Don't ask, don't tell repealed

[Bitsy]

This is mostly true, except for the circumstances wherein a separation board determines that a finding of "homosexuality" is not warranted and/or it is in the best interest of the government to retain the service member for any number of reasons.

That is interesting, thank you. I was not aware of any exceptions to this law, I had never heard of the 'best interest' finding. That, in itself, sounds like discrimination to me.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Bitsy

[BubberMiley]

Who knows how many new terrorists will be created because of this new policy.

I’m surprised you’re willing to make decisions based on what the terrorists will or will not approve of. Next you’ll be advocating adopting sharia law because who knows how many terrorists will be created if we don’t.

[Shady]

I’m surprised you’re willing to make decisions based on what the terrorists will or will not approve of.

Wow, satire and sarcasm really flies right over your head huh?

Anyways, on a different note. If men in the military shouldn't worry about having to shower with openly gay counterparts. Should women not have to worry about showering with straight men?

[BubberMiley]

Wow, satire and sarcasm really flies right over your head huh?

Anyways, on a different note. If men in the military shouldn't worry about having to shower with openly gay counterparts. Should women not have to worry about showering with straight men?

Oh, I get it. Satire again, right?

[bush_cheney2004]

That is interesting, thank you. I was not aware of any exceptions to this law, I had never heard of the 'best interest' finding. That, in itself, sounds like discrimination to me.

Most definitely...the US military has a lot of flexibility when it comes to what is now mostly a political issue. Any service member with half a brain understands that homosexuals have always served alongside "straight" personnel, and this is why the emphasis shifted to banned conduct instead of sexual orientation with DADT.

[Bitsy]

Most definitely...the US military has a lot of flexibility when it comes to what is now mostly a political issue. Any service member with half a brain understands that homosexuals have always served alongside "straight" personnel, and this is why the emphasis shifted to banned conduct instead of sexual orientation with DADT.

Do you have any examples of where/when this policy was used. I asked this because of the many linguists that have been dismssed under DADT and the excuses from our intelligence agencies that the shortage of Arabic/Farsi linguists has left us vunerable. In my mind that would be "best interest"...I am just curious what roles/personnel are considered about the reach of the law.

[Shady]

Oh, I get it. Satire again, right?

Yep. It's the same argument used against Gitmo. I guess you didn't recognize it. Which begs the question. Do you know anything about American politics? Seriously? Maybe you shouldn't be posting in this section. Because it seems time after time, I'm having to explain things to you, because your depth of knowledge isn't very deep at all. I'm sick of having to draw pictures for you. Consider yourself officially excommunicated.

[Jack Weber]

Yep. It's the same argument used against Gitmo. I guess you didn't recognize it. Which begs the question. Do you know anything about American politics? Seriously? Maybe you shouldn't be posting in this section. Because it seems time after time, I'm having to explain things to you, because your depth of knowledge isn't very deep at all. I'm sick of having to draw pictures for you. Consider yourself officially excommunicated.

Now you're Professor Pope????

[BubberMiley]

Yep. It's the same argument used against Gitmo.

The argument against gitmo was that gay people were showering with straight people?

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you have any examples of where/when this policy was used. I asked this because of the many linguists that have been dismssed under DADT and the excuses from our intelligence agencies that the shortage of Arabic/Farsi linguists has left us vunerable. In my mind that would be "best interest"...I am just curious what roles/personnel are considered about the reach of the law.

"Best interest of the government" manifests itself in many ways, including retention until unit deployment is completed, stop loss for force levels, recruit qualifications and quotas, shortages in occupational specialties (MOS), etc. The details of your observations are enumerated here from the Log Cabin Republicans lawsuit:

http://ronslog.typepad.com/ronslog/2010/09/the-dont-askdont-tell-decision.html

Note the reported experience of Lt. Jenny Kopfstein on USS Shiloh. Her commanding officer chose not to pursue an administrative hearing to discharge her from military service, and although this is not a strict example of a convened board choosing to retain the service member, I think you can get a feel for the variation in actual enforcement of the DADT policy.

I can also report that except for circumstances that involved actual sexual mis-conduct, sexual orientation became less and less of an issue (over time) after many more women joined the enlisted and officer ranks in specialties from which they were formerly banned. Anecdotally, "lesbians" led the way as a known, less threatening, and tolerated circumstance compared to "gay" males. What we witnessed was the natural and gradual acceptance of changes in societal norms.

The only proceedings related to homosexuality that I personnaly participated in happened in 1980-1981, long before DADT. One of my third class petty officers came down with a baffling new illness that would become known as AIDS. The "homosexual" discharge proceedings became moot as his illness progressed.

As an aside, there are numerous reasons to be discharged from military service...including bedwetting.

http://www.portandsava.com/Welcome_to_PortandSava/node/46

[punked]

"Best interest of the government" manifests itself in many ways, including retention until unit deployment is completed, stop loss for force levels, recruit qualifications and quotas, shortages in occupational specialties (MOS), etc. The details of your observations are enumerated here from the Log Cabin Republicans lawsuit:

http://ronslog.typepad.com/ronslog/2010/09/the-dont-askdont-tell-decision.html

Note the reported experience of Lt. Jenny Kopfstein on USS Shiloh. Her commanding officer chose not to pursue an administrative hearing to discharge her from military service, and although this is not a strict example of a convened board choosing to retain the service member, I think you can get a feel for the variation in actual enforcement of the DADT policy.

