QuoteLt. Dan Choi may be fired from the military for refusing to lie about who he loves
Sign a personal letter of support for Dan before Tuesday's trial and help him fight "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Lt. Dan Choi, from Orange County, California, is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and an Iraq War veteran. On Tuesday, he will face a panel of colonels who will decide whether or not to fire him -- to discharge him from the military for "moral and professional dereliction" under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
An amazing 141,262 people signed Lt. Choi's letter to President Obama a few weeks ago. Now he needs your help again. Please sign the letter of support and add your own (optional) personal message.
To Members of the Board:
We, the undersigned, urge you not to discharge Lt. Daniel Choi from the Army National Guard.
Lt. Dan Choi, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and an Iraq War veteran, is a capable soldier and leader who can continue to play a vital role in this time of war.
As a member of the military who is fluent in Arabic, Lt. Choi's skills are especially needed at this critical time
in our nation's history. America's national security is dependent on the service of soldiers like Lt. Choi, who is ready to deploy again if his country calls on him.
Lt. Choi's dedication to West Point and the Army brings credit to the military. His fighting spirit on behalf of
his country -- and on behalf of supporting the freedom of gay and lesbian Americans to serve -- demonstrates the values of honor and duty so vital to our nation's military.
Please do not discharge Lt. Choi and deprive him of the right to serve his country.
Sincerely,
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/SupportDan (http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/SupportDan)
If you have the time, please fill out this petition. If the court is sufficiently convinced that DADT is unconstitutional we can help end this stupid, backward and wasteful policy.
I got this in my email today. Posted the link to the site on Twitter and Facebook.
I just hope something positive comes of it.
Signed and tweeted. Don't ask don't tell is a homophobic policy...who someone is attracted to has no affect on their ability to serve in a war. If the military is really about protecting freedom they need to allow the soldiers the same basic freedoms citizens have.
I thought he was already kicked out. What's the point of the petition?
What needs to be done is to continue to petition the Commander in Chief directly. He does have the authority to strike this down. It is not up to the Defense Department, and I don't know what part Congress would play in this. But President Obama can do something about this policy - he just needs to act on it.
Good interview on Rachel Maddow with the LT here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldSyh9Zisdk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldSyh9Zisdk)
Quote from: "Whitney"Signed and tweeted. Don't ask don't tell is a homophobic policy...who someone is attracted to has no affect on their ability to serve in a war. If the military is really about protecting freedom they need to allow the soldiers the same basic freedoms citizens have.
Actually it's a compramose between the militarys former policy of NO GAYS EVER!!! and gays are fine. Rather then a free and open policy many here would accept It was a step in the right direction. Alot of the A-type personality, set in their way, reactionary, religious, right wing types you find in the military would never have just imediatly (nor would now)accepted an out and open policy so Clinton did what he could in the situation. I had a couple of friends who were gay in the army and I believe don't ask don't tell probably protected them. Or do you not think those reationary, ect, ect types wouldn't have beat the ever living crap out of them despite regs?
While I would be open to a change I don't think many in the military, for right or wrong, would be.
Quote from: "McQ"I thought he was already kicked out. What's the point of the petition?
What needs to be done is to continue to petition the Commander in Chief directly. He does have the authority to strike this down. It is not up to the Defense Department, and I don't know what part Congress would play in this. But President Obama can do something about this policy - he just needs to act on it.
Good interview on Rachel Maddow with the LT here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldSyh9Zisdk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldSyh9Zisdk)
He's not kicked out yet, his court marshal hearing is on Tuesday. The point of the petition is a sign of solidarity. Even if it accomplishes nothing more than just making Lt. Choi feel better, it's worth the trouble of batting a few keys and hitting "submit."
Also, Obama can't do much beyond signing an Executive Order which I am thoroughly against. Executive Orders are weak and were never intended to work for the long term. If challenged in court would likely be overturned (if not overturned, it would signal an official gross expansion of Executive Power that I would hate until the day I die). It would not be an effective change on the law as DADT would still be on the books.
The only way DADT will die is if Congress takes the axe to it. (I'll extrapolate if need be; I've written more on this subject than I care to admit, I don't have the exact HR's in front of me but I can go find them again if anyone would like me to.) As the law stands now only Congress has the power to determine qualifications to serve in the military and as of now Congress has decided that DADT is their determination. There is currently a bill in House Commission to end DADT but I'm not holding my breath.
DADT could also be eliminated if a court declares that it is UnConstitutional (which it is). It could be declared UnConstitutional by any Federal Court that the case might be brought to.
