DADT Ends

The Senate repeals Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  John McCain is fuming but Barry Goldwater would have applauded:

At 85, after a life in politics spanning five decades (he retired from the Senate in 1987), Mr. Conservative [aka barry Goldwater] has found himself an unlikely new career: as a gay rights activist. While that's not his sole pursuit – he returned to Capitol Hill yesterday to testify in favor of scenic overflights of the Grand Canyon – in recent years he's championed homosexuals serving in the military and has worked locally to stop businesses in Phoenix from hiring on the basis of sexual orientation. This month he signed on as honorary co-chairman of a drive to pass a federal law preventing job discrimination against homosexuals. The effort, dubbed Americans Against Discrimination, is being spearheaded by the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the influential gay lobbying organization.

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay," Goldwater asserts. "You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."

Do keep in mind, Goldwater was a libertarian at heart, which put him in an odd place in the Republican Party:

Gay rights aside, Goldwater is doing lots more to drive would-be disciples nuts. In 1992 he backed a Democrat for Congress over a Christian conservative Republican (his candidate, Karan English, won), and has been applying the full force of his cantankerous personality to frequent denunciations of the religious right and occasional defenses of Bill Clinton – calling a press conference recently to urge Republican critics of Whitewater to "get off his back and let him be president."

And back to gay rights:

So how did this super-patriot, former fighter pilot and retired Air Force general get involved in gay rights?

"The first time this came up was with the question, should there be gays in the military?" Goldwater says. "Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else. ... So I came out for it."

He says he's mystified by the origins of homosexuality. "You try to find out where it started, even going back to old Egyptology – and you knew damn well the Egyptians had to have those people – but you can't find any writings," he says. "I have one grandson who's gay. And my brother {Bob Goldwater} has a granddaughter who is gay. We're sort of at a loss to know what the hell it's all about."

Goldwater says that having openly gay relatives doesn't influence his beliefs, which are animated by libertarian principles that government should stay out of people's private lives.

If Goldwater (and AllahPundit!) are with me, who will stand against me?

AND DO KEEP IN MIND:  As AllahP notes, far better that this die in the Congress than in the courts:

I support the move, but if you don’t, look at it this way: As Gates has often said, if it didn’t happen here it probably would have happened in the courts. Civilian control of the military is one thing, judicial control is something else, so the fact that repeal now wears a democratic halo will hopefully make it more tolerable to skeptics inside the branches.

 

 

Comments

[Jack is Back!]

As a veteran, as a person raised in a military family, ex-air force brat, living on 9 different air bases, 4 different countries, and attending 14 schools before graduating high school, I respectively disagree. This one act alone will do irreparable damage to our military. I will absolutely weaken our troop morale and unit cohesion especially within sub crews, air crews and close quarter units of all the services. Readiness will be compromised and our ability to project power substantially weakened.

This will only embolden the jihadis, russkies and chinese to see if we are now more susceptible to taking us on. A sad day for America and an even sadder day for our military.

[Sandy Daze]

(cross-posted from Dream Dies)

19 December 2010
CONUS

dear all,

NOTHING, nothing in DADT prevented homosexuals from serving in the US Military.

I don´t care a flying phart that some eight year Marine jack-waggon thinks that male-male sodomy will not have an effect on the esprit de corps. Truth is, the armed forces need rough men and women on the wall, protecting our civilization from the encroachment of the hoards.

Homosexuals openly serving in the US military was never the goal of this campaign. Allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the in the military will force States and the Federal government to adopt a comprehensive range of new policy prescriptions across the civil society is/was the goal.

Now that homosexuals can openly serve, the US Military will of course have to allow accommodations for all things homosexual. At the most banal it will mean "homosexual awareness week" – "homosexual sensitivity training" – "homosexual pride luncheons" -- a complete rubbing of the non-homosexual service-members noses in all things homosexual.

