IF HE CANT FIX EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW THEN HE WONT FIX ANYTHING EVER AM I RITE?

7/24/2010 4:13:30 AM

Quote :

"^^^ and ^^ I appreciate the responses by both of you. And I understand your positions. I want to be clear: I simply wish to point out the reality of Obama vs. the myth and/or hope of Obama and his rhetoric. I'm not suggesting that you have an epiphany because of some Obama flip-flop I post here and go running to join the Log Cabin Republicans! I realize that you feel you don't have an alternative to Obama concerning DADT--and you're probably right. Concerning McCain, as I've posted numerous times here, he was barely my guy in '08 and I held my nose and voted for him--I wish I had other options. But let's face it, even though you may like Obama's words and the direction he appears to be going on DADT, the fact is that the DADT policy is currently being enforced--gays and lesbians, some that we desperately need, like Lt. Dan Choi, an Arab linguist, are being discharged from the military right now. The fact is that what is happening is exactly what would be happening if McCain were president--there's no difference to Choi and others like him. And I would like to add that Republican gay rights groups are fighting DADT, too. This is a fact that gets conveniently brushed aside as some here and elsewhere rush to call Republicans homophobes or racists or some such. Those ignoring gay conservatives and their efforts on DADT are living in the murky world of their own old talking points. PS: Hope Inception was good. It must've been--saw that it's passed the $100 million mark. "

7/24/2010 4:32:59 AM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/28/888482/-Bill-ORielly,-John-Stossel-Come-Out-Against-DADT

Quote :

"Bill O'Rielly, John Stossel Come Out Against DADT LENO: I don’t know if you heard the thing I was mentioning, it actually made me angry. That kid, the West Point kid [Dan Choi], what’s your take on that? O’REILLY: Well I don’t get it. President Obama has the power to stop this Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell business. Just sign an executive order. I don’t know why it’s taking so long. LENO: And to me, doesn’t it cost like $300,000 to send a kid to West Point? He speaks Arabic...Anybody that’s willing to take a bullet for me is OK in my book. O’REILLY: Yeah, but $300,000 to the government – that’s like $0.30, you know what I mean? So, they don’t care about cost. But, look, it’s just not fair, we should stop this nonsense."

Military issues can create some strange bedfellows.

You have anti-DADT people like O'Reilly and Elaine Marshall vs pro-DADT people like Richard Burr.

You get anti-continued war people like Elaine Marshall and BJ Lawson vs pro-continued war people like President Obama and Richard Burr.

[Edited on July 28, 2010 at 6:37 PM. Reason : .]

7/28/2010 6:34:56 PM

ehe, they "came out" for DADT... see what they did there? hyuck hyuck

7/29/2010 8:16:30 PM

A small DADT related update:



I had a chance to chat with her some, she seems like a nice gal, and would be a worth while addition to the military. She'll do well at Yale though I'm sure.

Just out of curiosity what the goal numbers are for those physical fitness tests in those 3 areas for males of the same age?

New Service Members United Ad:


And the latest on the Fehrenbach guy the TheDuke mentioned that he's met:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/16/893577/-DADT:-Lt-Col-Fehrenbach-spared-from-discharge,-for-now

Quote :

"BREAKING UPDATE: U.S. Dept. of Justice, U.S. Air Force Reach Federal Court Agreement with Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach. The highly decorated combat Air Force Aviator filed injunction in Federal Court to block "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" discharge "

Quote :

"Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and Morrison & Foerster LLP, representing their client, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, reached an agreement today with the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Air Force, on the pending request for a temporary restraining order. The agreement prevents the Air Force from discharging Lt. Col. Fehrenbach under "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" (DADT), the discriminatory law barring gay and lesbian service members from serving openly and honestly, until the Court can schedule a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction."

Quote :

"This is exactly what we asked the Court to do in our motion on Wednesday, and we are pleased that the Air Force has agreed to preserve the status quo until we can have a full hearing. Of course, we continue to hope that the Air Force will do the right thing and let this war hero continue to serve this country"

So it looks like things are going his way for now.

