tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post1149926289912891191..comments2023-06-19T04:16:51.117-07:00Comments on buggieboy: Supporting a Declaration of War Should Be The Same As Volunteering to Fight ItJ.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09027687985747914971noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-910706057648930342008-07-08T02:14:00.000-07:002008-07-08T02:14:00.000-07:00Actually, I think circumstances will have more pus...Actually, I think circumstances will have more push than I have.<BR/><BR/>I think as an issue, it's much like the desegration of the military in the first half of the last century.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your reply.<BR/><BR/>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-25128125464244319472008-07-02T18:22:00.000-07:002008-07-02T18:22:00.000-07:00Isn't it clear by now that a few individuals do no...Isn't it clear by now that a few individuals do not speak for "the military?" Gen. Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is against the ban on gays - so that some former chairmen are or were for it shows nothing. And when did the Joint Chiefs become "The Military?" Did anyone ask colonels, captains, sergeants, or the rest of the hundreds of thousands that make up the military? And Colin Powell clearly does whatever his higher-ups tell him to do - witness his disgrace and shame over Iraq and his testimony to the UN over "mobile bio-weapons labs." He can suck it - no pun intended.<BR/><BR/>After Rumsfeld, can you really tell me the Secretary of Defense has to give a damn what soldiers think for it to be policy? Your excerpt does not show it was the military that made the policy, it confirms it did NOT.<BR/><BR/>The Army does not make policy. There is no anti-gay military policy. There is a federal law, passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, that orders the military to ban gays.<BR/><BR/>Or do you blame the Army for invading Iraq too? <BR/><BR/>The Army obeys the will of the people - and the will of the people at that time was anti-gay. It was wrong, but it was not the military's decision, it was the decision of the people. Just like Iraq- it wasn't up to the Army. And blaming the Army for the policy against gays is just like blaming the Army for invading Iraq. We the People are responsible, not those sworn to carry out our orders.<BR/><BR/>As for your question:<BR/><BR/>"If a commanding officer in the field discovered that one or 2 or more members of his unit were engaged in a homosexual affair, and they denied it because they did not want to leave the service, abandon their team, whatever," STOP. If a commanding officer discovered the affair, then the soldiers are in violation of the law passed by Congress and must be discharged. That they claim otherwise is irrelevant if the commander himself knows the truth - he or she must not lie or tolerate those who do, so a "convenient lie" is not an option. At this point in your hypothetical the paperwork is being submitted that will result in separation from the service - unfair, yes. Harmful to the soldiers and the nation, yes. But it is the law and soldiers obey all lawful orders.<BR/><BR/>To continue: "but it was obvious to the whole unit, and their absence would dramatically reduce the unit's effectiveness in accomplishing the mission, does the commander have any leeway at all or is it out of his hands?" Whether it was obvious to the unit or not is irrelevant. As to any leeway because it would reduce the unit's effectiveness - there is no leeway, and it ALWAYS reduces the unit's effectiveness when a soldier is separated for no other reason than that he or she is homosexual. <BR/><BR/>You can blame the commander, of course - but the only option was to betray his oath to obey all lawful orders, or to follow those orders. And that order is terrible, wrong, hurtful, shameful, and I have followed it myself gritting my teeth the entire time and cursing the idiocy of the policy under my breath. But it was the law. I wouldn't have wanted to invade Iraq and kill Iraqis either, and I would have followed that order too. When you swear the oath that makes you a soldier, you put many decision in the hands of the people you are sworn to serve - and you don't get any veto. You obey all lawful orders even unto death.<BR/><BR/>In your hypothetical, the soldiers are separated and the unit, the soldiers, and the nation are harmed. That is what happens when we the people make bad decisions. Our republic isn't the best form of government because of the decisions we make. It is the best form of government because of who makes those decisions - the People. And like any other form of government, they can be wrong (Iraq?). But they are sovereign and soldiers serve so that the People remain in charge, not because they agree with the decisions those people make.<BR/><BR/>If you think the law banning gays from serving is wrong (I sure as hell do) then write your Congressman. Don't talk to the Army about it - many if not most agree with you, but they can't do a damn thing about it. YOU CAN.J.