As for the war point, we've got another decade in Afghanistan ahead of us probably. When is the right time? Although there were many court cases challenging this ban, at least doing it this way gives a 60 day waiting period to start preparing after it is signed next week, then Gates, Obama, and Mullen all have to sign off on it for it to still move forward. This is the orderly way to do it compared to the courts doing a sudden cessation.

12/18/2010 5:13:21 PM

I'm glad DADT is finally being lifting, however that being said, Lt. Choi is still a goddamn idiot who needs to be kicked out.

12/18/2010 5:18:22 PM

woohooooooooooo! bout fuckin time!

btw, will you at least be honest and mention that Burr voted FOR repeal?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/255628/burr-ensign-back-dadt-repeal-robert-costa

12/18/2010 5:59:16 PM

^^^ the military is always going to be involved in mission-critical, serious conflicts. It's literally their job. I don't understand people saying "it's not the right time!" because there's NEVER a "right" time by their rationale.

12/18/2010 6:01:35 PM

ehehe, in that article:

Quote :

"Burr said he hoped the implementation process would address his concerns and those of military officials, like Gen. Amos, who had come out against repeal."

12/18/2010 6:07:43 PM

^^^Will you be honest? It is dishonest of you to imply that I was lying about Burr. At 1:11 when I posted about Hagan voting for repeal and Burr voting against it, that was on the cloture vote which is the only vote that mattered. Getting a simple majority was never a problem, it was beating the supermajority requirement that was the real vote, and there he voted against repeal.

-

Voting for repeal once it was clear he couldn't stop it, and fighting it every step along the way, and voting against repeal when it mattered, that doesn't earn him a lot of credit in my book.

[Edited on December 18, 2010 at 6:17 PM. Reason : -]

12/18/2010 6:15:40 PM

so, you won't at least give him credit for voting for it. got it.

I mean, I imagine his vote against cloture was probably party politics, not that that really excuses anything.

btw, "honest" may not have been the right word, as I certainly didn't mean to suggest that you were lying

[Edited on December 18, 2010 at 6:28 PM. Reason : ]

12/18/2010 6:26:06 PM

shouldn't your opposition to repealing DADT call for you to be angry at Richard Burr?

12/18/2010 8:48:11 PM

Supplanter:

Quote :

"doesn't earn him a lot of credit in my book."

Burro:

Quote :

"so, you won't at least give him credit for voting for it."

I said not a lot of credit, not no credit at all.

But he opposed it every step along the way, and voted against it in the only vote that mattered. He voted against repeal as a part of the Defense Bill (the same kind of bill it was born many years ago) back in September, and he voted against it on the cloture vote now as a stand alone bill. He was an enemy of DADT repeal and did nothing to help it pass. And even with his vote he still spoke about DADT repeal as if it was a bad thing.

Its like, after Obama won, McCain gave a call congratulating Obama on winning. You might say it was a respectable thing to do, but its a far cry from calling him an Obama supporter for doing something supportive after it had already been decided.

He will be remembered as a DADT repeal opponent to most of the people who wanted DADT repeal.

12/19/2010 12:37:02 AM

The right time to resolve internal discussion or conflict is when we're not in the middle of external conflict.

As a rule of thumb, one fight at a time. With two wars still ongoing, just saying if this doesn't pan out like some folks want it to, this could get ugly. [in response to moron]

By the way, are any of you currently in the military? Just asking... I guess I haven't been paying attention because this is a military matter, but the most vocal about this matter are those who aren't serving or aren't planning on serving. So not sure where the concern stems from here.

I guess I can see where people may want to have a say in their government, but a say on how their military is run? That's just something I've never thought would be happening.

On another note, The president is the Commander-in-Chief so why does Congress have to repeal a military policy? Obama could have just ordered an end to it.

It was never a law, it was a policy, so Congress can't repeal a policy set forth by the commander-in-chief for the military, however, they can repeal a law that they've passed. Sounds like the three way balance of checks is overstepped here.

[Edited on December 19, 2010 at 1:29 AM. Reason : a]

12/19/2010 1:24:26 AM

The argument that we can't do this while in a conflict environment is hogwash, in my opinion.

It's like saying you can't break up with your girlfriend because it's Thanksgiving. Well, then you can't do it because it's Christmas, and then you don't want to do it because her sister's wedding is the next weekend, and then Valentine's Day is coming up...it's always something, and then you realize that it's three years later and you still "haven't found the right time."