At a less banal but more important concern, the US military will be forced to support the entire range of benefits for homosexual partners, housing, commissary, health care etc. Family counseling centers will now have to include homosexual counseling for not just the homosexual "families" but for everyone else, homosexual adoptions, etcetera. Then when a homosexual service-member is posted with 'spouse' to a state that does not recognize homosexual marriage, court cases will ensure.

How can the US Military, an agency of the Federal Government, recognize the service-member´s open homosexuality and homosexual family, and not the State? Openly serving homosexuals, aside from destroying morale of the US Military, will be a gateway for mainstreaming homosexuality across America.

Some discusses favorably the "success¨ Britain, Australia, Netherlands and Israel have had in incorporating homosexuals openly serving in those militaries. Yeah, right. Like those militiaries are in any way comparable to the US Military.

Some think that since women are serving, homosexuals can serve without corrosiveness to the fighting effectiveness. The DoD is loath to release the studies of pregnancy that has occurred and all the other deleterious aspects of female integration. The military takes orders and once the decision was taken to bring women in, the military snapped off a salute and with a hearty Aye-Aye proceeded to make it happen no matter what. Because, if the military had not done so it would have become a military fighting against itself, which would have been even worse.

Being a man or woman, being a black or white or of another race is an inherent, intrinsic trait; it is not a behavior characteristic. Homosexuals openly serving in the military normalizes homosexual behavior, and that--h o m o s e x u a l behavior--is what disgusts so many service members and so many military retirees (such as myself).

Homosexuals have been able to serve in the military, we--serving--just did not want to know about it, and we did not want our noses´ rubbed in it. We are appalled and disgusted by male<-->male sodomy and other aspects of the "homosexual life-style." (How any heterosexual could not be disgusted by male<-->male sodomy is beyond me.)

B/L: Will allowing gays to openly serve in the US Military increase combat effectiveness?

NOPE. A thousand times, NO.

If allowing open homosexuality does not increase combat effectiveness, and if there is a chance it will harm combat effectiveness, then there was absolutely NO justification for the change.

Take good care,
Sandy

[Bill]

I'm glad more conservatives will now be able to serve.

[Danube of Thought]

Goldwater, and other proponents of repeal, saw it as a question of gay rights. I see it as a question of whether it improves fighting ability, harms it, or has no effect on it. My guess is that the best we can hope for is the last of those three outcomes.

Clarice, you had my face wreathed in smiles today--I was gloating along with you, stride for stride.

[Clarice]

Thanks, DoT.
And my views on DADT mirror yours.

[PDinDetroit]

I Corinthians 10:23 (NIV)

"Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive.

[Pagar]

Cross posted from Dream dies.

The push is already on to get rid of those who don't support gays in the military.

DADT roundup.

"The senior enlisted Soldier serving under General David Petraeus in Afghanistan is now also on the record “pushing for” repeal — and saying those who don’t like it can leave:"

[boris]

"question of whether it improves fighting ability, harms it, or has no effect"

Under the assumption that more SNAFU and FUBAR drives a moderate/minor reduction in effectiveness ...

It could be offset by increased spending on weapon and defense improvements.

A peacetime reduction in forces could be adjusted to accomodate the factor.

Right now neither of those is convenient so it appears the timing is purely lame duck last chance with no near term ability to undo or compensate for damage. Kinda resent that. Also after moderates warn social cons to stifle ... their evident glee now is a likely sore spot between TeaParty factions.

[Cecil Turner]

Good article from the Instapundit on the military on campus (or lack thereof). DADT repeal might make that environment a bit less corrosive, and might even get a few decent officers as a result (along with several prissily preening prima donnas, no doubt).

[Clarice]

I think so, too, cecil..I recall reading articles about ROC members at Harvard and how marginalized they were by having to go off campus to participate. I don't understand why Congress didn't extend the Solomon Act to Rotc--The hostility to ROTC, begun during Viet Nam, was always hostility to the military IMO and DADT was just a cover for it.

