U.S. wants 'don't ask' to stick around a while

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(04-29) 15:38 PDT WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration wants a federal appeals court to maintain the ban on openly gay service members until the Pentagon is ready for them, probably by the end of the year, and to reject a demand for an immediate halt to "don't ask, don't tell."

In a filing late Thursday, the Justice Department asked the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to suspend legal proceedings while the government implements a federal law repealing "don't ask, don't tell," the 1993 statute barring military service by gays and lesbians who disclose their sexual orientation.

President Obama signed the repeal in December. It takes effect 60 days after he and the Pentagon certify that it will not interfere with military effectiveness or recruiting.

The Justice Department said retraining of current troops should be mostly done by mid-summer, and the administration has promised to complete the process before next year.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/29/BASG1J9T0G.DTL

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC Liberal]

2. He is, else he wouldn't have pushed for and signed

the repeal.

[LiberalLoner]

3. I know people will be understandably upset by this, but I know how long

it takes for the Army to implement big policy changes like this. Sheesh, you should see how long it takes to phase out one uniform and go to a new one - stuff takes way longer than you'd think.

And I do believe the troops are going to need to be "trained" in proper behavior. They need to understand what behavior will be tolerated and what will not be tolerated. (They need to be told they better not harass the gays is what it boils down to, and that needs to be published and made perfectly clear to all troops, before the openly gay can safely serve. I hate to say it but that's how it works in the military.)

So I don't think this is the military trying to stall implementing this change. I think the leaders do genuinely need time to get the training done.

There are plenty of homophobes in the military but by and large, military officers are an obedient lot and do what their commander-in-chief says to do.

[former9thward]

6. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Exactly what "training" is needed? The end of DADT means that homosexuality will not be a grounds for discharge from the military. That is it. No body has to like anyone else in the unit. When I was in the military I never saw any problem by whites who I knew to be racist to follow orders and generally get along with blacks. They didn't get any training for that. It is just what it is when you are in a military unit. They are stalling on this. Maybe they are waiting for the 2012 elections.

[LiberalLoner]

8. Well, I disagree with you, and my husband, who is still in the Army,

disagrees with you on this.

Incidentally, my husband is an 0-6 and SUPPORTS the end of DADT.

[LiberalLoner]

9. And let me ask you this - when you were in the military, did you ever have to attend

mandatory training about ethics, code of conduct during war, sensitivity training for EEO, etc.? (That is, if you were in the military in the last 30 years.)

THAT is the type of training they are talking about. Essentially EEO training. Just as soldiers understand that they will be punished for calling blacks or women offensive names or harassing them in other ways, soldiers will need to understand that they will be punished for harassing gays.

It has nothing to do with "liking" or "not liking." It has to do with expected and announced standards of behavior within the units.

[former9thward]

11. Yes to all those questions.

And new members of the military need to be trained on all those subjects. The EEO training would be more than enough. Adding gays to that does not have to take years.

[LiberalLoner]

14. "Probably until the end of the year" is not "years and years." n/t

[LiberalLoner]

12. You say that you never received any training for "how to treat blacks" while you were in...

makes me believe you were in prior to 1980, when training on this was mandatory. I know because I enlisted in the Army Reserve in 1982 and when I attended Basic Training at Ft. Jackson, SC, we sat through a class about equal opportunity and prejudism/racism etc. one of our first days there.

In fact I still remember one of the statements that remains with me to this day: the instructor said that we are ALL prejudiced, whether we realize it or not, and the best we can do is to intentionally and consciously be aware of that and evaluate all our decisions based on that information. In other words, to go over our own decisions with a fine-toothed comb to make sure we are not discriminating against anyone based on race, gender, or religion.

When I went through ROTC and went on active duty as an officer, I continued to receive EEO training every year. Every soldier in every unit was required to attend that training yearly. My husband says this training requirement is still in effect.

So...I'm just guessing you were in before 1980 and might be speaking more about how the Army used to be, rather than the way the Army currently is today.

[LiberalLoner]

13. Ah, never mind, you corrected yourself, you did admit that you received such training,

never mind. And yeah it does seem like it would be an easy thing to just write a few lines and make the changes but the changes need to be made to the FM's, and then the government printing offices have to get to work putting out the new FM's, and then distribute them....
Policy changes are not an easy and fast thing in the military, trust me on this. Or don't trust me. Shrug. Makes me no never-mind. I've said my piece on this subject and I've said it from a position of personal knowledge about the subject.