8/19/2010 2:51:31 PM

One other story that I should have included:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/17/kutteles.dadt.son/?hpt=C2

Quote :

"Murdered soldier's parents: Repeal 'don't ask, don't tell' STORY HIGHLIGHTS * Pat and Wally Kutteles have worked 10 years to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" * Their son, Pfc. Barry Winchell, was beaten to death with a bat as he slept * He went through constant, vicious harassment after rumors he was gay, they write * They believe DADT prevented him from reporting harassment to superiors"

8/20/2010 12:43:21 AM

holy shit, you actually put something into a thread that already existed. wow!

8/20/2010 12:49:32 AM

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=92EE7062-18FE-70B2-A8332B0A1A0D1FD7

Quote :

"The Pentagon’s survey of military spouses on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” seeks their views on subjects ranging from how repeal would affect attendance of social events to whether their family would stay in the armed forces, according to a copy obtained by POLITICO."

Quote :

"Among the questions: “Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. If the partner of a gay or lesbian Service member participated in a family support program, would it affect your participation?” “Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. Would repeal affect your family readiness?” The survey also asks spouses if they live on base and how they would react to an openly gay or lesbian service member or partner living nearby. The list of answers include: “I would make a special effort to get to know the gay or lesbian service member and partner” or “I would generally avoid them when I could” or “I would do nothing.”"

Quote :

"For example, the survey asks how many informal military social events -- picnics, gatherings and holiday parties -- the spouse has attended in the last year. It then asks if the law were repealed, would the attendance of a gay or lesbian service member with his or her partner affect future attendance? "

Quote :

"Assume Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed and you live on-base housing. If a gay or lesbian Service member lived in your neighborhood with their partner, would you stay on-base or try to move out? • I would stay on-base • I would try to move out • Don't Know • Does not apply, I would not live on-base"

[Edited on August 21, 2010 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2010 2:52:08 PM

two in a row! you are on a roll, man!

8/21/2010 2:56:17 PM

^What's with the trolling?

[Edited on August 21, 2010 at 7:34 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2010 7:33:56 PM

I'm trying some positive reinforcement, pal

8/21/2010 7:51:36 PM

If you're anti-words, then you can read only the bold part and still get the gist of it.

Quote :

"In 1990 - while working as a reference librarian at the Library of Congress -- I met Joan Darrah, an active duty Naval Officer. I already knew about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but I soon woke up to the harsh reality that loved ones of gay and lesbian family members are forced to serve in silence, too. Over the years, Joan had adjusted to living two lives -- in the closet at work and out after hours. For me, it was a bit of an adjustment as I had been fortunate to work for an employer who valued my skills and expertise and realized that my being a lesbian in no way detracted from my ability to do a great job. I knew that Joan could be deployed at any moment. She may be away from home for two or three years. I realized that being with an active duty military officer was even more constricting than I could have possibly imagined and I worried constantly about Joan's well being. Yet, through it all, I knew our relationship was worth the compromises. I knew we had to make it work for Joan to continue to serve our Country. There were so many things that we had to be careful about. For example, Joan had asked that I not call her at work unless it was truly an emergency. When we were out in public if Joan saw someone from work, I learned to "disappear," until Joan's co-worker moved on. We didn't dare go to nice restaurants on Valentine's Day or even Saturday nights. We could not show any familiarity while out in public. I went to parties at colleagues' homes alone lest a guest I didn't know learn that Joan was in the Navy. The events of September 11, 2001, caused us both appreciate more fully the true impact of DADT on our lives and the reality of our mutual sacrifices. At 8:30 a.m. that morning, Joan went to a meeting in the Pentagon. At 9:30 a.m., she left that meeting. At 9:37 a.m., the plane flew into the Pentagon and destroyed the exact space that Joan had left less than eight minutes earlier, killing seven of her colleagues. In the days and weeks that followed, Joan went to several funerals and memorial services for her co-workers who had been killed. Most people attended these services with their spouses whose support was critical at this difficult time, yet Joan was forced to go alone, even though I really wanted to be with her to provide support. As the numbness began to wear off, it hit me how incredibly alone I would have been had Joan been killed. The military is known for how it pulls together and helps people; we talk of the "military family," which is a way of saying we always look after each other, especially in times of need. But, none of that support would have been available for me, because under DADT, I didn't exist. In fact, I would have been one of the last people to know had Joan been killed, because nowhere in her paperwork or emergency contact information had Joan dared to list my name. Whenever I hear Joan recount the events of that day, I relive it and realize all over again how devastated I would have been had she been killed. I also think of the partners of service members injured or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are unable to get any support from the military and they must be careful about the amount of support they offer to their closeted service member loved ones. The events of September 11th caused us to stop and reassess exactly what was most important in our lives. During that process, we realized that this discriminatory law was causing us to make a much bigger sacrifice than either of us had ever admitted. Eight months later, in June 2002, Joan retired from the U.S. Navy, and I retired from the Library of Congress. If it wasn't for DADT, we might both still be serving in our respective positions. Lynne Kennedy "