[Clarice]

Over at Legal Insurrection, Prof Jacobson does what I should have done --be lawyerly. Much of the hair pulling might be avoided if we read the statute.

Contrary to popular media hype, repeal of the law does not itself require the military to allow open service by gays: (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection (f) shall take effect only on the date on which the last of the following occurs:

(1) The Secretary of Defense has received the report required by the memorandum of the Secretary referred to in subsection (a).

(2) The President transmits to the congressional defense committees a written certification, signed by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stating each of the following:

(A) That the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the recommendations contained in the report and the report’s proposed plan of action.

(B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).

(C) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f) is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.

[LouP]

The repeal has passed without anyone asking about definitions or limits. What, precisely, does "openly gay" mean? What are the limits of decorum, persomal behavior, unit cohesion, etc., etc., of that word "openly." However you may stand or lean on this issue, can you for a moment think that the legal issues are not just beginning? And this is good for combat readiness?

On the previous thread some have argued that managing the "openly gay" ambiguity is not any more difficult than managing the policy on fraterization. Well, I submit that the long-standing policies against fraterization are a heck of a lot more un-democratic and unconstitutional than the gay issue. Yet, for years there has been no challenge to this policy, and most people seem to think that it's a necessary restriction to ensure military discipline. Logic consistency, anyone? And the only reason fraterization policy and regs have not been challenged is because there is no organized movement of activists that want to overturn it, i.e., there is no broader agenda at work here (yet).

The military is a very unique institution, serving under conditions that few people anymore can understand. It is not a police force familiar to most civilians, but that is rapidly where I think we're headed.

[carl]

Given the Harvard and Yale graduate track record as Representatives, Senators, and Presidents running the Federal Government, wisdom would seem to dictate that we keep them as far away from the military as possible.

[Mike Giles]

You saw the uproar over the Tillman incident. Anyone care to bet on the uproar the first time a friendly fire incident happens to an open gay? Those involved may be completely innocent. but they'll be crucified anyway. Every incident of any kind that includes an open gay will become "headline news". How about every day, run of the mill, discipline and good order? Any bets on whether attempts to discipline open gays, become all about "prejudice"? Regular boot camp, becoming an "attempt to run them out the service"? If it wasn't our military, it would be fun to watch.
I think most gays that do enter the military will do as they do now, keep it on the "down low". But eventually their will be one who will make it all about their being gay.

[Clarice]

Maybe, Carl, but maybe a lot of the Ivy dopes in govt would have been less dopey if they had classmates in ROTC and that was Instapundit's view in the above-cited NY Post article.

Mickey Kaus agrees with me that we owe the Tea party for the death of DREAM. (via Insty)

MICKEY KAUS: Who killed DREAM? The Tea Party Did. “Not only had they threatened establishment Republicans with primary opposition, but they had actually beaten one … two … three of them. Nothing like fresh heads on pikes to, er, reinforce a persuasive (to my mind) policy argument. Score one for losing Delaware Tea Partier Christine O’Donnell, who knocked off establishment pick Rep. Mike Castle (who voted for DREAM) in the GOP primary. Even score one for Alaskan Joe Miller. He probably alienated Republican Lisa Murkowski by beating her in the primary, and ultimately she won reelection anyway as a write-in. But that’s just one lost Senate vote. By my count, Miller’s primary coup may have helped gain around ten votes by terrifying GOP incumbents who might otherwise have been tempted by the prospect of a feel-good, bipartisan, MSM-approved pro-DREAM stand.”

[Cecil Turner]

Actual accountability to the voters? Who'da thunk it?

[Neo]

Now there is one less reason to avoid the draft
... and one less way to get out of military service, once enlisted

Once we get women into combat, white straight males will finally have equality

[boris]

"Logic consistency, anyone?"

Good point.

Bet fraternization rules for everybody get a large (if temporary) dose of restrictions.

[Neo]

too on the spot ...

