Yet Another Army Officer Tossed Aside...
wesmorgan1
...just for being homosexual. From CNN:
A panel of New York National Guard officers has recommended that an Iraq war veteran who acknowledged his homosexuality must leave the service, his supporters said Tuesday.
First Lt. Dan Choi disclosed in March that he is gay, challenging the 1994 "don't ask, don't tell" law that requires the military to discharge troops who disclose their sexual orientation. Tuesday's ruling, made after a daylong hearing, is a step toward stripping Choi of his officer's commission and ending his career.
"It's disappointing, but not unexpected," said Sue Fulton, a spokeswoman for Knights Out, a group of gay and lesbian West Point alumni Choi helped found.
Fulton said the Guard's Federal Recognition Board heard from members of Choi's unit, his commanding officer and fellow soldiers who served in Iraq, and reviewed more than 150 letters of support for Choi, a 2003 West Point graduate and an Arab linguist.
"At the end of the day, they did not consider any of that material [to] whether he was a good soldier," she said. "It was solely about whether he said he was gay."
This has become ludicrous. We're tossing talented, experienced soldiers--who volunteer to serve our country--back into civilian life not because of any act they have committed, but rather because of their sexual orientation. Choi's case is even more galling, given that he's a combat veteran and talented Arab linguist in the middle of our struggle against Islamic extremism.
This is really simple. Gays are serving in our military, and have for decades; "don't ask, don't tell" didn't do squat to either ferret them out or protect them in any tangible way unless they chose to deny themselves in public. I knew gay soldiers during my military service, and was even the recipient of "suggestions" once or twice; a simple "not interested, I'm straight" was sufficient, and had no impact on unit cohesion or morale.
The solution to this (non-)problem is ridiculously simple.
The military functions by its own law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and a slew of regulation promulgated by the Department of Defense and/or each service. Let's add eight simple words--only eight words--to that law and those regulations as needed. Let me give just a few hypothetical examples:
* Sexual or romantic relationships within the chain of command are prohibited, regardless of the gender of the persons involved.
* Rape is a capital crime, regardless of the gender of the persons involved. (Yes, rape is a death-penalty offense under the UCMJ.)
* Command authority will not be used to pressure soldiers for sexual favors, regardless of the gender of the persons involved.
Get the picture? This will put the focus of military law/regulation where it belongs--on tangible actions--instead of allowing it to play off fear and insecurity on either side of the equation. We keep good soldiers unless/until they commit some act that violates regulations, whether that violation is guy-and-girl, girl-and-girl, or guy-and-guy. It's the act, not the person; let's stop surrendering good, brave soldiers to nonsense like this.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (52)
"It's the act, not the person"
If sexual orientation is no longer an issue, then there's no logical reason for men and women have seperate living and bathroom facilities, right?
That isn't the question, Machiavelli, and it never was. If such were the case, women would still be barred from military service as "determental to unit cohesion and morale," right? Oh, that's right - we had that discussion decades ago, changed the regs, and the military is still standing.
Gays exist in all areas of our culture. The same people who worry about sharing showers with gays in the military have probably already done so on their HS/collegiate athletic teams, at summer camps, at the gym, etc. (In the case of West Pointers, they've already done so, right?) To me, the antipathy toward homosexuals in the military seems to stem from the same blind spot as does the "defend marriage" argument; each utterly depends on ignoring some aspect of reality in order to focus its effort on a very small, easily targeted segment of the population.
We've lost an entire division's worth of soldiers (roughly 12,000) to this nonsense, most cases of which involved no tangible actions whatsoever. I don't endorse homosexuality, but it's just stupid to throw away 12,000 troops just because they're gay.
Consider the publicized members of Knights Out, a 501(c)(3) for LGBT West Pointers. A few samples from the head of that list:
Obviously, these men were capable of making it through the USMA, serving, commanding and reaching field-grade rank--in a culture far less gay-friendly than today's--but those same men would be tossed out of the service today. How does this make sense?I just wouldn't want to shower with them... does that make me a bad person?
There are many reasons to get rid of antiquated and discriminatory legislation like DADT. One of the most compelling should be bigotry. But another reason that gets very little attention is the added financial burden these policies place on the military.
