|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 18:17:49 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 11, 2010 18:17:49 GMT -5
In any event, it is great that the military desegregated in 1948, but it would have been wonderful if it, with other institutions, took actions before that. Just because it was first (or second or third) does not mean it was fast. Nice to see you edited your post to take the fact that the military was one of the first to desegregate into account. Perhaps then you can explain why my post was last edited at 5:47 when your initial reply came at 5:52. Any other late-breaking flails or, better stated, fails? Interesting theory, but probably does not get much past 12(b)(6).
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 18:20:38 GMT -5
Post by TBird41 on Feb 11, 2010 18:20:38 GMT -5
Nice to see you edited your post to take the fact that the military was one of the first to desegregate into account. Perhaps then you can explain why my post was last edited at 5:47 when your initial reply came at 5:52. Any other late-breaking flails or, better stated, fails? Interesting theory, but probably does not get much past 12(b)(6). Fair enough. Sarcasm retracted. I am going to judge you for making a bad 1L joke, however. ;D
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,856
|
DADT
Feb 11, 2010 23:38:37 GMT -5
Post by CTHoya08 on Feb 11, 2010 23:38:37 GMT -5
I come to this site to get away from law school, damn it! Don't you 1Ls have some study groups to go to or something?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
DADT
Feb 16, 2010 11:52:38 GMT -5
Post by kchoya on Feb 16, 2010 11:52:38 GMT -5
I come to this site to get away from law school, damn it! Don't you 1Ls have some study groups to go to or something? Precisely. Anyone citing rules of civil procedure should be banished for a week.
|
|
|
DADT
Feb 16, 2010 12:29:23 GMT -5
Post by williambraskyiii on Feb 16, 2010 12:29:23 GMT -5
Do we really need any further proof that JerseyHoya is a massive doosh?
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,598
|
DADT
Feb 16, 2010 17:23:24 GMT -5
Post by RusskyHoya on Feb 16, 2010 17:23:24 GMT -5
If the Executive Order that established the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is repealed, then all homosexual behavior by members of the U.S. armed forces will once again be criminalized. Is that really what you want? I understand that DADT will probably just get a full repeal, but, as much as I don't see any reason why open homosexuals can't serve in pretty much every MOS, I think there probably is something to the concerns about open service in infantry / combat units, for some of the same reasons that women aren't allowed in (obviously the physical aspects aren't the same). I haven't served in the infantry / combat, so I don't know how big an impact it would have on the effectiveness / morale of those types of units, but I really, really, really hope that its a small one, considering we're currently in the middle of two wars. I know the brass is on board with the change, but I'm more concerned about the effect it will have on the NCOs that make the Army / Marines what it is. I'm also curious what the effect will be on retention / recruitment. Hopefully, a small one, but still, something to be worried about in the middle of two wars. Any analysis of the effect on retention/recruitment would also have to take into account the ongoing loss of personnel due to discharges as a result of "outings" and related incidents. With the infantry/combat unit issue, that distinction is becoming more and more blurred as a result of the combat environments our forces find themselves engaged in. At this point, you're about as likely to end up in a firefight or an IED bombing/ambush as a member of an MP or transportation or engineering unit, which are non combat arms, as you are as an infantry or armor soldier. Granted, there are other considerations (specifically sleeping/hygiene arrangements) other than just "who ends up in combat" to this distinction, but the point stands. Plus, you've got the Marines with their "Every Marine a Rifleman" credo, where every Marine should, in theory, be a capable infantryman. For some interesting reading that touches on similar topics, there is this recent article by a female Army veteran regarding women's role in combat in the U.S. and other militaries.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
DADT
Feb 25, 2010 19:27:49 GMT -5
Post by TBird41 on Feb 25, 2010 19:27:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
DADT
Mar 19, 2010 12:35:31 GMT -5
Post by AustinHoya03 on Mar 19, 2010 12:35:31 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
DADT
Apr 29, 2010 21:36:39 GMT -5
Post by The Stig on Apr 29, 2010 21:36:39 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
DADT
Oct 12, 2010 21:24:15 GMT -5
Post by The Stig on Oct 12, 2010 21:24:15 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 6:00:33 GMT -5
Post by Elvado on Oct 13, 2010 6:00:33 GMT -5
You really would have thought some genuinely concerned Democrat President would have done something about this discriminatory policy. So far, Clinton anounced it and Barry O has continued it. Curious.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 9:19:12 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Oct 13, 2010 9:19:12 GMT -5
If I understand it correctly, DADT is a law passed by Congress and signed by the President (Clinton ?). The services have requested, and were granted, the law not be overturned until the impact on the combat capabilities of the armed forces could be evaluated; and, a study is underway to make that assessment. This lone judge has determined it will have no detrimental effect on the services and, in fact, may be harmful. The very least the judge should have done is to have waited for the assessment to be completed before passing judgement.
I know, I know it doesn't make any difference what the services think since it's a matter of discriminating against a group of people. But, and this is a big but(t), if, in fact, it turns out that it significantly degrades our ability to fight and win wars, isn't DADT a reasonable compromise? With DADT no one is excluded from joining the services and fighting for their country.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 10:00:09 GMT -5
Post by The Stig on Oct 13, 2010 10:00:09 GMT -5
You really would have thought some genuinely concerned Democrat President would have done something about this discriminatory policy. So far, Clinton anounced it and Barry O has continued it. Curious. And it was a pro-gay Republican group that brought the lawsuit. Curiouser. Again, I don't think this will really change much. There are already tons of gays in the military, and everybody knows it. This change will just give us more troops in the field, which we sure could use right now.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 10:07:37 GMT -5
Post by Boz on Oct 13, 2010 10:07:37 GMT -5
A legal, or perhaps logistical, question, if I may:
My understanding is that the judge ordered an end to the DADT policy as unconstitutional. OK, that's clear enough.
