui
Gwen Moore
Debbie Wasserman Schulz
André Carson
Kathy Castor
Yvette Clarke
Donna F. Edwards
Keith Ellison
Marcia L. Fudge
Phil Hare
Mazie K. Hirono
Laura Richardson
Joe Sestak
Niki Tsongas
Peter Welch
Alan Grayson
Jared Polis
Mike Quigley
Gregorio Sablan

[lapfog_1]

66. First off, I know that DADT is NOT a law, but an executive order.

From the wikipedia:

The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by then President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency, had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military, a departure from the then complete ban on those who are not heterosexual. The concept was rejected by Congress in its passage of the Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993, which simply codified the existing standard set by the Defense Department in 1981. Clinton established the policy through Executive Order in December 1993.<1>

Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender.

– quoted in "The Pentagon's New Policy Guidelines on Homosexuals in the Military", The New York Times (July 20, 1993), p.A14

As you can see here, Bill Clinton established DADT as an Executive Order in December 1993.

And furthermore, if that many members of Congress feel that way, why haven't they written legislation that rescinds both the DADT Executive Order and the USC 10 - 654?

Why do they put this on Obama? They have the power to pass laws, even over the objection of the President (if anyone here believes that Obama would veto such legislation). All they need is a simple majority in the House, and, as we have seen time and time again, 60 votes in the Senate.

President Obama, on the other hand, CANNOT overturn existing US code with an executive order. Not without a court showdown, and how would you expect the current SCOTUS to rule on this? Be realistic. I say 5-4 against Obama. And I'm pretty sure he knows it.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[ruggerson]

64. There is a specific stand alone bill in the House

with over 200 sponsors. Used to be Rep Tauscher's, now it's being sponsored by Rep Murphy (a vet himself).

To date, Obama had not endorsed the bill.

And, as you point out, if he wanted to get out in front on this, he could write his own repeal legislation and have it introduced.

My guess is that they want to try to wrap this in the appropriations bill. Which is not very courageous of either the WH or Congress. Hopefully they're not under the illusion that doing it that way will provoke less screaming from the right.

Having said that, I don't care how they get it done, as long as they get it done.

[Ken Burch]

7. I wonder if there might have been a feeling that it had to wait 'til after HCR

This may be the cause of the delay on a number of things.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Blue Dogs

But as some LGBTs here said, we got Joe Lieberman on our side!

I can sleep peacefully tonight knowing that Holy Joe will help repeal DADT.

:sarcasm:

[seeinfweggos]

9. my understanding is it will happen this year

and yes it is wrong, very, very wrong

[WT Fuheck]

10. lack of commitment.

[MineralMan]

11. I expect it in 2010.

Contact your congresscritters now!

[boston bean]

12. we have democratic senators and congressmen who are busy with women's wombs

and some here think that DADT and DOMA will be brought up for discussion in an election year.

Dream On!

It's a frickin disgrace and the apologists for any DEM, including Obama, on this issue makes me ill.

There is no compromising when it comes to human rights! Plain and simple!

And it's those, who agree to let these issues become political footballs so other legislation can be passed, instead of demanding equal rights from the get go, are my enemy!

[Greyhound]

13. The lack of will to actually do it.

DADT is a wonderful, flashy handkerchief to wave in front of the voters every couple of years. If he exercised he power to eliminate it, what would they use next year to convince you that they suck less?

[babylonsister]

18. Lack of will?

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/congress%C2%A0pressures_pentagon_eve_of%C2%A0gays_military_debate%C2%A0

Letter from Congressman Moran and 96 Other Representatives to the Pentagon

The Honorable Robert Gates
Secretary of Defense
U.S. Department of Defense
1300 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301


Dear Secretary Gates:

We write today with regards to the current prohibition on openly gay and lesbian service members in the military, commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).