[former9thward]

15. Don't know what the fuck you are posting about.

I never said anything about "how to treat blacks" and I never corrected myself. And I did not "admit" I received training. I replied straight forward yes to your questions.

[LiberalLoner]

16. Here are your words:

"When I was in the military I never saw any problem by whites who I knew to be racist to follow orders and generally get along with blacks. They didn't get any training for that."

[LiberalLoner]

17. My contention is that these racist whites of whom you wrote, did INDEED get training on that subject

as did every other soldier in your unit, racist or otherwise.

[LiberalLoner]

18. And, not that it matters, but I have always supported gays serving openly and so has my husband. nt

[former9thward]

19. You have no idea who you are replying to.

Name the post # where I said any of that shit and take a look and see if my name is on the post. You are posting shit.

[LiberalLoner]

20. I'll do better than that. Here it is copied and pasted in entirety. Are you just effing with me?

former9thward (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-30-11 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Sorry, I don't buy it.
Edited on Sat Apr-30-11 12:50 AM by former9thward
Exactly what "training" is needed? The end of DADT means that homosexuality will not be a grounds for discharge from the military. That is it. No body has to like anyone else in the unit. When I was in the military I never saw any problem by whites who I knew to be racist to follow orders and generally get along with blacks. They didn't get any training for that. It is just what it is when you are in a military unit. They are stalling on this. Maybe they are waiting for the 2012 elections.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

26. are you saying you didn't write what he posted?, and so far i'd say advantage to him in this debate

n/t

[former9thward]

32. Then you would be wrong.

If you bothered to read his posts (before his edits) he said that I wrote that I received training (his quotes) on "how to treat blacks". Nowhere is there a post with those words.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[former9thward]

31. Those are my words

Where is the "how to treat blacks" crap?? Where did I "correct" myself?

[Quantess]

60. I believe that's what's known as a red herring.

A red herring completely derails someone's argument. Apparently, it worked.

[enlightenment]

22. I did - and I taught some of those courses, too.

It wouldn't take a year - and even if it took a year to send every soldier to sensitivity training, it sure as hell doesn't take a year to order them to behave. You harass, you will be punished.

The order should come first; they can work on EEO later.

Soldiers obey.



edited to correct spelling

[LiberalLoner]

23. LOL, I give up. n/t

[defendandprotect]

34. Meanwhile, the thread has been hijacked by nonsense .... !! The usual ploy -- !!

[LiberalLoner]

38. I'm not part of some plot to excuse the Army so that the repeal can not go forward. I

fully support gays in the Army and always have. I worked with one lesbian and one gay man (that I knew of) when I was in, and thought it was shameful that they had to keep their true selves hidden.

I was just trying to explain WHY policy changes happen so dang slowly in the Army.

Yeah, some of the General Officers resisted this change, for sure. I mean really really really resisted it and for all I know are still trying to. So I understand the anger and skepticism about the delay.

I'm absolutely certain at this point, DADT will be repealed and the military will be fully integrated, at long last. Thank goodness.

[defendandprotect]

41. Your explanation makes no sense ... how long has the military known this was coming?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4832902&mesg_id=4832937

How many studies have they done?

How UNLIKE the Truman/DESEGREGATION order is it?

In the DESEGREGATION much was involved -- there were actual physical barriers --

actually isolated troops -- compartmentalized.

In fact, I think they were often given the most dangerous jobs in the military --

and the most unpleasant!

DESEGREGATION was a vast world of difference from 20 years of this homophobic nonsense!!

The military has had more than two decades of warning that this was coming --

to suggest that they were unprepared as to planning or implementing it can only be

looked at as naive.

[LiberalLoner]

43. There has been some foot-dragging for sure. But I can tell you this could not be

implemented until the order was signed. It could not be carried out until it became law.

There's something else you should know. The soldiers who were serving in 1993 under Clinton are not likely to be the same soldiers serving today.

Some of the top leaders - Generals who have been around longer than twenty years - still resist this in their hearts I am sure, but I am also sure they will implement this.

And the troops who are younger support the repeal of DADT just as the rest of the young of the nation do.

[LiberalLoner]

44. And while the leaders maybe should have known this was coming, they could very well have

believed (in fact I know most of them believed) the day would never happen. Yeah, there are some regressive leaders at the top.

Hey, don't get angry at ME and the DU moderator for explaining how the Army works. I mean you CAN, but it's not like the moderator and I have any control over the Army, you know.

[LiberalLoner]

45. And, on a final note, it is possible that those of us who have served in the military for years

might know more about how the system works, than those who were never in.

So please save the insult of "naive" for someone else.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberalLoner]

54. Ummm...let me get this straight - you are accusing me of being a right-winger? Our conversation is

finished. On "ignore" you go. Believe whatever you want to, but I won't listen to your personal attacks.

[defendandprotect]

49. What you're trying to explain away is the usual footdragging on this issue ....

the military has largely been taken over by the right wing --

We saw that with the insanities of Rumsfeld -- from the dogs -- to the

Christian messages --

and we saw it way back into JFK's firing of Gen. Edwin Walker -- the loon who led

the racist riot at Ole Miss -- and who allegedly was victim of Oswald's shooting

into his house if you recall that unlikely event!

Walker was fired for trying to move right wing religion and Nazi material into military.

This isn't a new issue -- it's as much present in the military -- and btw at our

military academies -- as it is in society --

It's a cancer that needs to be cut out -- which will take liberal leadership.

Obama doesn't seem to be that liberal leadership to say the least!!

[defendandprotect]

47. True -- in fact, today's soldiers would have been less homophobic ... as society

became less homophobic --

You'r also being quite disingenuous in your reply --

they knew it was coming doesn't equal couldn't do it until signed --

Planning had to have occurred -- they knew for 20 years what needed to be done ...

upon the signing!!

[LiberalLoner]

53. You are right, they SHOULD have planned for the eventuality of this. But

a lot of the leaders at the very top of the military are right-wingers and...well, we already know how right-wingers feel about this issue. They were so threatened by the idea this would happen that there was no way they were going to spend any time planning for it.

My father, a retired Army Colonel who was in the Infantry for 30 years, tried to talk to my husband about this issue (hubby is currently in the Army.) Even though he knows Dave and I are both liberals, he felt so sure Dave would agree with him that allowing gays to serve openly would be a horrible idea...and was visibly shocked and shaken when my husband disagreed with him vehemently.

I've seen a lot of regressive leaders at the top. I'm still seeing regressive leadership at the top. But I'm telling you, the younger officers coming up in the ranks - the future Generals - by and large don't agree with the regressive policies of the top brass. And that top brass won't be around forever - Generals do retire.

And I also don't think President Obama is going to stand for the military disobeying him or disrespecting him. Look what happened to Gen McChrystal!

I think their excuse this time is a plausible one. I know from my own experiences how long things take to implement in the Army and what changes have to be made. Like the moderator said, things don't "just happen" in the military.

What I was actually trying to do in this thread before I started getting beaten up and kicked and (in some cases) effed with, was say, guys, I think it's going to happen at long last. It's really going to happen this time. It's going to be implemented, the right thing is going to be done, and I'm 100% convinced of that.

[defendandprotect]

68. Right -- and we should have planned for BP and Fukushima ...

and the military's goal is to move all soldiers to the right -- and if they don't

want to go, continue to goad and harass them until you force them to the right --


Same with military leadership -- no one is rising unless they are right wing --

See Petraeus and Panetta -- McCrystal -- and that's a "Democratic" president making

those appointments!!

I think their excuse this time is a plausible one. I know from my own experiences how long things take to implement in the Army and what changes have to be made. Like the moderator said, things don't "just happen" in the military.

It is indeed only EXCUSES -- when they want war, they move their butts fast enough!

Let's cut the MIC budget in half and see how long it takes them to react!!

[LiberalLoner]

79. You are such an expert on the military! You must have served or known many in the military!

[defendandprotect]

93. We should all be "experts" at this point on the folly of war and the MIC --

[No Elephants]

87. +1 Kudos. Your reasoning is unassailable

"Exactly what "training" is needed? The end of DADT means that homosexuality will not be a grounds for discharge from the military. "

[JusticeForAll]

39. I gotta say, I love that photo of our President

When looking at it quickly, I see us, the professional Left, being given the middle finger, while smugly enjoying all the promises not kept.

This one ranks up there with the poster showing him turning his back on us - "Get His Back".

[NYC Liberal]

63. LOL! If you see Obama giving the middle finger in that photo

I'd suggest making an appointment with an eye doctor.

