Military tells Congress to keep gay ban for now

Source: Associated Press

Senior Pentagon leaders on Friday warned Congress not to tamper with the ban on gays serving openly in the military until he can come up with a plan for dealing with potential opposition in the ranks.

In a strongly worded letter obtained by The Associated Press, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee that forcing policy changes on the military before it's ready would be a mistake.

"Our military must be afforded the opportunity to inform us of their concerns, insights and suggestions if we are to carry out this change successfully," Gates and Mullen wrote to the panel's chairman, Missouri Democrat Ike Skelton.

Gay rights advocates want legislation this year that would freeze military firings of openly gay service members, and some senior Democratic senators have said they want to offer such a bill.


Gates opposes getting rid of gay ban until Pentagon study done
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/95401-gates-opposes-scrapping-gay-ban-until-pentagon-study-finished

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100430/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_military_gays

until the November mid-term elections. They are hoping the republicans pick up some seats and repeal of DADT will be not attainable.

the military would still be segregated by race.

the only benefit I see is that it takes away a wedge issue for the next election cycle. Not saying that it is good, just that I could imagine there are a lot of self-serving interests out there making it about them instead of about what is right.

issue. If they were, DADT would not have been implemented as smoothly as it was. Before that, being gay itself was reason for discharge, whether you asked or told or not. So, DADT is what allowed gays into the military--as long as they were willing to be closeted, dishonest and very careful.

The only change that dropping DADT would constitute for the ranks is allowing their fellow members of the military to stop lying.

I don't think the ranks are going to insist that the lying continue. This is about either the military flexing its muscles or giving Obama political cover, or both.

I repeat my own point again in all of this - How many people have been discharged for asking under this policy? How many have been discharged for pursuing? This policy has always been slanted against the gay service member.

This is how you do it, Gates. You order it done and you enforce it. Did the military do a poll on Normandy? Did they do a poll on Iraq or Afghanistan? This letter is 100% bullshit, meant as a cover for Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration to avoid yet once again fulfilling their promises to LGBT Democrats. Set this fucking letter to music and let Donnie McClurkin make it a gospel hit.

over 13,500 people have been discharged since 1994. The numbers aren't split into Asking or Telling. And, it just keeps getting bigger.

My understanding of the military is that it follows a policy of "follow the orders you're given". If a large enough proportion of active duty troop are unwilling to follow an order to treat fellow soldiers as equals that is puts our security at risk, perhaps there's a bigger problem to address.

I can't think of anyone less qualified to have an opinion then 'Senior Pentagon leaders'. They need to just sit down, STFU and do what they're told.

and fuck 'em too!

- K&R

I guess he's fine with keeping DADT.

too fine a point - didn't the navy corner the market on the military "heads"? The Army & Marines have latrines while the Air Force has "potty rooms".

The Air Force...a great alternative to military service.

What the hell kind of fake leadership is THAT? :puke:

!

If the official recommendation is to leave DADT in place, then it would seem that the CIC doesn't have a problem with it.

the ones to obey.

In his capacity as Commander in Chief, he could suspend dismissals under DADT right now. The law would still be on the books, but one aspect of the enforcement would be suspended.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

The law was written to make sure Clinton (and his successors) couldn't do something like, oh, suspend dismissals.

Or am I confused about the chain of command?

So, what Obama *could* do is try to appoint a different SecDef, and get the appointment through Congress. Gates seems somewhat opposed.

It may be me, but I think it's you.

Obama is Gates' boss. He gets to tell him what to do.

You seem to be implying that it works the other way around--that the Secretary of Defense does whatever he likes and the President has to deal with it.

It may be me, but I think it's you.

Obama is Gates' boss. He gets to advise him what he thinks should be done.

You seem to be implying that it works the other way around--that the Secretary of Defense does whatever the President likes and the Secretary has to deal with it.

:evilgrin:

Obama's more of a consensus builder than an authoritarian, more of a "arbitrator" than a "decider". He'd make for a lousy dictator.

the Constitution does not make him a dictator. The Constitution does not simply give the President a choice of being a civilian commander of the armed forces; it imposes that duty on him. Stop pulling stuff out of your ear to make excuses.

It's about political cover and his re-election, not about not wanting to be a dictator. Appointing Rahm as his Chief of Staff speaks volumes on both issue.

And, p.s., sorry to break it to you, but you have no special insight into how Obama operates. To the contrary, your perspective on that seems either singularly simplistic or singularly disingenuous. Candidly, I am not counting out either possiblity and here's why:

I know this is not your first thread on this subject by far. So, you pretty much know about everything in Reply # 38. Yet, Laconicsax is patently exactly correct about your Reply ##'s 31 and 33. Both DID try to imply Obama had no legal or practical power to do anything unless and until Gates or Congress takes the initiative--a position that is very different from what your Reply 35 fell back on after Laconicsax backed you into a corner.