This discriminatory policy results in the Department of Defense losing tens of millions each year in unrecoverable recruiting and training costs. The 2006 Blue Ribbon Commission’s report on DADT found that the Pentagon wasted over $360 million due to this policy from 1994 until 2003, the last year studied. Since its enactment in 1994, over 13,500 service members have been discharged under DADT, including 730 mission critical soldiers and over 65 Arabic and Farsi linguists vital to the war on terrorism.

To increase transparency on the effects the DADT policy is having on our military and by extension our national defense, we request that the Office of the Secretary of Defense provide data on the current number of DADT discharges since January 1, 2009 to the present, no later than January 15, 2010. In addition, we request monthly reports thereafter to Congress detailing the number of enlisted service members and officers discharged under the policy including their job specialty (MOS), time in the service and branch of the military. Through these monthly updates, Congress and the public will get a clearer picture of the continued costs and damage to our national security inflicted by this policy.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to a timely response.

Sincerely,

James P. Moran



Congressional signatories include:

Hastings (D-FL), Baldwin (D-WI), Polis (D-CO), Frank (D-MA), Patrick Murphy (D-PA), Chu (D-CA), Berkley (D-NV), Wu (D-WA), Hinchey (D-NY), Jackson Jr (D-IL), Hare (D-IL), Doggett (D-TX), Olver (D-MA), Dingell (D-MI), Massa (D-NY), Gutierrez (D-IL), Walz (D-MI), Capuano (D-MA), Filner (D-CA), Quigley (D-IL), Cohen (D-TN), McGovern (D-MA), Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Grijalva (D-AZ), George Miller (D-CA), Capps (D-CA), Sherman (D-CA), Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI), Courtney (D-CT), Andrews (D_NJ), Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Wexler (D-FL), Rothman (D-NJ), DeGette (D-CO), Ed Markey (D-MA), Schwartz (D-PA), Serrano (D-NY), Blumenauer (D-OR), Schakowsky (D-IL), Stark (D-CA), John Hall (D-NY), Langevin (D-RI), Maloney (D-NY), Tsongas (D-MA), Clarke (D-NY), Delahunt (D-MA), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Himes (D-CT), Lofgren (D-CA), Owens (D-NY), Israel (D-NY), Weiner (D-NY), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Pingree (D-ME), Richardson (D-CA), Crowley (D-NY), Nadler (D-NY), Waxman (D-CA), Christensen (D-VI), Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Kagen (D-WI), Meeks (D-NY), Lujan (D-NM), John Lewis (D-GA), Connolly (D-VA), Engel (D-NY), Holmes Norton (D-DC), Ackerman (D-NY), Woolsey (D-CA), Adam Smith (D-WA), Shea-Porter (D-NH), Farr (D-CA), Fudge (D-OH), Kennedy (D-RI), Welch (D-VT), Carnahan (D-MO), Tierney (D-MA), Rush (D-IL), Honda (D-CA), Holt (D-NJ), Sestak (D-PA), Dahlkemper (D-PA), McDermott (D-WA), Kucinich (D-OH), Yarmuth (D-KY), Harman (D-CA), Titus (D-NV), Robert Brady (D-PA), Gonzalez (D-TX), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), Speier (D-CA), Van Hollen (D-MD), Woolsey (D-CA)

[Greyhound]

22. Unfortunately, none of them are CinC of the military.

This is President Obama's prerogative. Congress can ask, demand, plea, or even refuse to fund the military, but there is only one man that can resolve this issue with the stroke of his pen.

[babylonsister]

25. You are misinformed. Obama doesn't have a magic wand. Look it up. nt

[Greyhound]

28. No wands, magical or otherwise required.

The chain of command is, of necessity, absolutely unambiguous. That is, the question of authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell#President_Barack_Obama.27s_position">is a matter of legal opinion and might eventually be sussed out in the courts, but what is perfectly crystal clear is that any order issued by the CinC will immediately be obeyed and carried out. If at some later time the question of authority is decided differently in the courts, the issue will be revisited and the regs adjusted accordingly.

IOW, Obama is hiding behind an argument of opinion that nobody wants to decide because it is useful political fodder, but the fact is, if Obama issues the order it will be carried out and remain in force until the question is resolved in some other way, which we all know will not happen.

So once again, it is his adamant refusal to lead, preferring to abdicate and capitulate.
:puke:

[babylonsister]

29. Any order issued by the CinC will be immediately obeyed?

:rofl: A link would be nice, because that's a new one on me.

[Greyhound]

30. Have you ever been in the military?

I didn't think so.

It falls under http://www.constitution.org/mil/ucmj19970615.htm">Article 92.

Will it be a controversy? of course it will and we would see months of railing, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, but when the order is given it is carried out, period. To do otherwise is mutiny. It would be like Congress defunding the war in Iraq, they have no authority to order troops home, but without the money, the troops come home while the politicians (both professional and military) fight and argue.

[babylonsister]

31. You are so full of shit it ain't funny. An act of war might warrant a

reaction, and even when idiot son pursued his occupation, this didn't happen.

So to bring that up is bogus. Nice try though. Not really. :eyes:

[Greyhound]

32. You didn't answer the question, so I assume it is because the answer is no.

So, since you know so much about how the military works and are sure that a direct order from the CinC will be disobeyed, you can provide an example of this ever happening?

And BTW, as an authority on the military, I'm sure you are aware that In 1948, President http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation#Desegregation_in_the_military">Harry S Truman's Executive Order 9981 ordered the integration of the armed forces shortly after World War II. Another example of the CinC being utterly powerless to do anything the Congress doesn't like.

ETA; Civilians...:eyes:

[babylonsister]

34. Get over yourself. I know the President can't just 'proclaim' anything; he's not

a king. And no, I know nothing about 1948, I was born in 1956, but married to a Vet for 27 years. So you tell me how uninformed I am, darling. I have an uncle, two brothers, all retired from the Gov't, and 3 nephews now working for the gov't. Tell me what we all did wrong?

Oh, and I've worked for the gov't for quite a few years. But inform me of what I've missed. I can't wait.

[Greyhound]

36. Are you just so enamored with the idea that Obama is a helpless victim

that you have been rendered incapable of comprehending the concept of the civilian Commander in Chief of the armed forces, or even of reading the facts provided to you that show you are flat-out wrong? The military, any military, has an absolute chain of command and President Obama is the very tippy top of that chain. When the President issues an order to the military, they carry out that order. That's it, nothing more, no questions, no debate, period, end of discussion.

Obama is not a King, but he is the absolute ruler of the United States military, period. Congress can bitch and whine and cry all they want to after the fact, but the President has the authority.

FFS:dunce:

[babylonsister]

37. Wrong. Provide a link to prove he's holding this up. You can't, because

he can't do it. If he can, prove it. That's what the US is all about and the maddening thing about this system in some ways, including health care reform. If you think this Prez could snap his fingers and do it, it'd be done. It ain't happening so far.

[Greyhound]

38. I already have and you just won't look.

The military is not a democracy. I've already shown you that Harry Truman unilaterally desegregated the military in 1948 against the wishes of Congress and (probably) the American people as well. It caused controversy and numerous predictions of disaster and the debate raged for years, but it was ordered and immediately enacted because that's what soldiers do, they follow orders.

Obama's pretending that he can't do it because it might be politically inconvenient, but it's nothing but a ruse. He has the authority, he just won't use it.

This has nothing to do with the insurance scam or anything else, in matters military, he has the only say, everybody else is simply an adviser.

Deal with it, it ain't done 'cause he doesn't want to do it, or rather because he doesn't have the guts to face the shitstorm that it will cause, and that's just chickenshit fear.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[babylonsister]

42. You've done it twice? Do it again, cause I missed it. If it's so accessible,

why haven't you provided it again? I would.

And then you claim I'm just like the reich-wing? :rofl:

It's in your ball court now. Accuse me of whatever you want, but proof is a great thing.

[Greyhound]

43. Asked and answered. Unlike any of the questions asked of you.

At least your incessant gainsaying is keeping this important issue at the top of the page.

Zealot.

[Skittles]

46. like arguing with a fucking table ain't it?

[Greyhound]

47. I was thinking "beating your head against a brick brain", but yes.

She has apparently decided Obama is our savior and whatever he does is wonderful and whatever he fails to do is somebody else's fault.

But, this thread is important to a lot of people, and the multiple kicks keep it out there.

[Zenlitened]

69. It's important, and you've made some important points about this issue.

Usually, when Bab disgraces herself so thoroughly in a thread, she exits and never returns.

But the points you've made remain.

:thumbsup:

[Toasterlad]

51. Oh, You Want Links?

http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2009/06/23/77-members-of-congress-urge-obama-to-suspend-dadt-and-initiate-bilateral-repeal-process/

http://gaynewsbits.com/2009/06/23/members-of-congress-urge-obama-to-suspend-dadt/

http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/congress-letter-to-potus-suspend-dadt-immediately/

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/ARTICLE.php?AID=21514

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/84,000+Demand+Obama+Suspend+Gay+Ban+as+Firings+Continue

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/25/gibbs-cap-dadt/

http://www.gayvantage.com/gay-viewpoint/editorial/why-hasnt-obama-suspended-dadt-020919821/

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10924/report-obama-can-stop-the-discharge-of-openly-gay-and-lesbian-service-members-now

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_fires_gay_arabic_linguist/

I suggest you apologize and move on.

[QC]

54. "I suggest you apologize and move on."

But she's not an apologist!

[tbyg52]

60. Thanks, I needed a laugh!

:rofl:

[Jamastiene]

62. +1

:spray:

[donco6]

57. He already has. And they're perfectly valid.

True, they don't fit what you want to believe. Alas, that's a problem you have to face yourself.

[lapfog_1]

56. That would be a big "NO".

Commander-in-Chief is not "absolute dictator". Soldiers must follow LEGAL orders (and the test is a great phrase "must not follow manifestly illegal orders" with no clear definition of what "manifestly illegal" means). Ask the German Generals that were tried at Nuremberg about the outcome of following "manifestly illegal" orders.

10 USC 654 prohibits gays from serving in the military. Period. No distinction about serving "openly" or "in secret".

No President can issue an order (executive order) to break the law, despite the finding of the PalmCenter attendees in May, 2009.

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

Lets put it this way... President Obama chooses to not push into an area of law where the outcome is in doubt and losing would undermine his authority as Commander-in-Chief. I would make the same choice if I was President.

Let's see what happens in 2010. I hold on to hope that he will start pushing Congress to change the law and repeal 10 USC 654.

[Toasterlad]

59. You Are Absolutely Wrong.

Obama would not be breaking the law by suspending DADT; he is well within his rights as Commander in Chief of the military to suspend ANY regulation that impacts military readiness at such times as we have troops in harm's way. That's a FACT.

Obama could singe-handedly prevent gay servicemen from losing their careers and livelihoods, and he is choosing not to do so.

[lapfog_1]

68. No, I'm am absolutely correct.

Of course Obama can rescind DADT, it's a Presidential Executive Order, not a law. He can do it tomorrow. What he can't do is overturn or issue an executive order to ignore USC 10-654, the specific current law of the land on gays serving in the military. It's a law, passed by Congress, signed by President Clinton.

USC 10-654 can only be overturned by another law, passed by Congress, signed by President Obama (or some other President).

That's the way our system works.

What you are really saying is:

"Why doesn't President Obama rescind the Executive Order on DADT policy and replace it with a new policy that says that the military will IGNORE USC 10-654 and NOT INVESTIGATE NOR DISCHARGE members of military who are openly gay?"