W was the guy who “reached across the aisle” to Ted Kennedy to federalize education. He was the one who “accomplished things” by expanding the welfare state via Medicare Rx. He even signed campaign reform legislation that was intended to limit those who “who recklessly demonize their opponents”, though it was later ruled so out of bounds that it was declared unconstitutional.
His tone towards Democrats was mostly moderate, much more so than Obama’s tone when berating Republicans and other opponents. W didn’t pander to his base very often. He was the model of political civility.
His reward? He was demonized by the left as stupid, mean, and equivalent to Hitler.*

[carl]

I suppose that is possible, but it seems far more likely that the cultural pollination will work the opposite way. Our "best and brightest" seem to view America as a giant petri dish to conduct their social experiments. I don't think putting on a uniform will change that attitude, and the military will give them a truly captive culture to play with.

[bgates]

I don´t care a flying phart that some eight year Marine jack-waggon thinks

I bet that bothers him about as much as it bothers me.

Homosexuals openly serving in the US military was never the goal of this campaign.

Then the legislation was badly drafted, because that's what it accomplishes.

[Bill Sampson]

"Do keep in mind, Goldwater was a libertarian at heart, which put him in an odd place in the Republican Party:"

Not just in the Republican Party, but at JOM as well.

One would think Libertarians would have Press Freedom at the top of their list, but it seems Property ownership is the primary concern........

http://www.mondopolitico.com/ideologies/libertarianism/whatislibertarianism.htm

On MTP today, Veep Biden said in connection with Assange and Wikileaks;

"This is different from Pentagon Papers. If Assange sought or solicited the data, it is different from having it dropped in his lap"

Is it? I'm sure that developing sources who provide information to a reporter could be similar in the sense of 'conspiracy'

How about using a false identity to gain access to inside information while under cover? That, as well, could be described as 'unlawful' in a range of circumstances if the information was embarrassing to those in power.

This is a press freedom issue and should be
championed by those who truly believe in
'Freedom'.

[bgates]

The repeal has passed without anyone asking about definitions or limits.

Apologies for the length, but here you go. The law repeals US Code Title 10 § 654, which has the meat in subsection (b):
Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

[Thomas Collins]

Clarice, I am hoping that in the implementation part of the process of DADT repeal (described in your 11:38 PM post), the views of those actually involved in combat (or serving in combat zones) will be given more weight than they appear to have been given in the public debate. My worry is that this won't necessarily be the case. I don't think many opponents of DADT repeal thought that the new law would result in frontline soldiers while under a Taliban attack chanting, "Say it clear and say it loud, I'm gay and I'm proud." But the potential for mischief, especially in light of the military's PCness in dealing with the likes of Hasan, still remains. For me, the best result would be that in taking a look at implementation of DADT repeal, our military and political leaders will also take a careful look at whether sufficient changes have been made in how the Hasan types are dealt with. My worry is that if they do look at the overall picture, the result will be more diversity counselors, not more emphasis on weeding out security threats and troublemakers. I hope I'm wrong.

[Clarice]

Whatever the military says, it has to clear the Secy of Defense, then the President, Chairman of the Jt Chiefs of Staff, the Congressional defense Committees before taking effect.
You can bet those congressional committee will hold extensive hearings. You might argue that the Sec Def and Jt Chiefs of Staff are ass kissers and will gloss over the problems, but I suspect those hearings will be very extensive and expose folderol.

[Captain Hate]

Btw, can we all agree that this is the way gay marriage will ultimately be forced on all the states? Also can anybody be more clueless than Scranton's most brain-damaged native son? Does MTP get categorized as a comedy show in the TV listings?

[Thomas Collins]

I also think that the certification procedure actually supports DADT. DADT seems to have achieved a good balance of the factors set forth in the certification requirements in the context of service by homosexuals in the military.