Think about all of the wasted money that went into Lt. Choi education and training. And how much will the witchhunt (I mean trial) cost to kick him out? Multiply that by 12,000 and you're looking at billions and billions of dollars of tax payer dollars that could have been used in other costly areas like F-22's or Missile Defense Systems.
Also, consider what we've spent recently in Iraq and Afghanistan just to meet the manpower needs. Under Bush, the Pentagon had to dramatically lower it's standards and even allowed felons and illegal aliens to serve. For years now, the Army and Marine Corps have been boosting incentives and bonus money, adding recruiters and continuing to increase the military advertising budget.
All of this just so a few homophobes like SDIA won't feel uncomfortable taking a shower... Sheesh, get over yourself. What makes you think they want to take a shower with you either? And as Wes pointed out, you've been taking showers with gay people your whole life, you just didn't know it.
SDIA, if you've shared a communal shower (HS locker room, college dorm, military barracks, gym, whatever) with 100 men in the course of your life, odds are that at least one of them was gay. (The most conservative estimates suggest that 3% of the male population is gay.) You've probably been checked out in the grocery, on the court, or at work.
As long as nothing actually happened, what's the problem?
C'mon, we're talking about soldiers who have done more than you or I ever will. Consider LTC Fehrenbach, with his 88 combat missions, 400 combat hours, and five (some reports say(nine!) Air Medals, with one for valor in combat in Iraq. One person reports that he's gay, and LTC Fehrenbach is out the door after 18 years. If I'd told you about him before this, you'd name him a hero and offer to shake his hand, right?
Are you kidding? gays totally want me. that's why i don't go hopping around in the shower of those knowingly gay. what you two are saying is that even if i'm unaware they're gay, it should just get over it, look past it, ignore the googling eyes. that's ignorant as well.
I don't mind being ignorant in my case, because it's my choice to be so... it's the protection of myself and my ideals. however you two find it okay to make that choice for me.
which is worse is merely a matter of opinion. beyond that, i don't publically shower anymore because i don't have to. a choice i make. what you two are saying is that i do, despite my own opinion. my choice i guess doesn't matter. I'm not gay.
it just goes to what Mach stated... with the two of you and your mindsets, it should be okay for me to take a shower with women. I mean... if nothing happens.... what's the big deal?
No SDIA, that's not what I'm saying at all. No one is making choices for you. If you're such a homophobe, don't CHOOSE to join the military! That's all.
And I'm not surprised all those gay men want you, you do come accross as rather effiminate. Just kidding, just kidding.
"That isn't the question, Machiavelli, and it never was. If such were the case, women would still be barred from military service as "determental to unit cohesion and morale," right? Oh, that's right - we had that discussion decades ago, changed the regs, and the military is still standing."
What's "determental to unit cohesion and morale" is when military members make an issue of their sexuality, regardless of their gender. That goes for everyone; male and female, gay and straight.
Our military has a mission do. It's bad enough when that mission has to be interrupted for female sensitivity training.
Egg, you're not the first to tell me that... and you haven't even met me. What's that tell ya' ;o) For some odd reason they seem to think they have a chance with me... perhaps i need to chance my swagger or piss stance a little.
Somehow the Israeli military is able to complete their missions just fine while allowing openly gay men and women to serve.
Same with many other countries (like Britain), but I don't know them all off the top of my head.
But that's not what this is really about. SDIA and Machiavelli are just looking for any reason (no matter how insignificant or illogical) to justify and rationalize their bigotry. Sorry, those days are over. DADT will be repealed eventually. It might be this year, or it may take a few more, but sooner or later I think we all know this is inevitable.
No problem, segregate 'em. Knowing that a "pervert" is standing next to me in the shower is a far cry from not knowing. If I don't know I can assume all about me is cool. If I do know, ain't no way I'm getting in the shower with the "dude?"
The IGNORANCE on display by wes and egghead above is just mind boggling. Eggy, the typical narrow minded, liberal bigot who throws derogatory labels at people as if to make an argument.