If it's the right thing to do, then man up and just change the policy. I trust that whether the soldiers are happy about the policy or not, they won't fight in any less cohesive a manner because of it. At the end of the day, if someone was shooting at me, then I don't care who is next to me, if he's shooting back at them, I'm happy.

12/19/2010 1:57:09 AM

^You're obviously not in the service.

12/19/2010 2:42:46 AM

Quote :

"I guess I can see where people may want to have a say in their government, but a say on how their military is run? That's just something I've never thought would be happening."

democracy is a bitch

12/19/2010 3:41:39 AM

Quote :

"It was never a law, it was a policy, so Congress can't repeal a policy set forth by the commander-in-chief for the military, however, they can repeal a law that they've passed. Sounds like the three way balance of checks is overstepped here."

In this case it was congress repealing something they created. How is that an over step?

12/19/2010 3:47:30 AM

Out of curiosity, what do you see happening Apocalypse?

Do you suddenly think the guy next to you is going to develop a lisp, wearing tight leather, and start trying to come on to you?

In a time of conflict, this is a perfect time to repeal DADT, why are we getting rid of people, who are perfectly good just because some random guy/girl outed them.

People should follow lawful orders, not just orders they agree with.

12/19/2010 4:49:01 AM

I dont know if Apocalypse is in the service or not...

... but for someone who is so intent on making service a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, he sure is misinformed about most every aspect of the issue.

12/19/2010 5:02:22 AM

Quote :

"The right time to resolve internal discussion or conflict is when we're not in the middle of external conflict. "

Good thing Truman didn't listen to his day's equivalents when he integrated the troops in the middle of the Korean Conflict.

12/19/2010 10:58:18 AM

Quote :

"As a rule of thumb, one fight at a time. With two wars still ongoing..."

When you've already broken your rule of thumb then what's the point in pretending that it has any validity?

Besides, DADT was doing more than enough already to disrupt the war effort in Iraq and Afganistan (continually losing highly trained personnel, in particular translators, simply because of who they want to date back home).

Interestingly, DADT as I remember it being envisioned kinda worked. It's been the stepping stone to a full elimination of the anti-homosexual policy.

[Edited on December 19, 2010 at 11:08 AM. Reason : ...]

12/19/2010 11:08:14 AM

Quote :

"The right time to resolve internal discussion or conflict is when we're not in the middle of external conflict."

When are we NOT going to be involved in an external conflict?

Quote :

"As a rule of thumb, one fight at a time. With two wars still ongoing, just saying if this doesn't pan out like some folks want it to, this could get ugly. [in response to moron]"

lolwut

Quote :

"By the way, are any of you currently in the military? Just asking... I guess I haven't been paying attention because this is a military matter, but the most vocal about this matter are those who aren't serving or aren't planning on serving. So not sure where the concern stems from here."

Just because we, personally, are not being oppressed or treated like second-class citizens doesn't mean that it doesn't concern us when our fellow human beings are.

Quote :

"I guess I can see where people may want to have a say in their government, but a say on how their military is run? That's just something I've never thought would be happening."

This isn't about deciding troop movements, it's about recognizing basic human rights.

Quote :

"On another note, The president is the Commander-in-Chief so why does Congress have to repeal a military policy? Obama could have just ordered an end to it."

And then the next president could order it reinstated. While I think Obama should have ordered an end to it while the legislation was pending, his stance was that it would be harmful for the long-term to do so.

Quote :

"It was never a law, it was a policy, so Congress can't repeal a policy set forth by the commander-in-chief for the military, however, they can repeal a law that they've passed. Sounds like the three way balance of checks is overstepped here."

What?

12/19/2010 11:25:01 AM

so now flamboyant gays have the right to die and/or kill innocent civilians in bullshit wars

I love the smell of progress in the morning

12/19/2010 11:47:01 AM

I think the Marine Corp's real concern is that some fabulous man is going to try and update their uniform into at least the fashion of the 20th century, or maybe even the 21st.

12/19/2010 11:51:00 AM

Quote :

"so now flamboyant gays have the right to die and/or kill innocent civilians in bullshit wars "

I know you're kind of joking, and I'm with you on the second part, but this has nothing to do with flamboyancy (is that a word?).