[Got Pink]

I agree completely with Sandy. Gays have been around forever. Why did not GEN Patton, GEN MacArthur, GEN Pershing, GEN Sherman, GEN Washington, etc put forth this great concept to recruit gays to increase military effectiveness? Look for many orthodox Chaplains to retire or quit - to include Muslim Chaplains. JAG will muzzle christian teachings that conflict with the now gay approved lifestyle. I am looking forward to the second coming when the chaf will be separated from the wheat. Come Lord Jesus come! and soon...

[Gmax]

Everyone seems to think the fraterinization rules will control here. Not having personal military experience I have to rely on friends and relatives and my own personal observations.

I think the fraterinizations rules prohibit conduct between officers and the enlisted. And even that seems to vary between branches as I have long time friends who were most definitely married, and he was a Master Sgt and she was a Major. The Air Force has different rules apparently?

I am looking for enlightenment.

[Rob Crawford]

Look for many orthodox Chaplains to retire or quit - to include Muslim Chaplains.

Because that's what good shepherds do when things get tough -- abandon their flocks.

Man, some of you people have a low opinion of Christians.

[Bill Sampson]

From Jeff Jarvis (Buzz Machine)

Do we hold the state to be legitimate?
December 13th, 2010

David Carr wrote in today’s New York Times:

“Mainstream media may spend a lot of time trying to ferret information out of official hands, but they largely operate in the belief that the state is legitimate and entitled to at least some of its secrets.”

In Western democracies, we may well work under the belief that the state is legitimate, but we surely don’t operate under the view that everything it does is legitimate. That is our job — isn’t it? — to find and expose its illegitimate acts.

I do not think I can accept as journalistic canon the idea that reporters and editors in every nation should view their states as legitimate. To the contrary, we root for them to challenge the legitimacy of illegitimate states; don’t we expect them to be the first, best hammer on the walls of secrecy built by the tyrannical and the corrupt?

Isn’t legitimacy a moving target? We can point to those who believe the actions — and thus the governing — of George Bush was illegitimate as it pertained to war. RIchard Nixon’s governance was taken to be so illegitimate — under pressure of journalism — that it collapsed. Legitimacy is usually accepted. But it should not be assumed.

Implicit in what Carr writes and in what those he quotes say is this notion that what separates professional, institutional journalism from Wikileaks — and, by extension, anarchy — is that it accepts the legitimacy of the incumbents:

“‘WikiLeaks is not a news organization, it is a cell of activists that is releasing information designed to embarrass people in power,’ said George Packer, a writer on international affairs at The New Yorker. ‘They simply believe that the State Department is an illegitimate organization that needs to be exposed, which is not really journalism.’”

That’s a troubling line to draw and too close to the truth today that news organizations too often side with the powerful, with the legacy.

I do believe that governments do need secrets, but as I’ve written, the problem Wikileaks exposes is that government is too often secret by default and transparent by force when it should be transparent by default and secret by necessity.

Separately in Carr’s piece, I was sorely disappointed in Columbia J-school Dean Nick Lemann’s continued insistence — since 2006 — in trying to fan the flames of a blogger v. journalist war that never broke out: “People from the digital world are always saying we don’t need journalists at all because information is everywhere and there in no barrier to entry.” Name, two, Dean.

[Bill Sampson]

"I do believe that governments do need secrets, but as I’ve written, the problem Wikileaks exposes is that government is too often secret by default and transparent by force when it should be transparent by default and secret by necessity." JJarvis

That pretty much sums it up.

[LouP]

bgates: thanks for the actual wording. There are so many "unless" undefined, i.e., TBD, regulations, and other weasel-worded qualifiers, in that lawyerly gibberish it doesn't give me much consolation.

But bottom line: any gay pride in-your-face type behavior, for example, is NOT prohibited, except perhaps in article 1.D.: "consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale" - which is totally undefined.

I still don't know what the limits are, but we'll find out, I guess, as the gay activists continue to test the limits, all the while tying up military commanders and legal beagels with trying to figure out what the gibberish really means.