8/23/2010 1:35:56 PM

http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/09/02/44668-army-launches-dont-ask-dont-tell-online-inbox/



Kind of defeats the point of anonymity if you include a non-confidentiality disclaimer.

I so look forward to the possible day when Burr is no longer a member of the senate armed services committee which was narrowly divided on deciding this issue.

9/4/2010 3:44:08 AM

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/09/13/reid-to-schedule-dont-ask-vote-next-week/

Quote :

"Reid to schedule ‘Don’t Ask’ vote next week The Washington Blade has learned that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intends to schedule a vote next week on major defense budget legislation that contains “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language, regardless of any objection from members of the U.S. Senate. A senior Democratic leadership aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Reid met with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday to inform the Republican leader that the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill will come to the Senate floor the week of Sept. 20. The aide said Senate leadership is anticipating the Senate won’t have unanimous consent to bring the legislation to the floor, so 60 votes will be necessary to end a filibuster and move forward with debate on the bill. “We are going to take it the floor next week to see where the votes are,” the aide said. Last month, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) objected to moving forward with the defense authorization bill after August recess. The aide said he’s “hopeful” the Senate has at least 60 votes to overcome a filibuster."

If they can't break the filibuster now, they'll have no chance after they lose seats and perhaps the senate itself later. I really hope they can get this done soon.

9/13/2010 9:10:27 PM

Vote happens tomorrow. Any ones guess as to whether they can break the filibuster. A lot of hopes rested with Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine, but right now she is saying she wants to wait until after the midterm elections to vote, at which point there will be no chance of breaking the GOP filibuster. But she is under pressure. DADT repeal rally in Maine today:

9/20/2010 10:38:36 PM

God, I hope it passes.

9/21/2010 11:58:40 AM

Narrowly failed. Tyvm Senator Burr for representing NC so well.



It wont be considered again until after the midterms, at which point there will be 0 chance of getting 60 votes. DADT is here to stay.

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 3:28 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2010 3:24:44 PM

Obama should fucking dig in his heels on this one, refusing to sign the authorization unless it passes with a repeal of DADT

9/21/2010 3:38:30 PM

Animal Farm


"All pigs are created equal. But some pigs are created more equal"

9/21/2010 4:00:26 PM

http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article/republicans-block-bill-to-lift-military-gay-ban/19642983?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C171984

Quote :

"Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas sided with Republicans to block the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date if he wants. "

3 Dems Voted against - before you jump to Reid's defense regarding tatics, lets take a look at this next piece...

Quote :

"Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine had been seen as the crucial 60th vote because she supports overturning the military ban. But Collins agreed with her GOP colleagues that Republicans weren't given sufficient chance to offer amendments. "

So it looks like the support was there had they given just a bit more time... Lets go to Reid's spokesman...

Quote :

"Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said the senator would be willing to allow more debate on the bill after the November elections. "

So Reid is willing to allow more debate - the debate that the crucial 60th vote was requesting - but not until after elections?
But why you might ask? Lets take a look...

Quote :

""Today's vote isn't about arcane Senate procedures," Manley said. "It's about a GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people." "

Interesting. Looks like Reid is more concerned with painting a picture for the elections than actually getting something done.

Of coure you would never know that by looking at the title of the article - "Republicans Block Bill to Lift Military Gay Ban"

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2010 4:29:49 PM

My understanding is they called vote to try to repeal & to see where everyone stood. Once enough votes were in from the possible swing republicans who all voted against repeal, and once it was clear it couldn't be repealed he cut loose a few ppl on the failed vote, and procedurally had to vote against it himself to bring it up again (even so I blame everyone in the no column, they should have stood on principle even when it was clear it was a failed vote, & even if it would hurt them in the election, if they really meant it they would have). I'm not sure if that's is true. I don't see why he'd have to vote against it to be allowed to try to bring it up again, but I've heard that from several different sources. Not that it matters much, even if he does bring it up again it wont have enough support to pass with significantly more anti-dadt repeal candidates in the senate after the midterms. And to be clear, Reid deserves his fair share of the blame, I'm not disputing that.