12/19/2010 12:03:05 PM

I think I made a decent joke

with a subtle, yet valid point

how about commenting on that timswar's hacky as hell comment about uniforms?

12/19/2010 12:22:13 PM

I meant to say that the validity of your concern is moot. If you worked as a doctor, and I don't, why would I have a say in how doctor's do things?

I wouldn't, right? But that's exactly what's going on. Citizens who don't serve suddenly have a say in how a servicemember should serve. They've never been there, they don't really know what I do on a daily basis and usually what gets asked is if Full Metal Jacket is accurate at all. So now they have a bearing on what should be done.

Now I understand the point that it's a democracy as stated by one of you (too lazy to say who said it), but when you have too many hands trying to put what they think is best in the soup... the soup gets ruined.

Nothing about second class citizens or service as a prerequisite, that sounds more like flaming than actual discussion (the second class citizens part, not the service as a prerequisite)...

12/20/2010 4:21:37 AM

A lot of congressmen waited on the military survey results to decide whether or not to remove the policy they created. So in that sense the military did get to vote on the policy. To my knowledge the line level military personnel has had more input on this issue than most issues.

I don't know how common letting everyone in the military "vote" on an issue is, I'd assume that changes are usually more top down than that. But since this repeal requires a 60 day waiting period, and then approval from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from the Secretary of Defense, and from the Commander-in-chief for it to go ahead, in that sense you still get the top down thing too.

12/20/2010 8:04:44 AM

Quote :

"I meant to say that the validity of your concern is moot. If you worked as a doctor, and I don't, why would I have a say in how doctor's do things?"

You're right. If doctors don't want to give faggots the flu shot, they shouldn't be forced to.

12/20/2010 9:04:59 AM

I think this was handled the best way possible to minimize any challenges to this down the road. The military did their study, Congress enacted legislation, and now the DoD will begin figuring out how to implement it (though I'm sure they've quietly already begun this whole process months ago). I'm glad the courts didn't get dragged into this nonsense because otherwise, DADT might have been dragged out for years being appealed back and forth, result in a SCOTUS decision, and then it will just be yet another "litmus test" for future justices to answer to.

12/20/2010 10:13:41 AM

Quote :

"I think the Marine Corp's real concern is that some fabulous man is going to try and update their uniform into at least the fashion of the 20th century"

This is a valid concern.


The Army's travesty of a uniform called the ASU could use a queer man's touch.

12/20/2010 10:21:55 AM

You mean ACU... ASU's are actually a really awesome uniform.

12/20/2010 12:14:18 PM

I can kind of see where Apocalypse is coming from, the loudest people (both for and against) in this debate are those who aren't serving and have no interest in serving which is kind of annoying. Yes Lady Gaga, you think gays should serve in the military...good for you.

However, those who are in service, cannot actively protest against DADT, so what are you left with? Sure you can write senators, congressmen, but honestly, that doesn't go very far.

Should civilians dictate how service members serve? God no. Should they give the military an overall objective and stipulations on what they expect from the military...yes, that's how our system is run.

12/20/2010 12:47:10 PM

Quote :

"Should civilians dictate how service members serve?"

according to the United States Constitution: Yes. Yes they should. And yes they do.

you see, the civilian control of the military, as prescribed by the Constitution, it sort of acts to prevent things like coups and dictatorships. Which is something democracies throughout history have been prone to turn into. Which is something the framers were acutely aware of.

Quote :

"that's how our system is run"

oh, really? why don't you tell us more about how the system is run. you seem to have a lot of opinions about it.








[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 1:26 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2010 1:13:36 PM

^^ Yet isn't that what the survey and study done by the DoD was for, to help give service members the ability to express their voice? Given that the USMC clearly said they were against it in my opinion shows that at least it was an honest survey.

Agree in small part that this is a debate that should be settled between Congress, the President, and the DoD instead of a bunch of random celebrities. However, all three seem to be in agreement to jettison DADT (the SecDef and most senior officers being most notable), so I think now is as good a time as any to roll it out. I doubt the military will drag its feet either; the officer corps is not going to defy the civilian leadership on this, and the White House and SecDef are behind it. They may grumble, but like female combat pilots just a decade ago, they'll salute and execute.