And the answer it two fold:

1. It not the right way to fix it, and is probably against the law.

2. It would be challenged in court by both retired and active service personnel, most likely some high ranking generals and admirals, they would appeal such an executive order to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can overturn laws that it finds are unconstitutional. I suspect that this law (USC 10-654) is not one of them. The Supreme Court could also determine that despite the US law and case law about DADT and gays in the military, President Obama has the executive authority to issue orders to the military to ignore US code. They COULD do those things. My guess is that they WOULDN'T do those things. They would rebuke President Obama and rescind the executive order (the new one that you want) and then all kinds of bad shit could happen. It would be very bad for military morale and future orders of the C-in-C would be in doubt. The current crap that tried to end up in court with certain service members refusing orders because Obama is not the legitimate President (Orly's crap) would be child's play compared to the new ration of shit.


You all seem to think that it's DADT that is to blame. It's not. DADT was the direct result of USC 10-654. It was an attempt by Clinton to FIX the issue. Just not a very good one. USC 10-654 is the real culprit, and it needs to go. Write your congress critters.

[Toasterlad]

73. DADT Is a Law Passed By Congress And Signed By Bill Clinton, And If You Don't Know That....

,..you should not be discussing this issue, or any other GLBT issue. You're spreading disinformation, inhibiting legitimate discussion, harming good-faith attempts at change, and embarrassing yourself. Not necessarily in that order.

From the Servicemember's Legal Defense Network website:

"Passed by Congress in 1993, DADT is a law mandating the discharge of openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual service members."

[Tesha]

61. Nothing will happen in 2010 -- It's an election year and during an election year, our Democrats...

...*NEVER* do anything that might be the slightest
bit controversial because it might endanger getting
somebody's vote somewhere.

And during non-election years, they never do anything
controversial because "there's always next year".

Tesha

[lapfog_1]

70. Probably true.

If the Dems want to keep the House and maintain anything like a majority (probably not 60 in the caucus) in 2010, they need to fix the economy and put people (like me) back to work. No one will notice any big changes in health care, even if the House bill passes (it won't, more likely is something like the Senate bill), so that issue won't help them.

The best chance is 2011, if we maintain large majorities in Congress.

Will it be done then? I have no idea. I'd like to think that the President, facing re-election in 2012, throws a bone to the gay community, knowing that he needs them in 2012. Likewise with immigration reform and a path to citizenship for the current illegals, and some sort of guest worker program for the future... because he will need the Hispanics. But next year, it's jobs, jobs, jobs.

Or, as one Presidential campaign used to put it "It's the economy, stupid".

[Toasterlad]

50. Your "Credentials" Are Laughable.

Just because you were married to a vet for 27 years doesn't mean that vet has the slightest understanding of what the president is or is not able to do. The same goes for all your "Gov't" worker relatives (who work exactly where? At the DMV? Parks and Recreation?)

It is well within Obama's jurisdicition as Commander in Chief to suspend the investigation and discharge of ANY personnel for ANY reason as long as we have troops in harm's way. He doesn't need ANY approval from Congress to do this; as a matter of fact, Congress has ASKED him to do this, and he has ignored them.

Next time, you might try doing a little research on an issue instead of relying on your years of "Gov't" work to make you an "authority". For instance, if you'd simply Googled "Obama suspend DADT", you'd have found all sorts of information that would have prevented you from posting such stinking piles of non-factual horseshit.

[donco6]

14. It's the left-wing "abortion" issue.

Just like the RW uses abortion year after year to raise money to fight the pro-abortion evildoers, the left-wing will perpetually use DADT as a fundraiser from GLBT suckers who think they'll actually do somthing about it someday.

[Tesha]

17. In even years, nothing can be done about it because "the time isn't right"...

...with an election up-coming.

In odd years, nothing can be done about it because
"it's just X's (the President, the new Congress's,
etc.) first year; you can't expect that they'll
get *EVERYTHING* done immediately!"

It might be vaguely possible in the third year of
a presidential administration but Obama clearly isn't
concerned about gay rights or how gays feel about him.
They already did the one thing he needed by helping
to elect him; now they can very clearly piss off.