In the end though, I blame Burr the most. He is our Senator and he just voted against the will of his state.

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2010 5:43:09 PM

It's surprisingly hard to Google, and I swear I saw it somewhere once, but basically if a bill fails, only a member who had voted against it may bring it up again, and that tactical onus falls on the party leaders; McConnell does this frequently too.

9/21/2010 6:30:47 PM

Quote :

""All pigs are created equal. But some pigs are created more equal""

ARE YOU CALLING HOMOSEXUALS "PIGS"?

9/21/2010 6:49:57 PM

I'm glad it failed. this was a dirty way to try and accomplish this. If it's a good idea, then debate it on its own and let pass on its own.

9/21/2010 6:52:54 PM

it's only good when it's used to pass measures that worsen discrimination

9/21/2010 7:22:59 PM

Quote :

"Once enough votes were in from the possible swing republicans who all voted against repeal, and once it was clear it couldn't be repealed he cut loose a few ppl on the failed vote, and procedurally had to vote against it himself to bring it up again "

The vote went 56-43. They needed 4 votes. 3 of the no votes were Dems that otherwise would have voted yes. The 4 vote was a republican that would have likely said yes had Reid conceded more time for discussion.

To me this looks like Reid blocked the vote - he has stated that he will not bring it up again until after the election. That doesn't make any sense? can someone offer an explaination?

To me it looks like he is trying to frame republicans as obstructionists so badly that he missed his chance to actually get something done.

9/22/2010 10:09:12 AM

This does a decent job of breaking down motivations, deals, and what happened from the vp/pres to legislatures etc if you're up for watching all 12 mins of it:



Also this is happening on Friday:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012959125_apwamilitarygaystrial1stld.html

Quote :

"Judge to rule Friday on Witt's return to Air Force By GENE JOHNSON Associated Press Writer Related TACOMA, Wash. — A lawyer for a decorated flight nurse discharged for being gay urged a federal judge Tuesday to reinstate her to the Air Force Reserve, and the judge indicated he might have no other choice. U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton in Tacoma did not immediately issue a ruling in the case of former Maj. Margaret Witt. But as the trial closed he expressed strong doubts about arguments made by goverment lawyers seeking to have Witt's dismissal upheld. The judge suggested that his hands were tied by a 2008 appeals court ruling in the case, which said that the military can't fire people for being gay unless it shows that their dismissal was necessary to further military goals. Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation to repeal the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law on gays serving in the military. Leighton said he would issue his ruling Friday afternoon"

9/22/2010 3:10:56 PM

Quote :

"To me this looks like Reid blocked the vote"

He had to change his vote to 'no' for procedural purposes so that he could bring it back to the floor at a future date. Durp!

9/22/2010 8:39:23 PM

according to one wingnut, gays engage in more "touchy-feely" than straight men and therefore are unfit for service: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39069

9/24/2010 7:53:36 AM

Quote :

"RIVERSIDE, Calif. -- A federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops. U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling Tuesday was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not. U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say they are under no legal obligation to do so and they could let Phillips' ruling stand. "

According to the WaPo

10/12/2010 4:02:14 PM

anyone care to explain the legal process behind all of this in layman's terms?

10/12/2010 4:22:43 PM

While I hope this stands and DADT dies this is a weasely way for the administration to allow its demise. I wish they had the guts to just issue an order informing the military to just stop enforcing it until Congress repeals it.

10/12/2010 4:22:46 PM

That has been discussed here before. It is partly unsatisfactory since a subsequent administration could repeal it and any service members who came out of the closet could be prosecuted for violating a standing order whose execution had only been briefly suspended.

10/12/2010 4:27:17 PM

Quote :

"While I hope this stands and DADT dies this is a weasely way for the administration to allow its demise. I wish they had the guts to just issue an order informing the military to just stop enforcing it until Congress repeals it."