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09027687985747914971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-55816692598087580242008-07-02T07:37:00.000-07:002008-07-02T07:37:00.000-07:00That's true of the present situation of course, an...That's true of the present situation of course, and I do not necessarily blame the <I>current</I> military establishment for that law.<BR/><BR/>I sure as hell blame the military of the 90s however.<BR/><BR/><B>By the beginning of 1993, it appeared that the military's ban on gay personnel would soon be overturned. Shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton asked the Secretary of Defense to prepare a draft policy to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and he proposed to use the interim period to resolve "the real, practical problems that would be involved" in implementing a new policy. Clinton's proposal, however, was greeted with intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, the political opposition, and a considerable segment of the U.S. public. <BR/><BR/>After lengthy public debate and congressional hearings, the President and Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, reached a compromise which they labeled Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue. Under its terms, military personnel would not be asked about their sexual orientation and would not be discharged simply for being gay. Engaging in sexual conduct with a member of the same sex, however, would still constitute grounds for discharge. In the fall of 1993, the congress voted to codify most aspects of the ban. Meanwhile, the civilian courts issued contradictory opinions, with some upholding the policy’s constitutionality and others ordering the reinstatement of openly gay military personnel who were involuntarily discharged. Higher courts, however, consistently upheld the policy, making review of the policy by the U.S. Supreme Court unlikely.</B><BR/><BR/>http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/<BR/>rainbow/HTML/military_history.<BR/>html<BR/><BR/>I have a question, though, if a commanding officer in the field discovered that one or 2 or more members of his unit were engaged in a homosexual affair, and they denied it because they did not want to leave the service, abandon their team, whatever, but it was obvious to the whole unit, and their absence would dramatically reduce the unit's effectiveness in accomplishing the mission, does the commander have any leeway at all or is it out of his hands?<BR/><BR/>..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-81479292082231287892008-07-01T14:10:00.000-07:002008-07-01T14:10:00.000-07:00Basil, what is your point? The "military" has no ...Basil, what is your point? The "military" has no policy on homosexuals, which is why I hate it when the press refers to it as the "military policy on gays" etc. That is what the right-wing wants - for the debate to be "military v. gays."<BR/><BR/>The ban on homosexuals openly serving is a law - passed by Congress and signed by the president - and the military has no say.J.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09027687985747914971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-6943461098984975482008-06-29T14:13:00.000-07:002008-06-29T14:13:00.000-07:00http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/06/femtroopers.h...http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/06/femtroopers.html<BR/><BR/>Maybe the Pentagon should look into this.<BR/><BR/>.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-44154036356732878052008-06-28T07:00:00.000-07:002008-06-28T07:00:00.000-07:00Suzanne Gamboa / Associated Press WASHINGTON - The...Suzanne Gamboa / Associated Press <BR/><BR/>WASHINGTON - The Army has discharged a decorated medic who was deployed to Iraq despite acknowledging he was gay. <BR/><BR/>Darren Manzella, 30, said he revealed his sexual orientation to his military supervisor in August 2006, and was redeployed to Iraq anyway. He has since spoken out publicly several times about being a gay service member. <BR/><BR/>Manzella was discharged this month for "homosexual admission." His commander's discharge recommendation included a transcript of an interview he gave to television show "60 Minutes" in December 2007, in which Manzella said he is gay.<BR/>.<BR/>.<BR/>Manzella enlisted in the Army in 2002. In Iraq, he provided medical care to other soldiers and accompanied his unit on patrols. He was awarded the Combat Medical Badge. <BR/><BR/>Manzella's last assignment was to Fort Hood with the 1st Cavalry Division.<BR/><BR/>>end quote<<BR/>.<BR/>.<BR/>I seem to recall a bunch of gay Arabists released from their military service as we headed into Iraq.<BR/><BR/>Sex trumps national security, and we must preserve our "precious bodily fluids" at all costs.<BR/><BR/>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com