I don't really give a damn what the Israeli army does or anybody else. And where I'm from, better a homophobe than a homo EGGY. Think you are going to scare me or shame me with your little labels. Bwahahahahahahahah,,,,,
I made a choice not to join the military, not because i'm straight and some aren't, but because I wanted to be a fighter pilot and my eyesight said "sorry Charlie". The thought of gays in the military played no role whatsoever to a younger, 19 year old version of myself. Don't ask don't tell was hardly a concern or a relevant topic to me. To be honest... I'd rather I be made aware of ones sexual preferance as opposed to it being a mystery and having to rely on my gay-dar. H
owever, with that being clarified... what do you think the chances are that others won't enlist due to the DADT policy? What are the chance of 10,000 turning a cheek.
BTW, when I went in the military we didn't "choose" to join. We either joined or we were drafted. May be re-instated some day. Yathink?
High minded sumbitches... Bwahahahahahahah.... :)
"Somehow the Israeli military is able to complete their missions just fine while allowing openly gay men and women to serve."
Israel doesn't have an all-volunteer military.
* I'm not ignorant of the fact that gays are already serving in the US military, and have for decades; as I noted, I knew several during my own service. (Did you know any gays during your service?)
* I'm not ignorant of the fact that patriotism isn't tied to sexual orientation, or that the West Point motto isn't "Duty, Honor, Country, Straight."
* I'm not ignorant of the fact that the presence of gay soldiers had no noticeable effect upon my unit's morale or cohesion; it was pretty much an open secret.
* I'm not ignorant of the fact that many other nations allow gays to serve openly, and that those nations don't seem to have any 'unit cohesion and morale' issues as a result. (Incidentally, would you argue that our forces shouldn't do joint exercises/deployments with those forces?)
The ignorance seems to be among those who believe that all gays are rampaging sexual predators who will be unable to restrain themselves, and/or that they themselves will be the object of homosexual attention. The presence of soldiers like 1LT Choi and LTC Fehrenbach proves otherwise, don't you think?
"Let the soldiers be responsible for their own actions, instead of making them pay a price for who they are."
Wes, they ARE being kicked out for their actions. Wanting to live a gay lifestyle is a choice that makes an issue of one's sexuality.
If a soldier is gay and makes absolutely no advances/suggestions/whatever to other soldiers (either romantic or physical), what's the difference between that and a straight soldier who makes absolutely no advances/suggestions/whatever to other soldiers?
I differ from most conservatives on this because I think the only place I would feel comfortable having a gay watch my ass would be on the battlefield.
Why do gays join the military knowing the rule, if they don't want to follow the "don't tell" rules?
Shouldn't they be punished for stealing the resources expended on them for training?
And why did gays keep approaching Wes? Was it clear already at that time that Wes disagreed with Don't Ask/Don't Tell? Wasn't that a huge risk to take of being thrown out?
Maybe the true solution should be to open specially designated military units for gays, maybe a more stylish uniform as well. Of course than whenever military action was needed, all of the protest songs will wail about "Why do they always send the gays".
Bottom line, as I stated initially wes, segregate 'em, paint their barracks pink and issue 'em boots with pink shoe laces. I don't want 'em "slippin" next to me and if they approach the urinal next to mine I wanna know.
If they want to die for their country, I'm all for lettin 'em.
"Duty, Honor, Country, Straight."
Now there's an idea for a motto.
Should we allow men and women to serve in the same unit and share the same showers etc...?
BTW, here is something for Wes to be concerned or outraged . But I am not surprised that Wed didn't pay attention to this.
I'm all for men and women sharing the shower (mostly, there would of course be exceptions knowhatimean) I promise to remain constrained, uh restrained?
Hell, I'd enlist right now.
... I'm talking, RIGHT now!
"The vast majority of those kicked out were living a military lifestyle, not a "gay" lifestyle. Look at Choi's and Fehrenbach's examples; there are NO reports of ANY specific actions on their part, but rather nothing more than the mere fact of their homosexuality"
The specific action WAS the voluntary disclosure of their homosexuality.
"If a soldier is gay and makes absolutely no advances/suggestions/whatever to other soldiers (either romantic or physical), what's the difference between that and a straight soldier who makes absolutely no advances/suggestions/whatever to other soldiers?"