Quote :

""The president has taken a very consistent position here, and that is: 'Look, I will not use my discretion in any way that will step on Congress' ability to be the sole decider about this policy here,' " said Diane H. Mazur, legal co-director of the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara that supports a repeal. "

I think the president would like to get the credit for repealing this while he was in office with out having to get his hands dirty in any way.

Quote :

"Legal experts say the Obama administration is under no legal obligation to appeal and could let Phillips' ruling stand. "

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/us-district-judge-virginia-phillips-orders-dont-ask-dont-tell-injunction/19671216

10/12/2010 6:22:25 PM

I've seen lots of people who are excited about this decision. But it isn't the final step. It is like getting excited that DADT repeal passed the Senate Armed Services Committee vote so that it could be voted on everyone. It still failed when voted on by everyone.

Just as with the DOMA being ruled unconstitutional in MA, they waited the full 60 days they had to repeal (which today is the 60th day) and then appealed. Now it has years ahead of it of trying to work its way up to the supreme court and hopefully getting the right ruling there.

Right now this ruling means nothing, just like the President's speeches against DADT mean nothing, until it results in something which is many years away with many road blocks ahead of it.

10/12/2010 7:17:31 PM

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/19/recruiters-can-accept-openly-gay-and-lesbian-candidates/

Quote :

"The Pentagon tells recruiters that they can accept openly gay and lesbian candidates, given a federal court decision that bars the military from expelling openly gay service members, a Pentagon spokeswoman says."

10/19/2010 4:05:16 PM

Interesting news...given how much money and manpower it takes to get a person from the recruiter's office and into active service (recruitment->MEPS->Basic->AFSC/MOS training), it seems that the Pentagon expects this repeal to permanent.

10/20/2010 2:15:10 AM

"permanent"

^At least until tomorrow anyways.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/19/911792/-Judge-Phillips:-DADT-Still-Null-And-Void.-175-hours-and-counting.

Quote :

"The matter of a stay will now go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which is expected to issue at least an emergency stay, probably sometime tomorrow."

Quote :

"Don't Ask, Don't has not been the law of the land now for seven days."

10/20/2010 2:56:47 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/20/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html?hpt=T1

Quote :

"Washington (CNN) -- Finding itself in a strange legal position, the Obama administration filed an emergency request Wednesday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the military from allowing openly gay troops from serving. In effect, the administration wants to continue barring gays from the military even though it ultimately favors repealing the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell.""

It looks like the emergency stay has been officially requested. I haven't seen anything saying whether or not it has been granted though.

10/20/2010 5:55:51 PM

And the request has been granted:

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/10/breaking-ninth-circuit-stays-d.html

Quote :

"A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a temporary stay"

10/20/2010 10:07:04 PM

http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/18058/dadt-and-major-witt-the-third-act-is-about-to-begin

"Quote from Judge Leighton's decision:"

Quote :

"The evidence produced at trial overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the suspension and discharge of Margaret Witt did not significantly further the important government interest in advancing unit morale and cohesion. To the contrary, the actions taken against Major Witt had the opposite effect. The evidence before the Court is that Major Margaret Witt was an exemplary officer. She was an effective leader, a caring mentor, a skilled clinician, and an integral member of an effective team. Her loss within the squadron resulted in a diminution of the unit's ability to carry out its mission. Good flight nurses are hard to find. The evidence clearly supports the plaintiff's assertion that the reinstatement of Major Witt would not adversely affect the morale or unit cohesion of the 446th AES. "

"Witt Lawsuit Timeline:"

Quote :

" * April 2006: Witt files suit in United States District Court. * Fall, 2007: Witt's case is dismissed by the District Court. She appeals to the Ninth Circuit. * November 5, 2007: Oral arguments are heard by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. * May 21, 2008: Decision is handed down. * May 3, 2009: The government declines to appeal, leaving Witt as binding on the Ninth Circuit. The case is remanded back to District Court for trial under this new standard. * September 13, 2010: Witt's case began anew in District Court. * September 21, 2010: Trial ends. Judge Leighton announces a decision to be handed down September 24, 2010. * September 24, 2010: Judge Leighton hands down his decision. * November 23, 2010: Decision by government to appeal or not is due "

