President Obama vowed last weekend to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Much of the reporting about this policy in recent years has focused on soldiers who were outed. But Joseph Rocha wrote that the policy is sometimes used as a threat to keep people silent about abuse. He claims that he was hazed and physically assaulted by other soldiers who suspected that he was gay, but that he was afraid to report the abuse because it could lead to an investigation into his sexuality. “My leaders and fellow sailors were punishing me for keeping my sexuality to myself, punishing me because I wouldn’t ‘tell.’” He also claimed that some superiors threatened women to keep quiet about sexual assaults by suggesting that they were lesbians.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
44 Comments
The big issue is –
WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE?!
I don’t care what anyone does in bed unless I’m in bed with them.
“Monkeyhawk” whines -
WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE?!
__________________
I used to think that Monkeyhawk intentionally misse the point to merely annoy people with a different oppinion. I’m now pretty sure that Monkeyhawk is unable to debate in any meaninigful way and he spews his hateful rhetoric to cover his ignorance.
Joseph Rocha was a queer. He enjoyed the attention of his fellow servicemen even though it was abusive. Otherwise he would have ended the abuse through normal military justice channels.
DADT is an abomination. If you want homosexuals to serve in the military change the UCMJ. Don’t order the military to ignore it.
“HLP” –
Again, the question:
Why is this an issue?
Simple as that.
“Monkeyhawk” misdirects -
Again, the question:
Why is this an issue?
Simple as that.
________________________
No, Monkeyhawk, it’s not as simple as that. The question of gays in the military cannot be reduced to a simple question.
It’s an issue because the democrats pander to the gays and use them and their cause to gain political points without addressing the problem.
I repeat,
DADT is an abomination. If you want homosexuals to serve in the military change the UCMJ. Don’t order the military to ignore it.
Hover over the pic.
It’s called “Iraq missing soldiers”.
The economy that Republicans destroyed HAS helped the military in filling out their ranks. But we had best let anyone who would WANT to join the military do so. I’m thinking non economic motivation to fight for this place must be at an all time low. They can call on me or my son when the enemy is on the Golden Gate bridge.
My bedmate farts and snores.
Exactly! What in the world does sexuality have to do with most jobs, including the military? If you’re employed as a gigolo, a pole dancer and a few other occupations, sexuality probably comes into play. In fact, if it’s a consideration in most jobs, there are probably discrimination laws being broken.
Thank God Obama has finally made ONE decision about the military!
Now that Obama has made the GAY Decision, maybe Obama will next figure out how to keep thousands of Americans from being killed and wounded in Afghanistan.
WPE
Oh wait!
Obama didn’t actually End the Ban on Open Gays in the Military!
He just SAID he Will end it!
“Obama vowed last weekend to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military”
Just like he said he’d bring our troops home!
Like he said unemployment would stay at or below 8%!
Obama, the LIAR!
WPE!
Like HE said he’d close Gitmo!
Big Talker, Can’t Do Much. (Can’t do little things even!)
Workin’ the morning shift at Koch, eh, “JimJohnson?”
Hank says: “Monkeyhawk is unable to debate in any meaningful way and he spews his hateful rhetoric to cover his ignorance.”
How does “WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE?” add up to “hateful” rhetoric?
I actually agree with the spam troll on this issue, at least to a point.
To Obama: Quit saying you will end it, and end it. Now.
This is nowhere close to the political minefield you seem to think it is.
Don’t ask, Don’t tell is a pretty good mantra for society in general.
If you aren’t in my immediate circle of family and friends or I in yours, not sure why it needs to be discussed.
Then, “Mr_Kia” –
Why is it an issue?
(Sorry for being so “hateful.”)
The policy of Don’t ask Don’t tell?
Uhm…
That’s the topic, isn’t it, “Mr_Kia?”
Don’t feign ignorance.
No one will believe you’re faking.
Either rescind DADT, or change the UCMJ. Gays have served in military probably since the beginning. Probably won’t fall apart by acknowledging their service. There are worse things, you know.
A new meaning to the word “submariner?”
I don’t have a problem with Gays in the military. Just apply the same rules as is applied with men and women under the UCMJ and everything will be fine.
Monkeyhawk
Posted October 14, 2009 at 9:14 am | Permalink
Uhm…
That’s the topic, isn’t it, “Mr_Kia?”
Don’t feign ignorance.
No one will believe you’re faking.
==================================================
Honestly I wasn’t positive if you were referencing the policy itself or tip toeing around homosexuality.
As far as the policy and what is wrong with it, take it up with someone that is homosexual.
I don’t know anyone that doesn’t have a problem in not asking what someone’s sexual preference is.
Be interested in why some people (in this case homosexual’s) just have to make who they do public knowledge.
Mr Kia-
I have often thought the same thing. Unfortunately, at least in military life circles, people talk about who they are “doing” all the time. It’s not just homosexuals who seem to want to “brag”
Young men (and so I find out women) of that age seem to want to discuss their exploits all the time. Currently Homosexuals are barred from doing so. It does seem to be a different standard.
Change the UCMJ
Everybody who has ever served in the military (ex-Army for me) knew who the gay people were. They went to their clubs, the others didn’t. Liberal that I am, I agree with Barry Goldwater, an AF general besides being a senator, that he didn’t care about a person’s sexuality as long as they can fight.
Come on, Hank, Amway, Reg, all you ex-service types, you knew who the gays were. Admit it.
Dennis
The fact is, gay and lesbian soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines have been serving quasi-openly in the US armed forces for pretty much all of its history. Most people don’t even realize that that wasn’t until 1942 that being gay was grounds for a dishonorable discharge, although it was a violation of regulations to engage in “sodomy,” whatever that was contemporaneously defined as.