[JusticeForAll]

72. LOL...mm..not.

So glad you are comfortable enough to laugh at people's rights being taken away and their liberties trampled on. I see his middle finger quite clearly in the picture, you can't?

Oh and thanks to his healthcare plan...um no, probably no eye exam until 2015...am I even covered then?

This administration has been a disgrace to Democrats.

Still working for change...and waiting for the change that this administration promised.

Enjoy your snark.

[slackmaster]

4. I've already seen a big cultural change in service people I see around town.

They know the end of DADT is coming. Earlier this week I had drinks with a lesbian Navy woman. She was totally out, proud to speak of her girlfriend who is stationed in another country.

This is going to be a very positive change.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. The military is really pitiful. They will do anything to put this off.

Fearful, weak, cowering institutions. Let's keep doing the wrong thing until we are ready to do the right thing.

[LiberalLoner]

7. You'd be surprised. The military is a very young organization. Most people in the military

are under the age of 30.

Do most people under the age of 30 have a big problem with "teh gays?" No? Well, that includes soldiers of that age.

Some of the most senior leadership (the old Generals who will soon be on their way off to retirementland) do have a problem with it but they will do what their commander-in-chief orders them to do regardless of their own personal beliefs.

[quakerboy]

48. When you get to the rank levels that get to have input into

policy and implementation, whats the average age there? I would be willing to bet that the higher rank you look at the higher the average age. And the people at the top are the ones that make the orders, unless I vastly misunderstand the term hierarchy.

I would be willing to bet that there are those who are ready to implement the new law, and others who will drag feet and delay at any cost. And I would be willing to guess that the latter are denser(both in terms of willingness to try new things and in terms of population density) the higher up you get. Lastly I have serious doubts that every homophobe, or even a majority of them are headed to "retirementland" in the next year.

[LiberalLoner]

55. I'm sure there will always be some homophobes in society and in the military. You are right,

not all the Generals are retiring in the next year. Most currently serving Generals will probably be retired in about five years I'd bet though.

The military has a higher turnover than the civilian world, believe it or not. Anything longer than a 30 year career is pretty darn unusual and there are age limits even on the Generals, there is a mandatory retirement age. Not sure what that age is, would have to look it up, but it's not like Generals can serve until they are 90.

[LiberalLoner]

56. mandatory retirement age:

Found the information (was curious so had to look it up:) )

The mandatory retirement age for all general officers is 62 (this can be deferred to age 64 in some cases). Under the law (10 USC, Sec 635), an officer who has been promoted to O-7, but is not on the recommended list to O-8, must retire five years after promotion to O-7, or 30 years of active duty service, whichever is later.

[LiberalLoner]

57. I guess what I'm resisting here is the idea that every single person who is now or ever has

been in the military, is necessarily evil and a right-winger.

It's true I felt like an outsider in the military with my views, but I am seeing real signs of hope among the younger leadership now and among the soldiers, that things are changing.

[quakerboy]

66. In that I agree with you

Most of us who have been in the military are the same as any other human, with the same ups and downs. Ive known a lot of veterans who were great people, and others who were scum. Same as in any group of people.

But It is my strong impression that as the atmosphere gets more rarefied, the people there are there have gotten there largely by the good grace of political influence, most often the confluence of the hawks and the neo-christians. I find that worrisome on a number of levels, and it causes me to be suspicious of any delays on this specific issue.

[LiberalLoner]

83. Exactly! And you are right to have some concerns - the upper leadership

does tend to be very right-wing. My husband very nearly got into a fist-fight with a fellow Lieutenant Colonel last year who basically told him to "get out of my Army, you have no right to be in, you liberal." My husband has since been promoted to Colonel and I keep hoping he runs into that LTC again just for the delicious salute moment.

The Air Force top leadership in particular shock and dismay me. One AF 2-star sent political propaganda out to all his junior officers (I got a copy of it from my husband who worked for him at the time at a joint assignment) and I have seen AF Colonels sitting around openly disparaging the President and Democrats. Just disgusting.

But I do honestly have hope for the future. (Although the AF still scares me.) I'm seeing more and more junior officers in the Army who sport "Obama" stickers on their cars and are liberals.

I don't blame people for being furious and skeptical - I am angry too that gays have not been allowed to serve openly from day one - but I truly believe it will be implemented. I truly believe it's going to happen.

[defendandprotect]

98. +1 -- Agree -- !!