Looks like will hear something today on this DADT related case today. I fully expect it will be appealed. At the very least keeping DADT in the news maybe helps keep the pressure up on senators to pass repeal now. Four years in and no end in sight on this lawsuit, and it seems like a small scale challenge in terms of scope as compared to the recent Log Cabin Republicans constitutional challenge to DADT. While I don't have a lot of help left for the legislative solution, I do hope they manage to get it past the filibuster, because if we're waiting on the courts, they may well not have this settled until after President Obama completes his second term (or after Palin/Romney/Newt/Huckabee completes their first, either way).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/22/pentagon-warns-congress-dadt_n_786649.html

"Pentagon Warns Congress To Hurry Up On DADT Repeal"

Quote :

"All I know is if this law is going to change, it's better to be changed by legislation rather than have it struck down by the courts," Gates said. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said later that Gates pushed his staff to deliver the report a day early in order "to ensure members of the Armed Services Committee are able to read and consider the complex, lengthy report before holding hearings with its authors and the Joint Chiefs of Staff." Gates spoke in Bolivia, where he is attending a regional defense conference. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said he supports Congress using its lame-duck session to end the ban known as "don't ask, don't tell.""

[Edited on November 23, 2010 at 6:04 AM. Reason : .]

11/23/2010 6:01:28 AM

As I expected, they waited until the last possible day, and made the appeal. But they are not seeking a stay of the reinstating after Witt won the last court case before it got appealed up to here. So she gets reinstated, but depending on how this appeal goes, she may get re-de-instated again.

http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/11/23/Justice_Dept__Appeals_Witt_Case/

Quote :

"The Justice Department is not seeking to stay the district court's order to reinstate Witt, however — a cause for celebration for the highly decorated flight nurse. “I am thrilled to be able to serve in the Air Force again," Witt said in a Tuesday statement circulated by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, which litigated her case. "The men and women in the unit are like family members to me, and I’ve been waiting a long time to rejoin them."

11/23/2010 9:43:20 PM

Senate just voted 57 - 40 against bringing to the floor the defense spending bill which included the DADT repeal.


They're fine imposing colossal restrictions on local farmers with S.510, but are unwilling to let willing volunteers serve. GG guys.

12/9/2010 4:34:29 PM

word has it that they might try to bring it up in its own separate bill. i'd love for that to happen.

12/10/2010 8:19:05 PM

As you wanted, the separate bill was passed the senate procedural vote that required 60 votes to pass a filibuster. The actual vote has to come within no more than 30 hours and will only require a simple majority which is an easy threshold to pass, and then go to the President's desk relatively soon.

---

That "actual vote" that it will easily pass has now been scheduled for 3 pm today.

[Edited on December 18, 2010 at 12:34 PM. Reason : 3 pm]

12/18/2010 12:08:09 PM

It should be pointed out that Burr voted against repeal as a standalone bill, and Hagan voted for it.

12/18/2010 1:11:04 PM

The vote is happening now, but it just officially passed the majority mark, so its passed.

12/18/2010 3:25:22 PM

I don't understand the big deal here and why civilians are so involved in military matters (meaning if you haven't served, then you won't really have an understanding except to go off of hearsay). Sexual conduct of any nature whether homosexual or heterosexual in a combat environment should be a big no-no. There's no other environment where more absolute focus is necessary and when people are running around chasing tail, it eventually leads to drama and chasms within the chain of command when things go south in that relationship.

I don't know that serving openly gay or not is really going to change things, but with big changes usually comes big divisions within a group of people (or military unit, in this case). There's no room for big divisions within the military, especially in the midst of two wars and possible rising threats to mitigate.

Regardless of how right or wrong you may feel about this matter, people feel very different ways about a great deal of subject matters, and asking them to set aside whatever personal principle is already asking a lot.

Lt. Dan Choi made his decision to admit he is gay. He knew the law within the military and instead of waiting for this matter to be resolved in time (because he wasn't the one to initially raise the flag on DADT), he poorly decided to just go ahead and admit it and with poor timing to follow.

There's a difference between a gamble and a risk. A risk involves acceptable and unacceptable losses and it's decided what is acceptable to lose to gain a higher achievement. A gamble is gain all or lose all. He gambled his career, and he lost.