Quote from: "Tanker"Actually it's a compramose between the militarys former policy of NO GAYS EVER!!! and gays are fine. Rather then a free and open policy many here would accept It was a step in the right direction. Alot of the A-type personality, set in their way, reactionary, religious, right wing types you find in the military would never have just imediatly (nor would now)accepted an out and open policy so Clinton did what he could in the situation. I had a couple of friends who were gay in the army and I believe don't ask don't tell probably protected them. Or do you not think those reationary, ect, ect types wouldn't have beat the ever living crap out of them despite regs?
While I would be open to a change I don't think many in the military, for right or wrong, would be.
At the time Clinton was facing a possible witch hunt in the military to purge homosexuals.
There were two big stories in the news about two openly gay servicemen who were murdered by other servicemen. One murder was nearly covered up by the commanding officer of the killer and the victim. There was a huge outcry and the response was not to say something like, "hey, it's not ok to kill people because they're gay," the response was, "well gays shouldn't be in the military anyway."
Clinton got stuck between a rock and a hard place but instead of pulling a Truman and saying "hey fuck you, that's not right to our servicemen," he signed DADT which effectively stripped from the President the power to ever pull a Truman ever again. The witch hunts didn't stop and all it accomplished was to ban a question regarding sexuality from applications to join the military -- unless the Secretary of Defense feels the need to then the question can be brought back.
Quote from: "thiolsulfate"Quote from: "McQ"I thought he was already kicked out. What's the point of the petition?
What needs to be done is to continue to petition the Commander in Chief directly. He does have the authority to strike this down. It is not up to the Defense Department, and I don't know what part Congress would play in this. But President Obama can do something about this policy - he just needs to act on it.
Good interview on Rachel Maddow with the LT here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldSyh9Zisdk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldSyh9Zisdk)
He's not kicked out yet, his court marshal hearing is on Tuesday. The point of the petition is a sign of solidarity. Even if it accomplishes nothing more than just making Lt. Choi feel better, it's worth the trouble of batting a few keys and hitting "submit."
Also, Obama can't do much beyond signing an Executive Order which I am thoroughly against. Executive Orders are weak and were never intended to work for the long term. If challenged in court would likely be overturned (if not overturned, it would signal an official gross expansion of Executive Power that I would hate until the day I die). It would not be an effective change on the law as DADT would still be on the books.
The only way DADT will die is if Congress takes the axe to it. (I'll extrapolate if need be; I've written more on this subject than I care to admit, I don't have the exact HR's in front of me but I can go find them again if anyone would like me to.) As the law stands now only Congress has the power to determine qualifications to serve in the military and as of now Congress has decided that DADT is their determination. There is currently a bill in House Commission to end DADT but I'm not holding my breath.
DADT could also be eliminated if a court declares that it is UnConstitutional (which it is). It could be declared UnConstitutional by any Federal Court that the case might be brought to.
Say it ain't so. I'm a bit rusty on my chain of command, but I sort of remember from my service years that the Prez has that authority as CIC. You're saying Congress only has that authority?
I'm asking seriously, not being my usual sarcastic self. Oh, and I did not mean "there's no point" as in, it's ridiculous to try. I thought his discharge was final and felt a better petition would be directly to the Prez to change DADT. My mistake.
Quote from: "McQ"[...]
Say it ain't so. I'm a bit rusty on my chain of command, but I sort of remember from my service years that the Prez has that authority as CIC. You're saying Congress only has that authority?
I'm asking seriously, not being my usual sarcastic self. Oh, and I did not mean "there's no point" as in, it's ridiculous to try. I thought his discharge was final and felt a better petition would be directly to the Prez to change DADT. My mistake.
Ok, here goes.
Given:
QuoteU.S. Constitution
Article 1
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To
[...]
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Congress has decided that:
QuoteUS Code
Title 10
Section 654
(a) Findings.â€" Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
[...]
(b) Policy.â€" A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated thatâ€"
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.
Of note:
QuoteHouse Amendment 316 to HR 2401
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to delete the provisions of the bill which would codify the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" with respect to gays in the military. The amendment would express that it is the sense of the Congress that policy regarding service in the military should be left to the discretion of the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and other military advisors.
Sponsored by Rep. Martin Meehan
Failed 169-264
Also of note:
QuoteMilitary Readiness Enhancement Act
[...]
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to institute in the Armed Forces a policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF 1993 POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.
The following provisions of law are repealed:
(1) Section 654 of title 10, United States Code.
[...]
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) Establishment of Policy- (1) Chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
Sec. 656. Policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation
(a) Policy- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the Armed Forces or against any person seeking to become a member of the Armed Forces.