The only sticking points I can see is when you have to deal with issues of domestic partner benefits; my personal opinion is that it may be better for the military to just defer to domestic laws and existing Federal regulations on determining eligibility and not get mixed into that debate. The other stuff talking about sexual harassment, close quarters, etc. I think can be dealt with under the existing fraternization regulations.

[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2010 1:18:49 PM

Also, regarding a few things mentioned before:

http://www.lineofdeparture.com/2010/12/19/dadt-repeal-honesty-is-the-best-policy/

Quote :

"But allow me to make a minor critique of some of the media coverage I saw. In journalism it’s important to be precise and accurate when describing public policy, so I have to say I was disappointed to hear so many careless characterizations of the current state of affairs, because they reinforce misperceptions, and reflect a fundamental lack of understanding of the 1993 law. First off, I was dismayed to hear constant references (in particular on the CBS radio network) of the military’s POLICY of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. It is NOT a “military policy” or even a Pentagon POLICY. It’s a congressional mandate, a LAW, passed by Congress which effectively took the decision out of the hands of the Pentagon, and more precisely the executive branch and the last man who first pledged to lift the ban, President Bill Clinton.Members of Congress back then were influenced by military leaders of the day, such as Gen. Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but the “policy” became a federal law in 1993, and after that the Pentagon had no choice but to implement it. So, to describe DADT as a Pentagon “policy” is not just imprecise, it’s misleading. There were also many references in the coverage yesterday to the military having the final say on how and when the lifting of the ban would be implemented. Again it’s not the military brass who will make that decision, it’s the civilian leadership at the Pentagon, beginning with Defense Secretary Bob Gates. Too often news reports gloss over the bedrock principle that makes the U.S. military a tool of democracy, not a threat to democracy: and that is civilian control of the military. Of course the civilian leaders will be consulting with the brass to figure out the least disruptive way to make this change. That’s why the Gates wanted a legislative answer, not a legal ruling to be the driving force. And the military will have a say. But in the end the admirals and generals will get their orders and they will salute smartly and carry them out. Even the Marine Corps Commandant James Amos, who voiced the deepest reservations."

[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 1:22 PM. Reason : bold!]

12/20/2010 1:21:34 PM

Quote :

"Apocalypse : Citizens who don't serve suddenly have a say in how a servicemember should serve. They've never been there, they don't really know what I do on a daily basis and usually what gets asked is if Full Metal Jacket is accurate at all. So now they have a bearing on what should be done. "

doesnt' fucking matter whether I serve, have served, or never served. You took the oath to defend the Constitution and to follow orders given to you by your superiors. your highest superior of all, your Commander In Chief, is an elected official who works for *me*. The Joint chiefs are appointed by him. So is SecDef and SecNav and so forth. The Senate Armed Services Committee, yet another elected body that reports to the public, largely decides quite a bit of your operating policies.

if you don't like it, YOU CAN GIT OUT








[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 1:24 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2010 1:22:57 PM

Quote :

"according to the United States Constitution: Yes. Yes they should. And yes they do. you see, the civilian control of the military, as prescribed by the Constitution, it sort of acts to prevent things like coups and dictatorships. Which is something democracies throughout history have been prone to turn into. Which is something the framers were acutely aware of."

I was more talking about military strategy and policy of a strategic/tactical level.

Please don't quote me out of context, notice the very next sentence I said civilians should be in charge of overall objectives and stipulations of the military ie 'you will attack' 'You will be integrated' , 'repeal DADT' etc

12/20/2010 1:26:27 PM

Quote :

"I was more talking about military strategy and policy of a strategic/tactical level. "

no you weren't. you were talking about DADT. that's all you've been talking about here. that, and Lady Gaga.

and by "talking" i really mean "blowing hot air out your ass". because you're really short on facts and long on opinion.







[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 1:30 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2010 1:28:10 PM

I fully support the repeal of DADT, please try again.

12/20/2010 1:29:45 PM

i don't care what you support or don't support. i'm calling you on bullshit statements, that do nothing to add to the discussion, and only serve to make those who oppose DADT look stupid. thanks, but we dont' need your help.

12/20/2010 1:32:29 PM

It's not a bullshit statement. Civilians, especially the masses led by Lady Gaga, have no place dictating anything being broad policy of services.

12/20/2010 1:34:28 PM

oh please. be more sensationalist. this topic needs more drama.

the bugbear du jour, "lady gaga", does not dictate a damn thing, and she has just as much right to express her opinion as you do.

and the joint chiefs weighed her and your opinions equally when they presented their recommendation to President Obama and the Senate Armed Services Committee. meaning, zero.