[Speck Tater]

10. Who is this "U,S," you speak of? We the people?

It always bugs when when a headline says U.S. want this and U.S. doesn't want that. It can be used to mean the president, the administration, the congress, the state department, but never "We the People". That's who "the U.S." is supposed to be.

[rasputin1952]

27. It took a long time for some Regiments to implement Truman's order to...

integrate units; to be sure, some of this was due to prejudice and bigotry, but a lot of it was logistical as well. It's pretty easy to issue an order, it's something else entirely to carry it out...especially if there was no contingency plan or one needed to be updated. Moving soldiers and material around is no easy task by any means, when you are talking about the entire military, you are talking about some very serious situational problems with carrying out a major plan.

When I was in, we were of all colors, religions and some individuals went out of their way to excel in English as a Second Language skills. Was there bigotry, yes of course there was, the overt bigots were shunned or tossed. Most others realized the simple truth, when the shit hit the fan, we were all green, we were the color of our uniforms, that was it. You fought for each other, there was none of this , "the flag, mom, apple pie and the girl next door" stuff, you went in with the expectation that you would come home with as many of your fellow soldiers as possible, in the best condition possible.

For those that have never served, it might seem strange that things just don't "happen" in the military. The basic scenario is usually: rumor-mill, heads-up, preparation, implementation. Today's military has a huge benefit over the military of the past as todays servicemembers have access to a vastly wider world of information than we ever did. This is good because it helps shut down rumor-mill, and moves right into heads-up; but no matter how you slice and dice it, implementation takes the longest time.

People watch things like documentaries or movies and think that things just "happen", but everything from the Revolution on has depended on time, effort and the means to accomplish the orders given. D-Day and Midway did not just happen, the logistics involved were incredibly diverse and time consuming, in one case, (Midway), it took a couple of weeks, in the other, (D-Day), it took a couple of years.

It may seem simple to some, but those of us who have served know that things take time, even where there is no resistance, (the military is inherently conservative due to the authoritarian rank structure). When there is resistance, you remove it, either through direct or indirect confrontation; some resistance is so masked, it's hard to see it, but eventually, things get done.

I have faith that our servicemembers will carry this out, they have not failed us before, they will not fail us now.

[LiberalLoner]

29. Thank you so much for this wonderful and very accurate and informative explanation, and

thank you so much for your service.

[rasputin1952]

30. Thank you and your husband for yours...

(even though officers and I rarely got along...;) )

I can't blame anyone who has not served for not knowing the ways and nuances of the military...but I can help inform people about how it works.

:patriot:

[LiberalLoner]

33. Thank you. I'll admit, I didn't get along with some of the officers either, LOL...I still

remember, on Saturday the soldiers of the Brigade were to go out and set up the tents for the Brigade exercise. I showed up and went along with them to set up the tents - I was the only officer to do so. I thought it was the right thing to do. I never forgot how it felt to be enlisted, and I never unlearned the respect for the soldiers and NCO's I developed when enlisted.

I fell on my sword when I learned a female soldier who worked for me got molested by a dentist. It's a too-long, boring story but I ended up fighting it in the system for a year (the dentist continued to "require" breast exams of all female privates before taking their wisdom teeth out so they would be deployable) and when that reached a dead end I resigned my commission and went to the press. The press never published the story but what I was told was that the Commanding General of the post was contacted at that point and basically threatened - the writer I contacted was ex-military himself - and all of a sudden the offending dentist and all his chain of command went bye-bye. Have no idea what happened to them - they retired maybe - but I was glad soldiers weren't being molested anymore.

[rasputin1952]

36. I was a Medical Platoon Sgt when I got out...

(the stories I could tell! :D )

When setting up a MAST unit or even a BN Aid Station, everyone in the Medical Corps helped, regardless of rank. The one big thing was, you had to watch out for the hands of PA's, BGE docs, etc, so they couldn't hold a tent stake, but they could pound it into the ground with the sledge...:D

My problem was that I was never a "yes man", if I saw something wrong, I did something about it...which in turn made some parts of my military life a bit of a hell. On a training exercise at Yakima Firing Center, I got hell from a Major because we had not gone to MOPP 4; he didn't give a damn my guys and I were working on 3 heat casualties, 2 of them would be sent back with Heat Stroke. Thinking back, I could have had some go to MOPP 4, although I thought it remarkably stupid w/heat casualties coming in on a training exercise, and them have those tend to patients as the others got to MOPP 4, but being more hard headed than this Major, I didn't relinquish. I got my ass chewed out at his jeep...salvation was to come though. In one of those incredibly rare instances in the military, the Division Surgeon out with us, and came over after watching most of this from a bit of a distance. He had us come to attention, (he was a bird colonel), and then had me apologize to the Major, then had the Major apologize to me! He and the major then walked just short of where I couldn't hear them, and told the Major to, "shut the fuck up before you wind up killing someone! Division passed down orders 3 hours ago to not go beyond MOPP 2. Bottom line is, Major, that sergeant just saved your ass." He then came over to me and said, "that was a freebie, don't expect any more. Damn good job sarge."