Tesha

[donco6]

19. Lather, rinse, repeat.

It's the same with any and every administration. The lot of them can go to hell, AFAIC.

[mitchtv]

27. I think that about says it

thanks Tesha

[Greyhound]

44. Pretty much sums it up.

Has our party become allergic to doing the right thing? Even the good that is done is half-assed, over-priced, and easily rolled back by the next republik wave.

It's tiresome.

[Oregone]

15. They are trying to sneak the repeal in through the back door maybe

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. Good question.

I served before DADT and we had a few soldiers that were known to be gay but they never would have admitted to it. One of them was a fellow medic and good friend, he was funny he would always push the limit without actually ever admitting to anything. It really pissed people off.

[butterfly77]

20. Could it have something to do with...

blue dogs..

[Tesha]

21. It has as much to do with the fellow in your avatar and the fact that he made...

...a bunch of campaign promises that he had no intention
of ever keeping to groups that were willing to help elect
him but now occupy some of that ever-expanding space "under
the bus".

Tesha

[Mari333]

23. [phone]

he wont get my vote again.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. You wish.

[Tesha]

48. Cleverly argued, Pron, very cleverly argued. (NT)

[Toasterlad]

52. "Wish" Obama Would Keep His Campaign Promises? I Sure Do.

[Jamastiene]

63. Bingo.

That is exactly what he did.

[Greyhound]

33. No. n/t

[C_Lawyer09]

24. Stop the Madness

I'm disgusted by the fact that we still await the opportunity of Gays to openly serve. Especially considering the visible aplomb which many have already served. It is sad indeed that we cannot acknowledge the many sacrifices and heroic deeds of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines, without acknowledging that sexual orientation doesn't matter a whit. Further, and on a practical note, how much money do we waste on investigations and time lost from work, on something that shouldn't matter! How could we in good conscience deprive a company in harms way of an Arabic Translator for their sexual orientation? Doesnt make sense and should be condemned.

[jtylerpittman]

26. I think it should be a priority

The time is now. This is one thing if it is not done now it could be a long time.

[iris27]

40. I am tired of waiting for the day when gay soldiers will be able to go to their

superiors when homophobic comrades threaten their life and safety, instead of living in fear, or deserting to protect themselves.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/20/refugee-board-soldier-lesbian.html

[Tailormyst]

55. We have a spineless party of bigots who like to claim how accepting they are

Otherwise DOMA and DADT would be done with. Speeches mean jack shit without action. Jack Shit.

[name not needed]

65. You see, it's all part of Obama's "fierce advocacy" for gay rights.

Fuck. McClurkin shoulda been a sign.

[Toasterlad]

74. McClurkin WAS a Sign, Which, Sadly, Many People Ignored Because Obama Makes Pretty Speeches.

Pretty speeches wherein he promises many pretty things, apparently none of which he intends to deliver.

[Tesha]

78. To many of us, it *WAS* a sign. (NT)

[LooseWilly]

67. Obama's saving his political capital to fight for the public option he campaigned on...

don'chya know.

See, if the administration brought up something as controversial as DADT, even once, in a speech or something, then ALL of the support that he's now getting from across the aisle for his Health Care Reform bill would... evaporate in a sublime instant of partisan evanescence.

Obviously, the health care reform package that Obama campaigned for is far more important than DADT, so the special interests will just have to wait.


(And, in case it's not obvious- :sarcasm: dark dark :sarcasm:... as this was the gist of one of the most popular arguments about doing nothing in 2009...)

[Nikki Stone1]

72. It time to repeal DADT.

ASAP.

[bigtree]

75. bunch of assholes

. . . standing in the way, and no one (from the president on down) worried about changing the rule more than they are about how it might affect them politically.

Some in the administration may be looking to do more than just push through some Executive branch repeal and are likely looking to see if they can codify whatever changes they ultimately make into law. Politics again.