Whee! Pentagon starts review of DADT "survey" of 400K troops AND 150K FAMILY MEMBERS.

[Bluebear]

Whatever.

====

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 (UPI) -- The Pentagon is reviewing its survey of U.S. service members and families about ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military, officials said.

Adm. Mike Mullen, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, said Wednesday about 400,000 military personnel and members of 150,000 families were surveyed, CQ Politics reported.

Mullen advocates repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law but has cautioned Congress to wait for the Pentagon to "crunch the data" from its survey before it considers ending the policy. Note: Fuck you.

The Pentagon has enough data to be statistically significant, Mullen said...

Final results are due to Defense Secretary Robert Gates by Dec. 1. Note: After the election, fancy that. Fierce!

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/09/29/Pentagon-starts-dont-ask-survey-review/UPI-44221285792031/

[rocktivity]

1. Data schmata--this is A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE

NOT a ban of a policy, but repeal of an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[bobbolink]

6. Hey, come on... let's be fair. After all, they did a comprehensive "survey" before including black

folk, right?

Oh wait.....

[rocktivity]

12. I think you've confused

the surveys they took about Jews joining the military in the Fifties, blacks joining in the Sixties, and women joining in the Seventies.

:P
rocktivity

[msanthrope]

15. Apples and oranges.....

In the case of integrating the service, you had no barrier to an EO--there was no statute declaring Blacks harmful to the military.

In this case, you have a direct finding of harm contained within the statute itself. And the only way you trigger judicial deference required to make a repeal survive is by demonstrating that the "finding" is either wrong, or no longer applicable.

[bobbolink]

17. Sorry, you misread my sarcasm.... I didn't think I needed to add the tag.

I mean really... a fucking survey to DO WHAT IS RIGHT?

It's obscene.

There, is that more clear?

[bobbolink]

18. since the damned thing duped...

You aren't seriously telling me there actually WERE surveys about blacks, right?

That was a long time ago, but I remember that as an ORDER.

[msanthrope]

22. As I explained to you....

You didn't 'need' surveys because there was NO LAW saying that Blacks could not serve, nor that they were 'harmful.' An EO did it, because it was military policy, not law.

But here is what is so disgusting about DADT---it enshrines, in law, the Congressionally found 'facts' that "homosexuals" are absolutely harmful to the military. That's not policy--that's LAW. And it's repugnant and disgusting....

And it was deliberate--let's not forget that Jesse and Strom wanted it that way--enshrined in law.

So you need Congress to clean up this mess. That's the way the system works.

And you need SOME EVIDENCE that the findings of the DADT Congress were wrong, or no longer apply.

Because repeal is the first step--it needs to get past the courts.

[bobbolink]

23. I'm on your side, but if you need to argue about it, I will leave the thread.

Some day, when people get more mature, maybe we can all work together.

Until then, its everyone for themselves.

Good luck.

Bye.

[msanthrope]

2. Good--this is the only way to ensure a repeal survives judical scrutiny.

I've noted this before--

In DADT, the Congress put in a "finding of harm" that "homosexuality" is completely adverse and inimical to the military--thus, discharge MUST happen.

The only way you get that repealed, and make it stick, is if you have actual data that the fears of the DADT Congress are for naught--that most soldiers don't really care, and it's not inimical to military order. Then judicial review MUST give great deference to the repeal....

I'm hoping and wishing this survey does what it should do--prove that animus is the only thing keeping gays out of the military.

[Bluebear]

4. Yes, the only way to ensure it was to survey the families online.

Yeah, yeah, I know, you want it repealed as much as anybody.

[msanthrope]

13. I do. But not just repeal, because that, my friend, is only the first step.

I wish I could tell you that Congressional repeal would end this blight, but it's the first step.

It should take the GOP or its surrogates about 15 minutes to walk down the street to the DC Circuit and file for a TRO after repeal.

Then comes the fight in the judiciary.

And the only way you trigger the deference that repeal needs is if you take the "finding of harm" found in the DADT and shove it down the throats of the fuckers who think that gays are inimical to military order....

I do want repeal. And I want it to stick. I want it tied up in the nicest fucking bow imaginable so that when Fat Tony and his cronies look at it, they stroke out thinking of the pretzel logic they are going to have to employ.

[uppityperson]

9. and an online survey proves these facts...how?

This is "actual data"? This online survey about how someone feels about various situations with people who are gay? This "actual data" is worthwhile...how? This subjective online survey = "actual data"?

Wow.

[msanthrope]

19. Yes--let me explain--

I don't know how old you are, but the original DADT legislation was passed after hearings were conducted.

Hearings where military men testified to how destructive "homosexuality" would be to military order. This testimony became the basis of a "finding" within the DADT statute that "homosexuality" was extremely harmful.