That Major and I would cross paths again, but he respected me after that, and I him.

[LiberalLoner]

37. Thank you for protecting the lives of soldiers! You did the right thing. n/t

[defendandprotect]

35. Because African Americans were actually SEGREGATED -- !!! Entirely different ....

these orders will pertain to attitudes --

not actual physical conditions.

[rasputin1952]

40. If you think that attitiude is easier to move than men and machines...

you've missed the point. There were both involved with Truman's decision, if you honestly believe that a racially integrated military was welcomed with open arms after Truman's order, you may want to go over your history. When women were taken into the military in large numbers, there was serious resistance in material logistics and attitude as well. In both of these cases, the military responded well over time, but the key word there is time.

Attitudes can change over time, you cannot force people to just dump off whatever they may feel on a deeper level; in fact, if you try to do that, it usually is counterproductive, as the individual decides what you have to say isn't worth a damn. One leads by example, especially in the military, this educates those under your command that they are not being forced to comply, but they have an obligation to comply...the two are separate from each other.

I can see no reason why the military will not comply, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have always complied and done what's right...but it has always taken some time.

[defendandprotect]

51. When you institute punishment for harassment of AAs, women, gays ....

as has to be done in this case -- then the "attitudes" will change --

again, there is no comparison with Truman's desegregation which involved both

the physical and "attitudes" --

This can't be seen as anything but footdragging -- and apologists!

[rasputin1952]

61. Question...have you ever been in the military?

I'm not trying to be facetious, because there are rules for "punishment". If you think that some form of perhaps swift, brutal punishment will do much else than sow rancor through the ranks, you are on a quite different plane. Every servicemember must see and believe in an honest and just system that will prosecute, but not persecute, (even when they might not agree with the charges/verdict, they must see it as just). That is essential in any form of system of justice, but especially so when you have to order troops into harm's way.

If you think that everyone is an apologist because they do not think precisely the way you do, then this is an entirely different conversation.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rasputin1952]

69. What you call brainwashing, others might call an education...

like any education, it has it's good points and it's bad.

I've seen some of the worst that human beings are capable of; but I've also seen the best one can and will do for his/her fellow man/woman. The military is not filled with drones that simply follow orders, these are thinking and caring people willing to sacrifice some of their time, energy, perhaps limbs or lives in a service that can, at times be brutal. The vast majority of servicemembers are no more psychopaths than any other part of the population; every day, no matter what field a person is in, they take orders and accomplish jobs. Yes, I know that 99.9% of other jobs do not take lives, but we are all challenged, every day, regardless of profession

I can assure you that the military will comply, it will not be in the time frame you desire, but the change is underway. There will always be bigots throughout humanity, most don't even realize their prejudices, fewer still accept their flawed logic that brought them to their position on how they perceive things. We cannot get past bigotry, because each of us has our own prejudices. The best we can do is try to understand each other as we go through life...sadly, some will refuse to even try, usually blocked by their own deep feelings on a subject.

I've served with some excellent soldiers, male and female, straight and gay, of black, white, hispanic, asian decedents. I've served with every religion and lack thereof; there has always been problems, but those problems get addressed, this why training and education are so important, you have to educate people about a change, you have to train them so they know bigoted behavior will not be tolerated. American servicemembers will do a lot, but they have to know why. Summary punishment without being informed of what is taking place and what is expected will never work.

I know these people, they are brave, dedicated individuals...and they will comply, people need to give them a chance, not hound them into hell.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rasputin1952]

77. An education is a learning experience...

it has it's good and bad, like any other learning experience. As far as killing goes, what do you think the military does? For the record, virtually everyone in the military would much rather take a position w/o having to fight and kill, there is always a hope to avoid the bloodshed; negotiations can, but rarely do, work.