DADT and the previous policies have often been used as tools to harass and attack people for reasons unrelated to their sexual orientation. Most gays serve in a “wink and a nod” environment where it’s generally suspected, or outright known, by their peers and immediate commanders that they’re gay. The trouble begins when some self-righteous jerk finds out, or someone has a personal issue with the accused, and starts sending complaints up the chain of command or directly to one of the military investigative services. This system has led to a DADT environment that is enforced in an arbitrary and capricious way that is completely unfair and unjust to those who are outed and discharged.
Here’s a fun fact: The first person to be injured in the 2003 invasion of Iraq is USMC SSgt Eric Alva. In the opening minutes of the invasion, he stepped on a landmine, and left his right leg on the battlefield. SSgt Alva (whose middle name is “Fidelis”), is a third-generation Marine who also happens to be gay. Gay people have been fighting, bleeding, and dying for this nation since its founding, and been punished for their patriotism. It’s time for this senseless policy to end.
Come on, Hank, Amway, Reg, all you ex-service types, you knew who the gays were. Admit it.
Dennis
———————–
Yeah, for the most part and frankly, I didn’t care to know who was what for what reasons.
Even knew a few so-called witches and warlocks in the military. Turban wearing airmen, muslims – as long as they did their duty – didn’t matter much to me.
In a training school environment that had community showers, one of the Instructor addressed the problem in a humorous form a speech – he said: “There will be no prolonged staring, oggling, contact or other forms of activity other than taking care of your own personal hygience.” :)
DADT should be ended. But the president cannot do it. The UCMJ must be amended; and that takes Congressional action.
What are the Democrats waiting for? Or perhaps, once again, they are using a constuency without actually doing anything for them?
“GMC70″ displays selective senility –
“…they are using a constuency without actually doing anything for them?”
Not like those salad days when the Repubic Party was in power and ended abortion once and for all, huh?
GMC70-
I guess I never really thought of it that way:
So, DADT is an order by the Presdient to the leaders of the Military, to allow violations of the laws passed by Congress?
Is that kind of like a Presidential signing saying he won;t follow the law?
Sounds like DADT is a violaiton of the laws of the United States.
Of course there have been gays in the military for centuries.
How else do you think the Navy got those cunning suits with bell-bottoms and neckerchiefs? And those cute little hats!
Fabulous!
It may be a little more complicated than that, since the President is also the CIC. I am not sure, but it does raise some interesting questions!
In any case, just revise the UCMJ and be done with it. Surely that can be accomplished with a Democratic party President, a Democratic party House, and a Democratic party Senate.
DADT was passed by an act of Congress in 1994.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d103:21:./temp/~bdxeSa::|/bss/d103query.html|
President Obama *could* sign a stop-loss order directing DOD to halt discharges based on sexual orientation, but then we’d be right back where we were in the Bush years: A President pretending he has unitary powers to do whatever the farg he pleases.
Littlejohn,
Will you call and write your two Republican Senators, Roberts and Brownback, and ask them to vote for cloture when the bill eventually makes it to the Senate floor?
Tom-
Thanks for the information and clarification. Ummm. yeah, I guess so. Like I said, I have no problem with gays in the military. They have always been there. Whether or not I agree with Homosexuality in general is not the issue. Which bill would you be referring to? It’s not an issue that I follow, so I don;t know. But yeah, I am willing to write them and let them know I support it if it is a “clean” bill allowing openly gay members of society to serve in the military
In reading the legislation linked by thomaswitt,I agree with all of the following
“`(a) FINDINGS- Congress makes the following findings:
`(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
`(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
`(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
`(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
`(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
`(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
`(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.
`(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that–
`(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
`(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.
`(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
`(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
`(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
`(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
`(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
`(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”
I disagree with the following
“(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”
Revise the UCMJ
Sorry, I missed one I disagree with
“`(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.”
Here’s an article that has a fairly good summary of where legislation currently stands:
http://www.chicagopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/8505801
Actually, most of the real problems in the military come from heterosexuals. They’re the ones that rape, they’re the ones who turn young girls in occupied countries into prostitutes, they father children overseas and then refuse to take responsibility for them.
While there is certainly a problem in the military of discrimination against gay people, maybe the solution is not to end the ban on gay people, but institute an equally enforced ban on heteros.
maybe the solution is not to end the ban on gay people, but institute an equally enforced ban on heteros.
===============================
Why not ban Hispanics while you’re at it Jed.
Ant,
We could get rid of the rapes, affairs and hooker problems that have plagued armies throughout history by limiting military service to eunuchs. What would you give up for your country?
….by limiting military service to eunuchs.
====================
Nah, LIBs aren’t much for physical confrontation.
I say we keep our volunteer Armed Forces.
Ant,
Maybe if we were less good at blowing large numbers of human beings to kingdom come, we’d learn to use diplomacy more effectively, and have fewer enemies.
DADT is an abomination.
Hank is right.
Gays should be able to serve in the military–as they have been doing since the Revolutionary War–without bias or harassment.
There should be no stigma for gay soldiers whatsoever.
On the specific matter, it seems to me that if people are being abused, for whatever reason, it is a military justice issue to be handled through normal channels. Whether Rocha is or was gay or not has nothing to do with whether or not his treatment was legal, and reporting the abuse, if it happened, does not compromise anything. I don’t see that “Don’t ask don’t tell” comes into it at all, except as a tool for media publicity.
BobChi, there was an investigation of the unit, in which over 90 violations of the type described by Rocha were found. No action was taken, and the unit commander was eventually promoted.