If he thought the military would allow him to break the law and still serve because they so desperately need arabic translators, he was mistaken.

Now when the law is changed, that's different.

You have to review history here: There was a time when the military had a difficult time with accepting new measures, and sometimes, that was met with resistance and sometimes violence. Such as blacks serving and then integrated into white units. Or women serving with the men.

Great care should be considered here and politics removed.

Objectively, is this the right time in the middle of two wars to re-visit DADT? I can give two shits if someone was gay or not, but my worry is when the bullets fly, we need to be one squad to meet the enemy or we'll end up as 12 individual dead bodies.

[Edited on December 18, 2010 at 4:30 PM. Reason : a]

12/18/2010 4:27:10 PM

Quote :

"Objectively, is this the right time in the middle of two wars to re-visit DADT? I can give two shits if someone was gay or not, but my worry is when the bullets fly, we need to be one squad to meet the enemy or we'll end up as 12 individual dead bodies. "

A growing number of people WITHIN the military seem to think so.

You can't accuse the Obama admin of charging ahead with this, which is seemingly what you are implying. The democrats have moved ahead very slowly with this.

12/18/2010 4:38:53 PM

Quote :

"Lt. Dan Choi made his decision to admit he is gay."

Some people decided to tell the truth, but there are many examples of people who didn't, and were still kicked out:

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/Mike-Almy/

Quote :

"During my career, I deployed to the Middle East four times. In my last deployment, I led a team of nearly 200 men and women to operate and maintain the systems used to control the air space over Iraq. We came under daily mortar attacks, one of which struck one of my Airmen and also caused significant damage to our equipment. Towards the end of this deployment to Iraq, I was named one of the top officers in my career field for the entire Air Force. In the stress of a war zone, the Air Force authorized us to use our work email accounts for “personal or morale purposes” because private email accounts were blocked for security. Shortly after I left Iraq -- during a routine search of my computer files -- someone found that my “morale” was supported by the person I loved -- a man. The email -- our modern day letter home -- was forwarded to my commander. I was relieved of my duties, my security clearance was suspended and part of my pay was terminated. In my discharge proceeding, several of my former troops wrote character reference letters for me, including one of my squadron commanders. Their letters expressed their respect for me as an officer, their hope to have me back on the job and their shock at how the Air Force was treating me. Approximately a year after I was relieved of my duties, my Wing Commander recommended I be promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, even though the Air Force was actively pursuing my discharge. But instead, after 16 months, I was given a police escort off the base as if I were a common criminal or a threat to national security. The severance pay I received was half of what it would have been had I been separated for any other reason. Despite this treatment, my greatest desire is still to return to active duty as an officer and leader in the United States Air Force, protecting the freedoms of a nation that I love; freedoms that I myself was not allowed to enjoy while serving in the military."

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/stories-from-the-frontlines-former-navy-petty-officer-third-class-jose/

Quote :

"Shop talk in the unit revolved around sex, either the prostitute-filled parties of days past or the escapades my comrades looked forward to. They interpreted my silence and total lack of interest as an admission of homosexuality."

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/stories-from-the-frontlines-chief-hospital-navy-corpsman-brian-k.-humb/

Quote :

"After a strong push by my faithful defense team, the board ruled that I could keep my retirement benefits and be discharged honorably. I served for 22 years and wanted only to fulfill the remainder of my time. A promise I made to my country. The criminal investigation by NCIS took all but six months. But one person -- a JAG officer -- spent the next eighteen months and countless man hours attempting to have me discharged with a reduction in rank and no retirement, all because I was gay. Sir, those two years were frankly, mental hell, all because one person felt I shouldn’t be in the Navy, a service I loved and still love today."

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/stories-from-the-frontlines-lcpl.-danny-hernandez-usmc-separated/

Quote :

"My discharge came from the fear that my sexual orientation was going to be revealed by a third party; a group of unknown Marines who threatened to use my sexuality as a way to retaliate after a dispute in a bar. I had spoken with two fellow Marines from my unit; both of whom I trusted. They calmed me, told me that it wasn’t a big deal, and reassured me that everything was going to be fine. I returned to drill only to find out that the two Marines – the Marines I confided in -- had mentioned it and word had reached my 1st Sergeant and Commanding Officer. They told the two Marines to submit written statements detailing everything I had told them. When I walked in to my 1st Sergeant's office the first question out of his mouth was, "Are you gay?" I answered honestly. The investigation was now underway."