"Teaching" people to torture, look more to the CIA than the military, and FWIW, obviously, human beings already know how to torture others long before they, (if ever), enter the military. Kids today know more about waterboarding just from watching the news...than the entire nation knew of it for 50 years; the media teaches people about torture every day.

You just want things done your way, in your timeframe, things just don't work that way, whether in civilian or military life.

[LiberalLoner]

80. Soldiers are taught the Geneva conventions and ethics in war and taught

it is WRONG to torture. Have there been soldiers who tortured? Sure. But not every soldier "kills and tortures" and the soldiers who have been convicted of torturing, have faced stiff penalties.

Torturing as national policy was not a doctrine dreamed up nor embraced by the military. It came from the CIA and Neo-cons.

Soldiers know that if we use torture against others, it will be used against US when we are captured.

If you really believe all military and former military are so monolithically evil, what have you done to eliminate us? Have you tried, for instance, walking into a base or post and opening fire, to bring this nation more into line with your vision?

Or do you just hurl insults at those of us who have served (and sacrificed) here on DU?

BTW, my husband is a Colonel in the Army and oddly enough his job doesn't involve any killing or torture. In fact he hasn't killed or tortured even once yet in the 20 years he's been in. What he does is work on nuclear non-proliferation.

Of course, I'm naturally lying about what my husband does, because I'm brainwashed and evil after all, and I'm sure YOU know much more about what he does than he or I do.

[LiberalLoner]

81. deleted by author.

[LiberalLoner]

89. deleted by author

[defendandprotect]

94. Oops!! Seem to have been some loopholes there --=- !!!

Evidently, we're also now in denial that the US has tortured prisoners?

Though who could deny Gitmo and the General's report on US/torture I can't imagine!

Maybe it's based on the fact that technically US/CIA shipped them off to "rendition"

points to be tortured!!

Or that it was done at Gitmo and not on US soil -- !!



Former CIA Interrogator: We Carried Out Torture Because The White House Told Us To

In an interview last night with ABC News, John Kiriakou — the CIA official who headed the team that interrogated al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah — said that Zubaydah was waterboarded, but defended those actions as having prevented “maybe dozens” of planned attacks and “probably saved lives.”

But despite his vigorous defense of his past conduct, Kiriakou says he now views what he did as torture and says that he would not recommend those tactics going forward. “We don’t need enhanced techniques to get that nugget of information,” he said in an interview with Matt Lauer this morning on The Today Show.

Lauer asked Kiriakou where the permission was given to carry out torture. “Was the White House involved in that decision?” Lauer asked. “Absolutely,” Kiriakou said, adding:


This isn’t something done willy nilly. It’s not something that an agency officer just wakes up in the morning and decides he’s going to carry out an enhanced technique on a prisoner. This was a policy made at the White House, with concurrence from the National Security Council and Justice Department.

Lauer then referenced an earlier interview he did with President Bush, in which Bush said he was assured by the Justice Department “we were not torturing.” “I disagree,” Kiriakou said. Watch it:

As evidence increasingly builds for the argument that CIA interrogators carried out illegal acts of torture, the New York Sun reports that President Bush may soon decide to issue pardons:

more


Edited to add:

CIA Agent: Waterboarding Was OK'd

Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding had top-level OK

[DeadEyeDyck]

71. yeah, that's the ticket. Waterboard anyone that does not

aqgree with repealing DADT. We will get to the bottom of this!

[defendandprotect]

75. Evidently, people who support torture only think in terms of physical punishment ...

if you harassa gay -- or assault them -- you should be immediately OUT of the

military.

[LiberalLoner]

78. Any servicemember who assaults another servicemember is automatically

subject to UCMJ action including time in prison at Ft. Leavenworth as well as dismissal from the service.

But of course, what do I know? I'm one of those evil brainwashed former military robots who should be burned at the stake so this country will be a better place (rolls eyes right back at you.)

[defendandprotect]

91. And you would object to that punishment?

and if not -- then what are you talking about?

[LiberalLoner]

90. So you feel the poster above is a defender of torture? My, you are generous with the personal

insults, aren't you?

[defendandprotect]

92. The poster you're describing introduced the subject of waterboarding/torture ----

discuss it with him --

[LiberalLoner]

82. There are some soldiers who have tortured and been convicted of that. It is not

standard policy in the military to torture. In fact it is against the UCMJ and carries very stiff penalties (prison time, dishonorable discharge.)