Ah, now it get it. Employment opportunities for JAG!

[Clarice]

Perhaps the military will devise different rules for different branches and different kinds of units.

I don't much think what happens respecting the huge component of support services will seriously undermine our operations. YMMV.

I expect forward combat units may justify different conduct rules.
More likely, I expect there will be a great deal of self-selection.

[Thomas Collins]

Captain Hate, I think the most likely manner in which each state would be forced to recognize a homosexual marriage recognized in another state would be a SCOTUS decision that DOMA is unconstitutional. I have no idea how SCOTUS would come out on that issue, but I don't think DOMA is going to be repealed.

[Cecil Turner]

I think the fraterinizations rules prohibit conduct between officers and the enlisted. And even that seems to vary between branches . . .

Mostly. And they've been under review for uniformity and to minimize Service disparity (which undoubtedly still exists to some degree, regardless). Good overview here. For Air Force units in garrison, just about nothing is fraternization . . . for Marine units in the field, just about anything is. (And I'm not sure that's entirely inappropriate.)

[change of subject]

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings . . .

Anecdotal, but my experience suggests even the above was hard to enforce, as "solicitees" were reluctant to come forward. No idea how the repeal would affect such, but don't think it'll help.

[Thomas Collins]

Clarice noted:

"YMMV"

So Clarice, you read those Craigslist reviews, too? :-))

[jimmyk]

LouP, I read what bgates posted as existing law (i.e. DADT) that is being repealed. It's true that on the surface it seems actually more lenient than I would have guessed "DADT" would be, but not in consequential ways. For example, (2) allows you to continue in the military even if you announce you are a homosexual, provided you are not actually a homosexual in any meaningful sense.

If that's the case, then it really isn't clear what replaces it.

[Bill Sampson]

Captain Ed sez;

"The big question will be what charge to levy against Assange. Espionage applies more to Bradley Manning than it does to Assange, although it’s still a possibility. Dissemination of classified materials certainly applies and is a serious felony. Media organizations will object, since more than a few of them have done the same thing, but arguably not as indiscriminately as Assange has in these releases. And regardless of whether the crime is committed by a reporter or not, it’s still a crime, and the First Amendment doesn’t really apply, as Jeffrey Toobin explains at CNN:

Q: What is the likelihood the Department of Justice can pursue legal action against WikiLeaks, both in civil and/or criminal court? How?

A: There already is a criminal case against Manning, and I am certain there will be further charges against others, especially Assange. I would not be at all surprised if there was a sealed arrest warrant currently in existence against him. The question is whether the American authorities can find him and bring him back to the United States for trial. I think civil charges are less likely, given the peculiar nature of WikiLeaks as a corporation and Web site. There probably is not much to sue.

Q: If WikiLeaks can be defined as a disseminator of information — or a medium through which information is shared — isn’t it afforded the same constitutional protections as the New York Times, CNN and other news organizations?

A: WikiLeaks has the same First Amendment rights as any company or group of individuals. But the First Amendment is not a license to break the law — for WikiLeaks, the New York Times or anyone else.

[Cecil Turner]

Oh good. The troll has a new 'nym.

[MUGGS]

WikiLeaks sparks push for tighter controls.

The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.

Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.

At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.

The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for a "takeover" of the internet.

India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia appeared to favour a new possible over-arching inter-government body.

However, Australia, US, UK, Belgium and Canada and attending business and community representatives argued there were risks in forming yet another working group that might isolate itself from the industry, community users and the general public.

"My concern is that if we were to make a move to form a governmental-only body then that would send a very strong signal to civil society that their valuable contribution was not required or was not being looked for," an un-named Australian representative told the meeting.

[MUGGS]

Excuse to police the Internet?

What is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks fury in Washington is that the entire scandal is serving to advance a long-standing Obama and Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet. Already the US Government has shut the Wikileaks server in the United States though no identifiable US law has been broken.

