Both of these stories are too new today for any columnists or commentators to have compared and contrasted them. But this is probably a strategically very good time for the gay soldiers to make their case.
I mean, the irony here is bound to picked up on - is this really a time when we want to be turning qualified people away from military service? Especially when others seem so unhappy about being in for longer than they planned?
*Gets popcorn and sits back to watch.*
[ December 06, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Steven,
It looks like you have the same URL for both links. I'm interested in the second. Any chance you could update it?
Thanks,
Rubble
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Rubble,
Sorry - thanks for the heads up. The link is fixed now. I clicked on it to make sure.
(Note: The legal issues appear to be very different ones. To me, the most interesting part is the juxtaposition of the cases in a more general sense - and how it may or may not impact discussions of patriotism, duty, service and discrimination.)
[ December 06, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Yeah, I found one article from the other as well. I'm curious about how the "Don't ask don't tell" is going to change in the next few years. A troop that worked for me was discharged and it was a real problem for the unit. He was a great guy and one of our best performers. It was a real shame to see him go, but there is nothing that commanders can do about the policy. The law is written and executed regardless of what the commander says at the court martial.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Yep. And all it takes to initiate the investigation is one complaint by someone who sees something (one of the soldiers in the article was seen holding hands with another man) or even makes something up if they already know the person is gay.
This might actually be an ideal time for pushing the envelope on the current policies toward gays in the military, since the government is doing its darnedest to hold onto everyone else, even beyond their enlistment contracts.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
The one that got me was the guy who actually did know he needed to resign his commission and is still being called up. (Though the fact that they have to resign their commission is only denoted in the contract they sign as a 6 digit reference number, which they guy talking about was quick to say he didn't believe was meant to be decieving, but I don't see how it's anything but meant to be decieving.)
And the disabled guy who's been called up. As my husband said, he doesn't need to lift anything to fly the helicopter. I say we should be drafting those annoying news/traffic helicopter pilots. Surely, they learned to fly in the military and there should be some way the government can get them back.
All the back-door draftees should show up holding hands. That'd show 'em. Of course a few thousand former soldiers in jail would also do a lot for the cause. Maybe then it would get more coverage. I agree with the woman from the 60 Minutes piece who said, "I think if they're saying that, then what they're saying is there needs to be a draft. It's over and over it's told, 'We're an all-volunteer Army. We're an all volunteer armed forces,'" says Parrish's wife, Collette.
"And if it's going to be all volunteer, it needs to be the people that have actually volunteered and want to be there - not the people who served and wanted to go on and be civilians."
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:All the back-door draftees should show up holding hands.
Kayla,
You've just proposed a tactic that would send a panic through the White House and Congress.
Imagine if there was a coordinated effort of "back-door draftees" to force the military to come after them as suspected homosexuals. It would be chaos.
You ought to send that on to someplace like "Moveon." You never know. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, faking gay-ness is a great draft-dodging strategy! One of my roommates right now is gay. I should make sure to falsify some evidence of a secret affair between the two of us.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Dest, it's not a good strategy, but a) the government is being unfair in it's policies and b) it could kill two birds with one stone. "Faking gayness" wouldn't be done to get out of service, but to a) shine a light on the back-door draft and b) show people that the "don't ask don't tell" policy is stupid and unfairly/un-uniformly applied.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:"Faking gayness" wouldn't be done to get out of service, but to a) shine a light on the back-door draft and b) show people that the "don't ask don't tell" policy is stupid and unfairly/un-uniformly applied.
But this is what would make it a great strategy. It exposes the contradictions and hypocrisy in our policies in a way that forces the government to deal with it somehow.
Not all acts of resistance involve disobeying the law - once in awhile, using the rulebook of of the authorities and demanding they live to the letter of it is a useful tactic.
On an individual level, this tactic is not as "costly" as it used to be, depending on what your politics are and what kind of work you do. You might get more backlash as an individual for "faking" being gay then for being gay. I think that's progress of a sort.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dishonorable discharge can have lasting, very bad effects.
Dagonee
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Dag,
that's the thing about large-scale civil disobedience. One hundred or more military people claiming they're gay all at once demanding to be released from their extended tours presents very differently from the one-by-one expulsion of gay military personnel.
Maybe you have different information, but I did a little digging just now, and it's not obvious that these discharges are dishonorable discharges.
Frankly, I don't think anyone has to worry. It would take a level of commitment and willingness to sacrifice I don't see much evidence of anywhere in society these days. For much of any reason, let alone a political one.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Kayla, I saw that 60 Minutes piece, and it was very disturbing. Recently I joked on another thread that the DoD's "stop-loss" policy had morphed into "drag-back", in response to a soldier that had served his enlistment but was being forced back in. CBS has shown that it's not an isolated incident, but seems like a back-door draft.
For this thread, I guess you could call it a "drag-back-unless in drag" policy. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
So can being killed in action in a war you didn't volunteer for or believe in.