As long as the homosexual doesn't make an issue of their sexual orientation, then the military doesn't have a problem with it. It's called Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
That was the case for 1LT Choi, but not for LTC Fehrenbach; apparently, someone 'tipped off' his chain of command.
Once administrative proceedings are opened, "don't ask don't tell" is out the window. The Catch-22 is that, if someone reports you as gay, the assumption is that you told them, thus violating DADT, but there's no way to verify THAT, now is there...and, once an investigation starts, "don't tell" becomes perjury, at which point admissions are made, thus ensuring separation from the service.
Of course, no one has an answer for this question:
The deafening silence occurs because the only answer is that there is no difference save the "ew gross" factor...Gays totally dig me;
---------------------------->
On a serious note; a man who I respected very much Barry Goldwater used to say and I'm paraphrasing here "that he didn’t care whether U.S. soldiers were straight only that they shot straight."
I tend to agree but I do think unit cohesiveness should be considered. Did I just contradict myself??
Sorry; been playing golf today and drinking beer.
Hey, there is no difference between women and men or gay men and straight men. So why don't have them all mixed together sharing showers???
I don't know... but it sounds like a great storyline for a porno.
BTW, there was a story about a Duke official who offered up his adopted 5 yr old son for sex. Surprised that it didn't catch Wes 's attention. *chuckle*. Maybe it didn't fit with his pre-determined "centrist" view!
Did any news agency even mention this LAI?
or are they too busy trying to pin it on innocent white lacrosse players as we speak?
That version would fit a little more snug in the media template.
also... wasn't the man also one of those gay adoptive parents?
(Whoops, did I just show my inner bigot on that one)
Skinny,
Yup it is out there the past week. Of course the "centrist" or state-run media wouldn't spend much time on it because they have other more important story like Sanford or this story about a gay soldier who loved his country so much that he made a big deal of his gayness to challenge the "don't ask don't tell" rule in the middle of a war on terrorism!
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Duke+official%22+and+%225+year+old+son%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Here is one from the list above
Duke Official Charged With Offering 5-Year-Old Son for Sex - Local ...
Jun 26, 2009 ... Duke Official Charged With Offering 5-Year-Old Son for Sex, A Duke University official has been arrested and charged with offering his ...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529184,00.html
Oh, I see... you're trying to persuade me with right wing propaganda tools like Fox News and Google. You'll have to stay up much later than this to fool me Love! Next you're going to tell me CNN isn't all over this story... or that MSNBC doesn't even list it in their US News sub-section for that matter. You can't fool me ;o)
Hey Skinny, if CNN reported it, I am *REALLY* surprised that it didn't catch Wes 's attention. Anyway, when I have time to check out the site, I still couldn't help notice Wes 's centrist dance!
This one should have caught Wes 's attention as well since he is so concerned about dishonesty and corruption in government! But it is good for diversity to have a "centrist" dancer as an editor.
'Barack Obama is a Big Fat Liar,' Illustrated
I got a bigger kick over searching for "gay duke official rape 5 year old" in the MSNBC search engine, I scrolled through 5 pages of and a countless number of "Duke Lacrosse players raped this fine, upstanding, black, female pillar of the community" pieces, but ironically not one single piece from after April of 2009.
Take out the word "gay"... and then it popped up... on page 3.
however, the other link i stated... not so much. Simply amazing.
Skinny,
I am even disappointed in you. You didn't even read your own source! It mentioned that the boy was black while the adopted father was gay! Are you trying to further a political agenda here, man?
LAI, you never cease to amaze me - and, trust me, that isn't a compliment.
LAI, you never cease to amaze me - and, trust me, that isn't a compliment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know. You are offended by the facts! I am amazed by your "centrist" dance too - and trust me, that isn't a compliment.
I'm with The Wes.
Nooshans seem to be perpetually seeking lower ground.
LAI rolled down his window and yelled:
Offended? Hardly. You aren't capable of offending me.What amazes me--in the "to be pitied" sense--is that you think I'm worth the time and effort of your ignore-the-subject, drive-by ad hominem attacks.