I can also report that except for circumstances that involved actual sexual mis-conduct, sexual orientation became less and less of an issue (over time) after many more women joined the enlisted and officer ranks in specialties from which they were formerly banned. Anecdotally, "lesbians" led the way as a known, less threatening, and tolerated circumstance compared to "gay" males. What we witnessed was the natural and gradual acceptance of changes in societal norms.

The only proceedings related to homosexuality that I personnaly participated in happened in 1980-1981, long before DADT. One of my third class petty officers came down with a baffling new illness that would become known as AIDS. The "homosexual" discharge proceedings became moot as his illness progressed.

As an aside, there are numerous reasons to be discharged from military service...including bedwetting.

http://www.portandsava.com/Welcome_to_PortandSava/node/46

Seems odd considering there was only 34 cases of Aids known in the US before 82. Infact before 82 it was called GRID in the US for those 34 cases. I believe even by the middle of 83 only 250-500 in the US were KNOWN to have Aids. Your story seems suspect.

Edited December 25, 2010 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

Seems odd considering there was only 34 cases of Aids known in the US before 82. Infact before 82 it was called GRID in the US for those 34 cases. I believe even by 83 only 250 in the US were KNOWN to have Aids. Your story seems suspect.

..and your reading comprehension seems suspect. We didn't know it as HIV/AIDS or even Kaposis Sarcoma at the time...it was simply described as a bad case of pneumonia. Your numbers are also suspect.

http://www.avert.org/aids-history-america.htm

Edited December 25, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[punked]

..and your reading comprehension seems suspect. We didn't know it as HIV/AIDS or even Kaposi’s Sarcoma at the time...it was simply described as a bad case of pneumonia. Your numbers are also suspect.

http://www.avert.org/aids-history-america.htm

Yep gotcha by the end of 81 100 people maybe (still only 34 confirmed cases in the US by the end of 81 btw) in the all the US had something which looked like Aids, all of which were from clusters in 2 to 3 places in the whole US but you at a discharge hearing in 1980 for someone who had 80s. Yep sure you aren't making that up at all because it sounds like a good story. Was your base in NY or Cali by chance?

Edited December 25, 2010 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep gotcha by the end of 81 100 people maybe (still only 34 confirmed cases in the US by the end of 81 btw) in the all the US had something which looked like Aids, all of which were from clusters in 2 to 3 places in the whole US but you at a discharge hearing in 1980 for someone who had 80s. Yep sure you aren't making that up at all because it sounds like a good story. Was your base in NY or Cali by chance?

It wasn't a good story for us or the service member. He was removed from ship's force in 1981 and died in 1982 from "pneumonia". "Maybe" and "confirmed" CDC cases don't mean jack shit in the real world.

Your knowledge of the "US" is also suspect, even for a Google cowboy.

Edited December 25, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[punked]

It wasn't a good story for us or the service member. He was removed from ship's force in 1981 and died in 1982 from "pneumonia". "Maybe" and "confirmed" CDC cases don't mean jack shit in the real world.

Your knowledge of the "US" is also suspect, even for a Google cowboy.

Yah again if you said like 83-84 it might have been believable. However in 1980 to contract AIDS in the US outside of NY or Cali is unheard of. This is common knowledge I did use Google come up with exact figures but it is common enough knowledge when AIDS broke out and it wasn't 80-81 it was 83-84.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yah again if you said like 83-84 it might have been believable. However in 1980 to contract AIDS in the US outside of NY or Cali is unheard of. This is common knowledge I did use Google come up with exact figures but it is common enough knowledge when AIDS broke out and it wasn't 80-81 it was 83-84.

Of course you used Google....were you even born by 1981? There is nothing magic or restrictive about CDC "clusters" for mobile individuals on liberty or leave.

[punked]

Of course you used Google....were you even born by 1981? There is nothing magic or restrictive about CDC "clusters" for mobile individuals on liberty or leave.

Again I am pointing the silliness of you wanting me to believe that of the known 30 people in the whole country to have had as early as 1980 that this person you are talking about who didn't live an area they did, contracted AIDS from one of them in a week to month long period from one of them out the possible millions of people in the US. It is a statistics miracle.

Seriously in 1980 the population of the US was 230,000,000 and 30 of those 230,000,000 maybe had aids. So his chances of coming in contact with someone who had aids were like 1 in 70,000,000 not to mention he would have had to have sex with them which still only gives you an 80ish % chance of contracting the disease and in such a short time frame. Again if you said 83-84 no question but your date for it is very suspect.

[bush_cheney2004]

Again I am pointing the silliness of you wanting me to believe that of the known 30 people in the whole country to have had as early as 1980 that this person you are talking about who didn't live an area they did, contracted AIDS from one of them in a week to month long period from one of them out the possible millions of people in the US. It is a statistics miracle.

It's not a miracle at all....he died of "pneumonia", just like many of the early cases that weren't even known as HIV/AIDS.

Seriously in 1980 the population of the US was 230,000,000 and 30 of those 230,000,000 maybe had aids.

You are making a logical fallacy, for both HIV infection and AIDS symptoms. Google that....

Edited December 25, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Queenmandy85]

It is ironic that some of the greatest military men in history such as Julius Caesar and Richard the Lionheart would have been barred fron serving in the U.S. military.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is ironic that some of the greatest military men in history such as Julius Caesar and Richard the Lionheart would have been barred fron serving in the U.S. military.

They would have been banned from the Canadian Forces until 1992 as well...about when the DADT policy went into effect.