Now, because you have this finding, repeal of DADT MUST address what the prior Congress found--the issue of "harm" to the military. If you don't address that issue, then you give Fat Tony and the rest of the mob on SCOTUS the opportunity to deny deference to the laws of Congress---in other words, they will overturn repeal.

BUT--if you can prove that attitudes have changed, that what the military men said in the 90s no longer holds true, then repeal has a chance of surviving judicial review.

Does this suck? Um, yes. But what you have here is statute that just won't go away with just a repeal--it needs a repeal, with a finding of its own.

[uppityperson]

25. The same could apply to racial integrated squads, or having women serve

Not sure if "squad" is the right term, but of course integrating groups of people with different skin color could have been very destructive to military order since co-mingling of races was extremely harmful.

"repeal of DADT MUST address what the prior Congress found--the issue of "harm" to the military. If you don't address that issue, then you give Fat Tony and the rest of the mob on SCOTUS the opportunity to deny deference to the laws of Congress---in other words, they will overturn repeal."

Could have applied to skin color. Not to mention having uppity women "serving" in the military.

I don't see that a "finding" beyond Civil Rights equality is needed any more than surveying the military men in the 60's/70's regarding race was needed.

[msanthrope]

29. As I explained in other posts, you didn't have segregation

enshrined in law affecting the military, but as military policy. Thus, an EO sufficed.

Same thing with women serving--it was policy, not law, so EO's and changes in regulations were sufficient.

Here, you have DADT--a law that specifically finds harm from "homosexuality." You have to overcome that finding, because gays do not get the same level of judicial protection/scrutiny/review that race, or even gender does....

You have to anticipate that any repeal can survive 'rational' review. This is because 'sexual orientation' is simply NOT given the same protections that 'race' or 'gender' are. IS this wrong? Yes. But remember that Prop 8 failed on rational review.

[JohnnyLib2]

21. Thank you.

I understand the legal points but have almost as much concern about the long-run credibility of the survey process. It's not hard to imagine wild publicity about any screw ups that occur. Sigh......

[msanthrope]

24. Oh, yeah--the campaign to discredit this survey has already begun....

and I'm not taking it for granted that the survey will be favorable....

But from what I understand, social conservatives who took the survey were upset at the questions asked...and some did not complete the survey based on the information asked for.

[VMI Dem]

3. Hey, gotta do it orderly. Because he cares.

[Bluebear]

5. It's the ONLY WAY!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9226096&mesg_id=9226132

[Occulus]

16. "You are ignoring the author of this thread"

:D

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Funny, I don't recall them asking me if I wanted to march, salute, or call idiots "sir".

I guess following orders are now a consensus of opinion thing now.

[bobbolink]

10. !!

:rofl:

OK, its not funny, but I had a funny mental image as I was reading your post.

Its about that sticky thing called...

...............LEADER-FUCKING-SHIP!!

"Which way did they go, I'm their leader."

:nuke:

Lead, follow, or get out of the fucking way!

[muffin1]

8. It's obvious

that you never liked Obama. ;-)

K&R...I cannot believe this shit is still going on. What's next? Will they be surveying Facebook friends? Christ.

[Bluebear]

11. We need to survey the clergy and chaplains. It's the only way!

:crazy:

[BlueIdaho]

14. Do they also poll soldiers before ordering them into battle?

"Ok troops, show of hands - who wants to go over the top, face a hail of bullets and certain death?"

"No one?"

"Ok then, stand down."

[valerief]

20. Is Diebold/Premier/ESS/whatever going to tally results? nt

[uppityperson]

26. Trying to prove that there is "no harm" in repealing DADT is idiotic

Did they have to prove there was "no harm" by surveying military men about race, or creed? How about age? Let's survey the military to prove there is "no harm" by having some older dudes.

Rather like Civil Rights in the 60/70s, rather like women's right to vote, this should not be an issue.

[msanthrope]

30. It should not be an issue, but as I pointed out upthread, you have an actual law stating that gays

cause harm in the military--a finding enshrined in law.

That is what is so horrible about DADT--it is there, in law.

Race, creed, age, gender--there were no laws preventing integration, protection only military policy and culture, so EOs sufficed.



You are right--it SHOULD NOT be an issue. But it is because of both the pernicious nature of the finding, AND because judicial review will be 'rational.' Gays are a quasi-protected class. Review of laws concerning them doesn't invoke the same scrutiny as laws for race, or gender. Is this wrong? Yes.

[DearAbby]

27. Since when has the military become a democracy?

Did they survey the troops to desegregate Black troops with White? No they just did it. When did this all happen?

[Touchdown]

28. Will the responses be published in Manscape?

... gay equivalent to Penthouse Forum.

"Dear Manscape; I know this sounds impossible, but it really happened to me..."

[Bluebear]

31. !!