"Obama has absolute power"
and
"Obama has no power"

...are equally intellectually bankrupt ideas.

Posts from either perspective are what I tend to go after, but the 'Obama should act like a dictator' seem to dominate here. Having worked in abusive environments where a dictator passes down directives, I can understand why some people might think such a thing is acceptable.

However, I've worked in non-abusive environments, where being a "boss" does not mean that staff are slaves to the boss.

I'm saying that he *could* do it.
You're saying that he *wouldn't* do it.

Obama *could* direct the Secretary of Defense to do it and Gates would have to. Obama's not going to do it because he's a spineless consensus builder.

Before you question the "spineless" part, consider this. He's more interested in doing something for which he has a lot of support than just doing what's right. If he's not going to stand up and say, "this is wrong, we need to change this," then what use is he as a leader?

Gates "seems opposed?" Why do you think that is? Me, I think whenn Obama wants to deal with this, both Gates and congress will magically fall right in line.

And, even if they don't. Obama's options are not as limited as you would like us to believe.

I don't believe that Congress will ever magically fall in line.

I've not seen a lot of that. Perhaps you could cite some examples of this happening under Obama.

I'm also not sure what I would "like us to believe", or what you're implying.

confirmed by the Senate. Reappointment by President Obama was not necessary as confirmed cabined officers continue in office, even through different administrations. Serving at the pleasure of the President, cabinet Officers normally resign with administration changes and most resignations are accepted, especially when the party in power changes. Held over by by President Obama, Mr. Gates remains in office as SECDEF unless

- he removes himself via resignation
- the President removes him
- Congress removes him via Impeachment(by the House of Rep) & Conviction (in a Senate Trial)
- The Grim Reaper removes him via death

No matter what any statute says, the POTUS is still the CIC of the Armed Forces, as well as the boss of every Cabinet Secretary, ESPECIALLY the Secretary of Defense. In realtiy, the Secretary of Defense, like everyone else in the Executive Branch, has a choice, follow orders or resign. Period. But, since the POTUS is both Chief Executive of the Executive Branch AND Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, it goes double for the Secretary of Defense.

Oh, and as far as how the law was written--that, too, was to give the POTUS, then Clinton, political cover. Clinton could, if he had chosen, instituated DADT himself (or abolished the policy against gays in the military himself), but Clinton wanted political cover. So, Clinton, Powell and Morris wrote the law, then got Congress to enact it.

And nowhere in that law does it say that the POTUS has no Constitutional power over the military or over his cabinet, nor could any law say that and be enforced. Nor does the DADT statute say the President cannot eliminate the policy banning gays from the military. Nor could any law say that. Nor does either the DADT statute or the stop loss statute say that the POTUS shall have no power to suspend DADT discharges. Nor could any law constitutionally say that.

Come on, now, get real.

#38 pointed out avenues I hadn't considered, and I hope the executive team sees it.

by this administration.

do it one more time, then bookmark this post for the next person who repeats that uncritically, apparently out of zeal to insulate Obama from any criticism for this.

First, Obama cannot be let off the hook for BOTH his campaign promise to end DADT and his alleged inablity to do anything to end DADT. If Obama the POTUS truly has no ability to end DADT, then, in promising to end DADT, Obama the Candidate was dishonest. He was either deceptive when he campaigned or deceptive after he got into office. Take your pick. And, yes, he never gave a date, but then at least own up to dragging your feet on this, despite the cost of that to the GLBT community, to our troops and to our national security.

Okay, now: This is what he could have done, starting on Inauguration Day or any time thereafter:

1/ Use Constitutionally-granted powers as CIC to sign an Executive Order abolishing the policy--not the law--the policy--that gays cannot serve in the military.

or

2/ Use the Constitutionally-granted powers as CIC to abolish the statutory requirement that gays must lie about their orientation and lives, aka DADT. The powers of the CIC and Congress overlap when it comes to the military. Nothing in the Constitution nor in any law says that the CIC is powerless once Congress has acted. It has been a tradition, but that is ALL it is. Breaking with tradition is not a crime. It's not even bad manners, ffs.

or

Clinton and Powell came up with DADT, not Congress. Clinton could have made DADT policy on his own. He asked Congress to enact it only because he wanted political cover. Obama is a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress. Had Obama signed an Executive Order abolishing DADT on Inauguration Day, with a politically popular explanation, like necessity of war(s), what would Congress have done? Taken a tantrum? Sued Obama? No, Pelosi and Reid would have applauded. The executive order could even have given the military

or

3/ Use statutorily-granted powers, expressly given the POTUS by Congress (as if the POTUS needed Congress's permission) under 10 U.S.C. 12305 to suspend DADT discharges until such time as Congress repeals DADT.

or

4/ Stop pretending that a Democratic President has no ability to originate a bill ending DADT discharges and tell Pelosi and Reid that he wants it on his desk for his signature ASAP. I cannot believe the degree of bs that has emanated from the WH, and Obama personally, to the contrary.

or

5/ Some combination of the above 4.