But let's say this stands and is not appealed by the Justice Department. What then? The policy prior to DADT was "no gays period," right? I am only depending on Wikipedia here, so I don't know how accurate this information is, but prior to DADT, the DOD policy was that homosexuality was incompatible with military service.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but an overturn on DADT does not equate to "the military has to immediately begin accepting openly gay service members," does it? I'll admit, I did not read the entire decision, I can't seem to find it online, can the judge order the military to immediately begin accepting openly gay service members?
If not, what happens between this injunction and whenever Congress gets around to creating new policy?
No one is talking about this, so I clearly must be wrong. But hopefully someone can help me out on this. I'm pretty sure this is why Obama said that he wanted Congress to repeal this law. I think he is on record as saying that this type of ruling is not the way to go about it.
I promise I am not trying to make a political argument here, so someone help me out here if you know.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 10:40:40 GMT -5
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 13, 2010 10:40:40 GMT -5
I was wondering the same thing Boz. Although, my assumption is that it would not be legal to bar anyone on the basis of sexual orientation. I have nothing but my assumption to support that.
Looking at this another way, the original DADT is pretty amazing. I mean, really what it is saying is "Let's all pretend". Regardless of how you view the underlying issue, isn't it remarkable that members of both parties, as well as Generals and all the rest agreed to DADT.... "Let's pretend no one is gay and just get back to business as usual.... I won't ask you and please don't tell me - I don't want to know".
If you think about it compared to the issue of African-Americans in the military back in the day, it becomes even more absurd. mmmm... I don't know if you are black... so don't tell me and I won't ask! We'll just get back to work and go about our business together. Sounds like Monty Python!
As far as the judge... his job is to rule on the legality of the situation, not on the accuracy of someone's study or when it might be done. His ruling is not a comment on the study one way or the other. Nor should it be. Not unlike the one judge in the Gulf region who ruled that the Obama administration had no legal right to impose a temporary halt on deep water drilling until the government had a chance to determine what went wrong, how to prevent it and how to solve a similar situation should it occur. He saw no validity to that bit of prudence even in light of an unprecedented and then ongoing oil spill of 100,000 barrels a day.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 11:07:15 GMT -5
Post by TBird41 on Oct 13, 2010 11:07:15 GMT -5
Again, I don't think this will really change much. There are already tons of gays in the military, and everybody knows it. This change will just give us more troops in the field, which we sure could use right now. What's your thought/basis for that? I mean, there's only been about 750 discharges since 2003, which really isn't that many in the grand scheme of things. Is it that people aren't staying in b/c of concerns about getting caught about DADT? Or that people aren't joining the military b/c of it? I assume the study that the judge is short circuiting was going to address DADT's effect on recruitment / retention, but is there anything else out there that says it actually has a significant effect?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 11:28:06 GMT -5
Post by The Stig on Oct 13, 2010 11:28:06 GMT -5
Again, I don't think this will really change much. There are already tons of gays in the military, and everybody knows it. This change will just give us more troops in the field, which we sure could use right now. What's your thought/basis for that? I mean, there's only been about 750 discharges since 2003, which really isn't that many in the grand scheme of things. Is it that people aren't staying in b/c of concerns about getting caught about DADT? Or that people aren't joining the military b/c of it? I assume the study that the judge is short circuiting was going to address DADT's effect on recruitment / retention, but is there anything else out there that says it actually has a significant effect? Where did you get the 750 number? According to the sources I've read, 750 is around the average number of DADT discharges per year. The numbers have dropped since 2003, but they're still way higher than that. Here's the chart of number of discharges per year: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell#Number_of_discharges I know it's Wikipedia, but it's pretty well sourced, and it matches pretty well with the oft-cited 12,500 number for total discharges.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 11:41:26 GMT -5
Post by TBird41 on Oct 13, 2010 11:41:26 GMT -5
What's your thought/basis for that? I mean, there's only been about 750 discharges since 2003, which really isn't that many in the grand scheme of things. Is it that people aren't staying in b/c of concerns about getting caught about DADT? Or that people aren't joining the military b/c of it? I assume the study that the judge is short circuiting was going to address DADT's effect on recruitment / retention, but is there anything else out there that says it actually has a significant effect? Where did you get the 750 number? According to the sources I've read, 750 is around the average number of DADT discharges per year. The numbers have dropped since 2003, but they're still way higher than that. Here's the chart of number of discharges per year: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell#Number_of_discharges I know it's Wikipedia, but it's pretty well sourced, and it matches pretty well with the oft-cited 12,500 number for total discharges. Ahh, I misread the 750 stat as total, not per year. Never mind then.
|
|
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 12:54:24 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 13, 2010 12:54:24 GMT -5
I think we're likely to see the administration appeal, just as they are appealing the D. Mass. ruling on DOMA. Obama has cut right down the perceived political middle on both these issues, to my chagrin, but it is what it is. There would have been some change had the recent authorization measure not been filibustered.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 13:05:27 GMT -5
Post by Boz on Oct 13, 2010 13:05:27 GMT -5
Technically, I don't think it was ever filibustered.
Harry Reid: No b****, whatsoever. Nancy should lend him one, cause she's got extra.
|
|