I find it extremely offensive to be labelled by you as a "torturer" because I put my life on the line serving in the Army during the first Gulf War.

I never tortured anyone, nor have I ever killed anyone. Not that you will take me at my word.

[defendandprotect]

96. I think the word for you is "time waster" ---

and you're on ignore --

Continue to deny that you're apologizing for the footdragging with someone else -- !!

Only YOU are suggesting this nonsense --

What I have made clear is the irony that you are protesting appropriate punishment for

those harassing homosexuals in the military, while we know the extremes our government/

MIC/CIA have gone to in dealing prisoners in their care -- evading the Geneva Accords --

torturing -- and torturing by waterboarding!

And a great deal more --

And if you're low on that info -- See Sy Hersh --

[No Elephants]

85. You cannot compare the two, nor does passing any law end bigotry.

When rae was the issue, you had separate barracks, bathrooms, separate everything.

Ending DADT requires only ending discharges. And you never wait to implement a just law until bigotry ends.

[defendandprotect]

97. +1 -- and K/R for your post --

[iwishiwas]

28. Oh for heaven's sake-just get it over with and put the new law into place!

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

42. Gee, no one saw this (yet another) delay coming.

Incidentally, I have several bridges for sale. Pennies on the dollar!

[Behind the Aegis]

46. I am just flabergasted! Must get to fainting couch.....

:sarcasm:

When will President Annie, er, I mean Obama break into singing "Tomorrow. Tomorrow.?"

"Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love you tomorrow
You're always a day away"

[sakabatou]

58. *fcaepalm*

[LiberalLoner]

59. Exactly how I feel about this thread: *facepalm* n/t

[Zorra]

62. Pentagon, circa 2014: "We will be ready for gay service members by 2015".

[sakabatou]

64. Pentagon, circa 2015: "We'll be ready for gay service members by 2020."

ANd so on and so forth.

[mvd]

84. That's what I'm worried about - delay delay delay

Libya was supposed to be quick, and there is still U.S. involvement. Since the law was passed, perhaps they have to finally relent at the end of the year and end DADT.

[Unvanguard]

65. Well, what else were they going to do?

They either continue defending the implementation policy in court, or cease defending it and effectively break their agreement with the military that let repeal be passed in the first place.

This has never been the ideal way to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, but it is what it is: it is entirely in accordance with how the Administration said repeal would be implemented.

Does anyone know if there have been discharges since December?

[Muskypundit]

70. There will be powerpoints

[LiberalLoner]

73. Oops double post n/t

[LiberalLoner]

74. Bwa ha ha that is for sure! Thanks for the laugh! There are ALWAYS powerpoints n/t

[No Elephants]

86. If a Democratic Congress had ended DADT over Bush's veto and Bush had delayed, this thread would

have read very differently. I agree with Reply #6. No reason for delay--or for rationalizing delay.

I apologize to our GLBT brothers and sisters for the crap they have to put up with all day every day, even at DU.

Blessings.

[LiberalLoner]

88. Something that disturbs me about this thread is how many of the posters assumed those of us

posting about how slow the military tends to be about policy changes (the moderator and me) are AGAINST ending DADT and are AGAINST equal rights for gays. I could show you a few petitions I've signed for the repeal of DADT but that probably would not change any minds.

You asked what kind of training could possibly be needed in order for gay soldiers to feel free to announce to their fellow soldiers that they are indeed gay. The kind of training they will give in the Army, for instance, is essentially EEO training.

I imagine it will sound something like this:

"Starting 1 July, your fellow soldiers who are gay will be free to openly state their orientation. You are NOT to harass or make snarky comments to or discriminate against your fellow soldiers in any way shape or form. Failure to follow this policy will result in immediate disciplinary action under the UCMJ. Now sign this form indicating you understand the standards of behavior expected of you under this new policy so that it can go in your personnel folder."

Now, that's just a very brief approximation but I hope that gives you an idea.

The Army (and every other military organization) is much larger and much more weighed down in paperwork crap than most people who have never been in, would expect.

The feeling I'm getting in this thread is that all of you are pissed that DADT hasn't been repealed yet (I am pissed that it wasn't repealed years ago too) and since you can't get at the general officers to beat up on them, you beat up on those of us who have served who are trying to explain why it takes over a year to switch to a new uniform or implement a policy like this. You beat up on us even though we are on the same side you are.

That's really low.

[defendandprotect]

95. +1000% --