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/stories-from-the-frontlines-a-soldier-returning-to-baghdad/

Quote :

"my unit is extremely undermanned. We're working around the clock in Baghdad. My commander informed me that the Army cannot afford to lose me. I was told that they would prepare my discharge paperwork, "stick it in a Manila envelope, and keep it in a desk -- for now." One moment they wanted to throw me out and the next they are hiding evidence to keep me in. My comrades now know that I am gay, and they do not treat me any differently. Work runs as smoothly as ever, and frankly the only difference I see -- besides my pending job loss -- is that I am free of the burden of having to constantly watch my words and ensure my lies are believable. Having this out in the open makes things a bit less stressful. But it's also clear the Army is only keeping me around until they are done with me. After I have served my two deployments -- and only a year shy of separating from the military honorably -- I suspect they will kick me to the street. It's bad enough that there is a law that denies tens of thousands of service members from serving with integrity, but it's even worse when such a law is carried out with such inconsistency, without any warning of when it might come down. If my suspicions are true, my discharge will move forward after my deployment. I am good enough to serve in war, but not at peace?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aubrey-sarvis/air-force-boots-their-25_b_205553.html

Quote :

"Air Force Boots Their 25 Million Dollar Aviator Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach, a fighter weapons systems officer, has been flying the F-15E Strike Eagle since 1998. He has flown numerous missions against Taliban and al-Qaida targets, including the longest combat mission in his squadron's history. On that infamous September 11, 2001, Lt. Col. Fehrenbach was handpicked to fly sorties above the nation's capital. Later he flew combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has received at least 30 awards and decorations including nine air medals, one of them for heroism, as well as campaign medals for Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He is now a flight instructor in Idaho, where he has passed on his skills to more than 300 future Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force weapons systems officers. Since 1987, when Fehrenbach entered Notre Dame on a full Air Force ROTC scholarship, the government has invested twenty-five million dollars in training and equipping him to serve his country, which he has done with what anyone would agree was great distinction. He comes from a military family. His father was a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, his mother an Air Force nurse and captain. Lt. Col. Fehrenbach has honored that tradition. And the Air Force is about to discharge this guy, a virtual poster boy for Air Force recruiting, because he is gay?"

http://www.sldn.org/content/military-stories/

Quote :

"A decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist, I was discharged from the U.S. Army under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," though my accuser was never identified. I was "outed" by a stream of anonymous e-mails to my superiors in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C. An eight-month Army investigation culminated in my honorable discharge from the Army - less than four years after I enlisted, motivated by a sense of duty to my country in the days following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."

Quote :

"Then, last October the annual inspection of my base, Fort Gordon, Ga., included a perusal of the government computer chat system; inspectors identified 70 service members whose use violated policy. The range of violations was broad: people were flagged for everything from profanity to outright discussions of explicit sexual activity. Among those charged were my former roommate and me. Our messages had included references to our social lives — comments that were otherwise unremarkable, except that they indicated we were both gay. I could have written a statement denying that I was homosexual, but lying did not seem like the right thing to do. My roommate made the same decision, though he was allowed to remain in Iraq until the scheduled end of his tour. The result was the termination of our careers, and the loss to the military of two more Arabic translators. The 68 other — heterosexual — service members remained on active duty, despite many having committed violations far more egregious than ours; the Pentagon apparently doesn’t consider hate speech, derogatory comments about women or sexual misconduct grounds for dismissal. My supervisors did not want to lose me."

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/03/13/today-in-un-american-activities

Quote :

"Police in Rapid City, South Dakota, looked through the window of a home and spotted an Iowa marriage license sitting on the kitchen table. They were at the home to serve an arrest warrant to one of two women who lived there. The other woman who lived in the home—a woman who wasn't wanted for anything—happened to be a sergeant in the Air Force. The Air Force sergeant wasn't in trouble with the law, the sergeant hadn't broken any laws, her marriage license and her military career had no bearing on the case. But the Rapid City police officers—just for shits and giggles—let the Air Force know about the Iowa marriage license and Sgt. Jene Newsome's nine-year military career is over."

12/18/2010 5:12:45 PM