Sponsored in 2005 by Martin Meehan - did not leave Committee
Sponsored in 2007 by Martin Meehan - did not leave Committee
Sponsored in 2009 by Ellen Tauscher - currently in Committee
I kept the portions that were most pertinent, omitted parts that I did not feel were illuminating enough on the subject to be added, I bolded the portions I felt were the most important.
Feel free to look up any of these laws up if you need more insight or if you feel I've misrepresented or misinterpreted anything. I have poured over these and other documents trying to find a faster way to end DADT than legislation but I haven't found one. If you think you know of a way I would be sincerely grateful.
But, that is the law as it stands.
(edited for clarity)
I appreciate the lookup and especially the pertinent parts you've outlined here. This is great to know, but, in blunt terminology, it really blows. Just reading everything under Title 10 makes my skin crawl. This is asinine in this day and age!
And I really thought the President had way more say in this. I'm surprised and saddened, but hopeful that this Congress has the chance to change it and maybe the numbers of votes it needs to pass the the amendment.
Thanks for taking the time to lay this out!
Quote from: "McQ"I appreciate the lookup and especially the pertinent parts you've outlined here. This is great to know, but, in blunt terminology, it really blows. Just reading everything under Title 10 makes my skin crawl. This is asinine in this day and age!
And I really thought the President had way more say in this. I'm surprised and saddened, but hopeful that this Congress has the chance to change it and maybe the numbers of votes it needs to pass the the amendment.
Thanks for taking the time to lay this out!
No problem McQ. I don't mind.
I used to be one the side upset that Obama hasn't moved on either DADT or DOMA, but I understand now that he can't. Nothing short of breaching all precedent of Executive Restraint would allow him to do that. The President doesn't have the power to overturn or change law, only the Court and the Congress have that power. Yes, DADT and DOMA are crap laws, I will not digress on that point, but they are law and there is a Constitutional way to deal with crap laws.
(Obama could stop torture because that was within his purview. The torture program was a policy executed solely under the Executive so it could be ended by it. It is not the same as a law which requires the Legislature or Judiciary to make changes.)
I agree with thiolsulfate
Quote from: "ddddyyyyy"I agree with thiolsulfate
nfl jerseys (http://www.supplyjerseys.com) air Jordan (http://www.jq11.com) rolex (http://www.salerolexwatches.com) replica watches (http://www.iswatches.com) Nfl jersey (http://www.nfljerseysky.com) tiffany (http://www.tiffanymyer.com)
:spam2:
I signed.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.murrayewing.co.uk%2Fmewsings%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F05%2Ffarnsworth.jpg&hash=4ac9b583848c457d4fac7bde48eb4d11fd5cea41)
Good news!
Apparently, President Obama is serious about finally getting rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Earlier today, he said (and I quote), "I will end don't ask-don't tell." (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZUjpkw6hIX3KDjuV8xK0idc_H0wD9B8KV080)
"We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country," Obama said. "We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage ... especially when we are fighting two wars."
All I can say is, WOOHOO!!!
I hope it's true, Will, but for some reason I don't feel as if it's going to happen. Let's hope this stupid policy is cut down. Also, I think it should be a requirement that soldiers have at least a semester of college. That could help weed out some really pathetic people who got in because of one test (ASVAB).
I think there needs to be a big overhaul of the military. We still have a lot of outdated nonsense on the books. I see no reason why women cannot serve as Infantry or other direct combat branches. Jessica Lynch's story definitely shows the need for infantry training for women. Gun jammed after one shot? Sounds like poor weapon cleaning, not to blame her so much as her training was probably very inadequate.
What's really funny is how some of the most successful soldiers were gay. Alexander the Great, the Spartans (turns out the Athenians weren't the only boy lovers...), Samurai warriors, etc.
I didn't know about homosexual equality among the samurai. Interesting.
Quote from: "Will"I didn't know about homosexual equality among the samurai. Interesting.
I could be wrong but didn't they engage in buttsecks because of the idea "Why do an inferior female when there is an equal male here."
I know the Shinto priest had something like that in practice...Chigos or something.
This is good news and Obama HAS to now if he wants to get elected again.
Yep, I read in one of my history books that the [city-state that conquered Spartan, forget who]ian army was composed mostly of homosexual couples.
Quote from: "Big Mac"What's really funny is how some of the most successful soldiers were gay...
...the Spartans (turns out the Athenians weren't the only boy lovers...)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg339.imageshack.us%2Fimg339%2F5582%2F300xerxesleonidas.jpg&hash=e3a5262013f445061ea879d52b760452224b4766)
Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"(//pre-buttsecks.jpg)
Yeah......Xerxes didn't look like that and I imagine he liked dipping his wick in a girl.