Funnily enough, the only one who seems to not have "lasting bad effects" is the government who can do anything they want, as long as they work the right PR angle, which in this case is patriotism.
I wonder if the government can actually recall the IRR because this isn't an actual war. (I don't recall Congress declaring war, did they?) I know they signed that one bill, but is that enough to invoke clauses that cover war and national emergencies? I don't know what the laws are surrounding the IRR, though I'd think someone would have questioned the ability to be called up if there needed to be a formal declaration of war.
("IRR Marines can be recalled to active duty in the event of a national emergency or war." From military.com)
I just don't think that this is an actual war, in the legal sense and I doubt it is a national emergency. I don't know, I'm just stressed out and rambling. Don't mind me. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So can being killed in action in a war you didn't volunteer for or believe in.
I'm just trying to provide a caution if someone decides they want to conduct civil disobedience. They should know the full facts.
I don't know them all, but I'd like to encourage people to find them out before proceeding.
quote:Since its enactment, homosexual military personnel and their legal supporters confirm that, as policy, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue," has been a disaster for LGBT military personnel. Dishonorable discharges and military witch-hunts have increased significantly under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue." The Pentagon confirms there have been more than 8,500 men and women discharged from the armed forces since the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy came into force in 1994. Some groups estimate the cost to the military has been more than $200 million to replace those discharged since 1994.
Dagonee
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I'm just trying to provide a caution if someone decides they want to conduct civil disobedience. They should know the full facts.
I don't know them all, but I'd like to encourage people to find them out before proceeding.
Uh, that kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? Civil disobedience of this kind only works well on a big scale. And large-scale actions don't take place without research and planning.
People are already being pushed out on a quiet, one-by-one basis. For anyone in the military who is gay, it's already a real danger. When you do it in numbers (maybe bringing in straight people making the claim as well), the military doesn't get to do it on the quiet.
Like I said, that's not likely to happen, anyway. But if I was handling the media work for the group of discharged gays who have filed suits, I'd be contrasting the expulsion policy to the "back door draft" situation as much as possible to expose the absurdity of the situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Uh, that kind of goes without saying, doesn't it?
Not in my experience. There are a lot of rash people in the world.
Dagonee
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Like a young, healthy, trained, qualified soldier being discharged for being gay, while a disabled ex-helicopter pilot is being involuntarily reactivated? Or the 55-year old lady who is 4'8" and being trained as a marksman? (I think they said the rifle was nearly as tall as she was.) It's too bad that so many of the newly reactivated are so honorable and willing to do their duty. I mean, it's a good thing that so many people are honorable, it's too bad that the government will be able to continue getting away with stuff like this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kayla, that's the second time you've asked me a question like that. What is your purpose in doing so? Are you trying to refute something I've said? If so, what?
Dagonee
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Not in my experience. There are a lot of rash people in the world.
I didn't think there were too many on this forum - and none in a position to have this kind of thing be an option for them.
Real civil disobience involves risk and sacrifice, although not as much as some might think. For example, many blacks were attacked and killed during the 1960s for engaging in demonstrations for their rights (sometimes not even breaking laws). But the reality of those time was that blacks were subject to a level of violence in Jim Crow country that was greater than the level whites experienced. Their actions brought the violence into the open, and out of the torchlit dark.
At it's best and purest, nonviolent protest and civil disobedience involve standing your ground. If it's one person, that can usually be dealt with effectively and quietly. The greater the numbers standing their ground, the greater the challenge and chaos in the opposition's camp.
[ December 06, 2004, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
The example that I am familiar with ended in the individual being released on a general discharge, which to my knowledge has no hidden costs other than being discharged for cause.
Of note, the individual was essentially dismissed for posting statements on an internet site.
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
I heard of one guy who said he was gay and his CO said he better have video footage to back that up! It takes a bit more now to get out. One fellow I know of said he would not pass a drug test, they tested him, he failed, he got to go anyway but he was lighter by three pay grades and two stripes!
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Jar Head,
I'm sorry to hear about such inconsistency between different services. The example to which I refer occurred in the last year and consisted simply of a statement in "public".
I wonder if other services are in more dire need of people and can't afford to abide by the letter of the law. If that is the case, maybe we should think about changing the law to allow us to legally keep more people!
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
Makes me think of Klinger in his Dress on MASH! Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
I think you may have missed my point.
I think that if a member is gay and for the most part keeps themselves to themselves (pardon the PCness), public knowledge of the individual's sexuality should have no bearing on their ability to serve. However, actions such as those portrayed on M*A*S*H were devisive and should have been punished and expunged.
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
I think is better for the person in question if it is not known. You may not want to be labled as PC but most of my brothers are not at all concerned about being PC, they would beat the guy early and often. Not saying it is right, but the corps polices itself at this level. Don't ask Don't tell is not meant to descriminate it is meant to protect gays by telling that this is not the place to get out of the closet.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Generally speaking "beating someone" has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with being a criminal and an a-hole.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)