DADT was a stopgap political measure that fails miserably as internal policy. and you over here babbling about Lady Gaga, distracts from the fact that people like yourself and, more disturbingly, Apocalypse, seem to think the military should be some sort of self-governing institution free from civilian meddling.

if you don't understand what i'm saying let me break it down: you're full of shit, you don't know what you're talking about, and people like you only collectively add to the media circus bullshit that serves as a titillating distraction from the real issues.




[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 1:42 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2010 1:40:50 PM

Quote :

"You mean ACU... ASU's are actually a really awesome uniform."

No, I mean ASU. So many fucking shiny things on it I feel like I'm at a JROTC graduation party.

Yes the ACUs suck and yes the PTs suck, but that is the realm of functionality. ASUs are a fashion . . . of sorts . . . and this is where we could use a tastfully gay man's input.

12/20/2010 1:41:09 PM

^ Dude...I would kill for ACUs, ABUs are hot, stuffy, and have zero functionality.

^^ The statistics from the survey from service members was used in many of the DADT proceedings, want to know how many times civilian surveys were used? 0.

[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 1:45 PM. Reason : a]

12/20/2010 1:43:11 PM

Quote :

"Civilians, especially the masses led by Lady Gaga, have no place dictating anything being broad policy of services."

Lady Gaga did not dictate shit. On the other hand, we are a civilian lead military so yes, elected officials and their appointed cabinet set broad policy for the services who then execute.

This isn't anything new or controversial.

12/20/2010 1:45:16 PM

hes contradicted himself like three times in the past 10 minutes.

dude's just another celebrity hound




[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 1:49 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2010 1:47:30 PM

Quote :

"Civilians, especially the masses led by Lady Gaga, have no place dictating anything being broad policy of services."

Servicemen will wear mascara and shave their balls if that's what their civilian leadership tells them to do. This ain't fucking Pakistan.

12/20/2010 1:48:21 PM

Were Vietnam protests oversteps by citizens in trying to guide military policy?

12/20/2010 2:05:15 PM

No.

Quote :

"Please don't quote me out of context, notice the very next sentence I said civilians should be in charge of overall objectives and stipulations of the military ie 'you will attack' 'You will be integrated' , 'repeal DADT' etc"

Protesting war is protesting congress and the executive branch that sends us to war, feel free to critique, protest, etc. The general electorate should have a say on that.

12/20/2010 2:09:01 PM

Quote :

"The statistics from the survey from service members was used in many of the DADT proceedings, want to know how many times civilian surveys were used? 0. "

Just as a point of record, this is not true at all. One of the main studies used in evaluating the DADT mandate, both in 1993 and 2010, was performed by RAND, and both efforts used extensive surveys and interviews of civilians. This included polls of public opinion as well as research on analagous organizations like police and fire departments.

If you're interested in reading about it, the 2010 study can be found here: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1056.html. I know a lot of the people who worked their asses off for months to put this together, and it's pretty comprehensive.

12/20/2010 2:19:37 PM

I stand corrected, interesting read.

The majority of the highlights of the more recent hearings ie Angry McCain vs Mullen referenced the surveys which were went out a couple months ago throughout the services.

12/20/2010 2:28:53 PM

Here is a CNN story on what happens now:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/20/gays.in.military/

Quote :

"Washington (CNN) -- Although Congress has now voted to repeal the military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy, it will be at least a few months before the historic change takes effect. President Barack Obama is likely to sign the repeal on Wednesday, the White House says, setting the stage to allow gay people to serve openly in the armed forces. The Pentagon, however, has an 87-page implementation plan for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." Over the next several weeks, military officials need to examine and rewrite a series of policies, regulations and directives related to the current law. Once that potentially lengthy process is complete, Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen will each have to certify that the repeal can move ahead without negatively affecting unit cohesion and military readiness. After the certification, another 60 days will need to pass before the repeal is officially enacted. Even after the repeal, gay and lesbian service members will not have every right and privilege accorded to heterosexual members of the military, largely because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. "

I imagine though that they will decide to cease discharging soldiers while this process is going on, so it may be effectively over well before the final approvals and waiting period are officially over.

12/20/2010 2:56:29 PM