"Airman dismissed under DADT outed himself, asked for separation"

[Clio the Leo]

Since this was mentioned earlier...

Airman dismissed under DADT outed himself, asked for separation
By LEO SHANE III

WASHINGTON — Air Force officials confirmed that an unidentified airman was dismissed under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law earlier this year, the first such firing since defense officials effectively put a moratorium on the law in October.

However, service officials emphasized the move came at the request of the airman, who requested to be released from military service despite the imminent repeal of the law banning openly gay troops.

“In this instance, the airman first class made a statement that he was a homosexual,” Air Force spokesman Maj. Joel Harper said Friday. “After making the statement but prior to the commander initiating separation action, the airman wrote the secretary of the Air Force asking to be separated.

“After the separation action was initiated, the individual was informed of the current status of the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ and he reaffirmed to the that he desired his separation action be expeditiously processed.”

http://leoshane.visibli.com/share/g7lKHd

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. But we must "Demand" that Obama personally reinstate the airman.

These half assed "developing" stories are so injurious to an already uninformed public. I know why journalists & activists do it, but it's so irresponsible. I knew when I read the half baked story that got posted that there was much more to this. And I think in the coming days, we're going to learn much more. Sounds like this airman just wanted out.

[Cant trust em]

3. Is this the danger of the 24 hour news cycle and internet politics?

Maybe too much too fast. We pass judgment before we even have time to collect all of the information.

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. What does it do to a democracy when bloggers, who have no responsibility

to the truth, create news out of wholecloth? I blame Drudge for starting this trend, and it's been picked up by the leftosphere, which makes them no better than Drudge, and that's a frightening thought.

[CreekDog]

2. he begged us to enforce our discriminatory law

we're fair people, but we had no choice.

:sarcasm:

[Matt_in_STL]

4. He wanted out, plain and simple.

He figured this was the best way to get out. Sure, they could have forced him to stay in and fulfill his contract terms but, while I would have no issues serving with a gay servicemember, I really would rather not have someone watching my back if they don't really want to be there. In all honesty, if he didn't understand the moratorium and hadn't been following the progression of DADT, he probably wasn't gay and was looking at this as his way out.

[CreekDog]

5. How about: "sorry, we know you want out, but we refuse to kick you out because you're gay"

...just like we'd refuse to kick you out for being Black, Mexican, Asian, etc."

why can't they just do it that way?

besides, when did the military just HAVE to start doing what the soldiers wanted? is that some recent policy change --well, we had no choice, the soldier wanted it.

"Make it so number 1."


:shrug:

[vaberella]

6. Basically the soldier wanted out & did it it in a way that would not have him breaking any contract.

The law, is still in effect despite there being a moratorium. I don't see your point at all. If the law is in effect, and obviously this soldier wants out that he would use this reasoning to get out--I don't see how this is anyone's fault or someone is to blame. The law is still the law even though it will be ended, full stop soon enough.

[dsc]

7. They could have done what was done during the Gulf War

told him no. During the first Gulf War there was a moritorium on discharges of gay soldiers they were made to go serve in Iraq, then booted out. This airmen should have been told in no uncertain terms that he couldn't leave because he was gay.

[vaberella]

18. I think you're missing a few points here. The soldier asked for this.

Do you know if there were soldiers who were asking to be released under DADT during the Gulf War? That wasn't part of your argument. Can you say for certain the government would have rejected a soldier who said he was gay and wanted to be released under the filing for DADT during the Gulf War? I think this may be a precedent, or something we just haven't heard.

Secondly, if the above did happen. Where soldiers were requesting to leave under DADT while there is a moratorium and the military said no. Then maybe in this case the need for soldiers is not as great. However, I would say this is something new we're hearing.

[CreekDog]

9. your logic is that Rosa Parks should have been arrested and prosecuted

the laws that forbade her to sit where she sat were, after all, in effect at the time she sat where she sat.

:shrug:

[stevenleser]

10. Your interpretation of the person's statement is pretty far off. n/t

[CreekDog]

11. why

[Number23]

17. Wow. Not only are you trying your hardest to twist what that poster wrote

into something that doesn't even resemble what she said, you don't even know your history. Hint: Rosa Parks WAS arrested.

[vaberella]

19. What are you talking about? Your statement doesn't even make sense.

Rosa Parks was arrested for sitting where she sat. You're sounding like Palin dude.

[polmaven]

20. Why do you think she did what she did?

She was arrested! She was willing to go through what she went through in order to bring much needed attention to the situation. And it worked.

He actions, though, and the reasons for them, are light years away from this former airman's actions, and his reasons for them. In his case, he wanted out, and did this before the finality of the law's repeal. No bravery there, no political statement there, just a loophole to get what he wanted.

[ClarkUSA]

12. lol! Another Anti-Obama Outrage debunked by the plain facts. Imagine that.

Bookmarked.

"Airman dismissed under DADT outed himself, asked for separation"

[CakeGrrl]

13. Not many recs for the TRUTH, eh?

I guess "Obama fires a gay soldier!!!!!!" sells better these days. Who cares if it isn't true?

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

14. Well that would be entirely different than the way it was initially portrayed here.

k&r

[TheWraith]

15. Yes indeed. nt

[jberryhill]

16. It wouldn't be the first, or the last time...

[JoePhilly]

21. You mean parts of DU caught fire for nothing??

Can't believe that.

:rofl: