Mr. President, suspend discharges under DADT immediately.

[VMI Dem]

What legitimate reason is there not to? How many excuses are you going to feed to the GLBT community?

You can end this. You have the authority.

And why the fuck would you allow your justice department to seek to limit the ruling that the policy is not Constitutional? How would not limiting the ruling harm the military?




“Many times on the campaign trail, President Obama said he would support the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Now that it's time to step up to the plate, he isn't even in the ballpark.”

Thats a fucking Republican that said that. A fucking Republican.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Buck up, will you?

He'll get to it but first the bankers need something or other.

[sailor65]

2. It's like bizarro world, isn't it?

No excuses are acceptable.

Oh, and rec

[katandmoon]

3. K&R.

[muffin1]

4. K&R

Strange that our first black President is on the wrong side of this very important Civil Rights issue.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. The continued discharges are inexcusable.

[msanthrope]

11. They are per statute. How does he suspend a statute of Congress? n/t

[Smashcut]

6. K/R

[cordelia]

7. K&R

[foxfeet]

8. K&R

[Bluebear]

9. Buck up and quit whining.

:eyes:

[msanthrope]

10. Can you explain to me how he has the authority to suspend a statute of Congress?

Because in the DADT statute is a "finding of Harm" which compels the military to discharge.

Now, Gates does have leeway in how inquiries happen--which is why in the Spring, he gave new regulations aimed at raising the standard of proof required, and slowing the discharge rate.

If the Serviceperson's Legal Defense Network has missed something, i.e. a legal way for the discharges to be suspended, please tell me.

[Bluebear]

12. "slowing the discharge rate" - tell that to Dan Choi and all the others FIRED

[msanthrope]

14. well, Dan Choi is a perfect example of what I'm saying---

Under DADT a serviceperson who is outed--either by chance, deliberately, or voluntarily is summarily discharged because of the 'finding of harm.' That's the "don't tell" part, and it's inflexible.

But what Gates is trying to do is work within his authority---to modify the 'don't ask" part.

It's all that can be done until you have a repeal--in other words, Congress must clean up its own fuckup.

[phleshdef]

13. Obama: I don't think it's too much to ask, to say "Let's do this in an orderly way"

Here, I've got the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff both committed to changing the policy. That's a big deal.

...

Now, I am also the commander in chief of an armed forces that is in the midst of one war and wrapping up another one. So I don't think it's too much to ask, to say "Let's do this in an orderly way" — to ensure, by the way, that gays and lesbians who are serving honorably in our armed forces aren't subject to harassment and bullying and a whole bunch of other stuff once we implement the policy. I use that as an example because on each of these areas, even those where we did not get some grand legislative victory, we have made progress. We have moved in the right direction.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395?RS_show_page=5

[The Philosopher]

15. What COULD the President do?

In another thread I asked if the President could suspend DADT under Article One, Section Three of the Constitution which states that the President “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” If a law contradicts others, could he not suspend it? What if he believes it contradicts itself?

The US code 654 section A.5 states that members of the military have to make sacrifices because of the nature of the service. The following sections A.6 and A.7 talk about how unit cohesion is crucial to combat. Given the nature of discrimination and bigotry, if I would think that these three sections would exclude discrimination of LGBT service members.

If he could suspend it with that reasoning, would it be permanent? Or could he then use the DOJ to file a lawsuit against the law, saying it’s unconstitutional? Could the government sue itself if it believe it has passed an unconstitutional law?