Instead, soon after he got into office, Obama the Commender in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, which armed forces our Constitution put under the control of civilians for very good reasons, asked *wink wink* his very Republican Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, whom Obama can replace at will, to look into this. IOW, kabuki theater--the illusion that Obama was actually doing something.

Do we really believe the military brass, many of whose members are neo theos, has never prepared to answer that question? Do we really believe the brass was going to look into this in good faith and with great dispatch? Do we really believe anyone even suggested a deadline for that to happen, but just forgot to tell the GLBT community about the firm deadline? Or that the real deadline wasn't "whenever Congress/the POTUS wants it? Come on, now.

The military is not a co-equal branch of government. The military knows who can fire them and who controls their funding.

Meanwhile, hundreds of careers and maybe lives have been ruined since Obama took office alone. Not to mention the adverse effect on our national security and our very stretched out and worn out troops. That is the price of pretended that the POTUS, CIC and head of the Democratic Party, is helpless and impotent when it comes to the military and to his Democratic Congress.

Lord, if the man has that much power over this, from both the Constitution and Congress, over Democrats in Congress, who need his help campaigning, over the DNC and its funds, etc. and he still truly could not get this done in all this time, what does that say? And if he could get it done, but chose not to, despite the price of inaction, what does that say> Either way...

The problem, of course, is that "repeal later, not now" seems decidedly likely to amount to "never repeal"--at least not anytime soon.

How about ordering them to get over it.

This a complete BS. When did the military get all touchy feel-ly about what "the ranks" want? Is there a chain of command or not? Am I to believe our commanders think our troops can handle combat, incoming enemy fire, deaths of comrades, bombs, guerrilla fighters, etc etc... but they cannot handle working with gays? Hell, civilians do it every day.

You should have gotten this done within MONTHS after you were elected President.

But those pesky gays aren't worth spending political capital on.

But you know whose stories don't matter? The gay and lesbian soldiers and their families, who CAN'T tell their stories because this bullshit bigoted policy keeps them in the closet! What a brilliant roadmap to repeal!

I agree with the post further down, too, that says it's fundir right wing Christian bigots that are behind this. I know a strong difference in the 2 types of Christians in the US - liberal lovers of all who sacrifice of themselves to help ALL others, and the closed-minded type that is worried about 'appearances', and 'the way things used to be', and such... stick in the mud bigots who more than likely would have chanted on Jesus' death if they were in the crowd back in the day...

They just need to tell the bigots to STFU and get used to it, that there's Gays in the military and always has been! If the UK military and others can survive with allowing people to be themselves then so can our country.

:eyes:

Even when the military leadership proudly announces that it is afraid of their own troops, that they can not command them, that their orders will not be followed? Some kind of Generals who can not command corporals. Weak men.

They stink up everything they touch and they get their roots deep in our American institutions. Too bad there isn't a spray to get rid of them. Freedom will never thrive until they have either died off or evolved.

stinks

Come on, now. Put the responsiblitty where it belongs. On our politicians, and, ultimately, on us.

Which President or Congress had ordered the military to adhere strictly to separation of Church and State or face discipline, up to and including dishonorable discharge? We all know that members of the military have access to chaplains and religious services. As well they should.

But, we all also know that the brass pressures them to be religious in general and to be born again in particular. Do any of us really think we know that, but Congress and the POTUS have been oblivious to it.

No, our politicians deliberately turn a blind eye to that; and we deliberately turn a blind eye to our politicians turning a blind eye to that.

We say, you do. Get it?

get to tell Congress what to do?

:banghead:

The troops take orders. Change the law - it becomes an order. It's that simple. If bigots have a problem with it - discharge the bigots.

DADT already said years ago that gays can be in the military. This is about only whether gays who already are in the military must sacrifice their honor and integrity in order to stay in the military. Do we really think our hetero troops, who take oaths to be honorable, are going to oppose having their gay colleagues stop lying and hiding?

Besides, whatever happened to the best-trained military in the world? Aren't soldiers trained to obey orders? Whatever the military did after Truman signed an order to integrate the military at the height of Jim Crow, they can do now.

Opportunity to inform us their concerns, my ass. The U.S. military brass has been informing everyone of concerns about gays in the military since forever. It's neo theo bs, not military concerns.

those are your orders. Deal with it.