The process of policing the Web was well underway before the current leaks scandal. In 2009 Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Olympia Snowe introduced the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S.773). It would give the President unlimited power to disconnect private-sector computers from the internet. The bill "would allow the president to 'declare a cyber-security emergency' relating to 'non-governmental' computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat." We can expect that now this controversial piece of legislation will get top priority when a new Republican House and the Senate convene in January.

The US Department of Homeland Security, an agency created in the political hysteria following 9/11 2001 that has been compared to the Gestapo, has already begun policing the Internet. They are quietly seizing and shutting down internet websites (web domains ) without due process or a proper trial. DHS simply seizes web domains that it wants to and posts an ominous "Department of Justice" logo on the web site. See an example at . Over 75 websites were seized and shut in a recent week. Right now, their focus is websites that they claim "violate copyrights," yet the torrent-finder.com website that was seized by DHS contained no copyrighted content whatsoever. It was merely a search engine website that linked to destinations where people could access copyrighted content. Step by careful step freedom of speech can be taken away. Then what?

[btims]

Serving in the Armed Forces is a NOT A RIGHT. You must meet the qualifications - mental, physical, character/moral/legal. At least that's the way it was for decades and decades. Now in our "Oprah-ized" society, it like everything, has become a "right".

[Danube of Thought]

"'consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale' - which is totally undefined."

I don't know whether it's defined anywhere, but I think guys have been punished for "conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline" for a long time.

When I was a fresh-caught Ensign the old-timers used to bemoan the disappearance of the old "silent contempt" charge, which didn't make it into the UCMJ.

[Clarice]

btms, For the sake of argument, let us assume that a man or woman who was homosexual and served in the military abiding by DADT and the conduct rules set forth by the military; suppose further that he/she has a lontime partner. With DADT that partner is not entitled to any benefits normally available to military spouses, without it that partner will.

Does the distinction strike you as unjust?
If not, why not?

[Danube of Thought]

See UCMJ Article 134.

[Jack is Back!]

Clarice,

The certification under this regime is a given as far as I am concerned. They'll fake it if they have to. And all this BS about if you don't like it leave will soon become reality. The biggest problem the military leadership will have is the UCMJ and how to make it reflective of the changes allowing openly homosexual service. But that is only the beginning of this new arc - what is to keep transgender types out or those who enjoy the man-boy love cycle or even the practive of beastiality?

Then we are going to have the diminishing leadership as I happen to know a number of command level officers and NCO's in brigade and below units who are already lining up their future. McMullen will get his wish and they will not serve where they have to accommodate this social experiment. By the way, the Dutch soldiers who turned a blind eye at Srebenicia included a number of openly gay members including officers and NCO's.

And I don't see how they can discriminate by service or unit or operations. How can they create new laws - even discrimatory - which will exclude gays from close quarter operations like air crews, sub service and combat?

[Rob Crawford]

By the way, the Dutch soldiers who turned a blind eye at Srebenicia included a number of openly gay members including officers and NCO's.

So their performance was indistinguishable from those around them.

[Clarice]

(C) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f) is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.

I think this part of the new legislation may provide room for the services to make certain distinctions based on logistical and practical considerations.

[hit and run]

Posted by: PDinDetroit | December 19, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Will be in Detroit in a few hours. Layover on my way home. I'll be waving.

[hit and run]

Did anyone else pierce his or her nose last night?

Just wondering.

Don't worry,I took the safety pin out before going through security at the airport.

[glasater]

Senate debate on START is live at the link.

Kerry is on right now so one may want to wait a bit:)

[DrJ]

Did anyone else pierce his or her nose last night?

No, but we have inflated our water wings. We've had about 5" of rain over the last couple of days, and more is coming. We've reached twice the "normal" rainfall to date.

Must be Global Warming. Or Global Climate Change. Or just Weather.

[MUGGS]

Opinion: WikiLeaks — Just another irrelevant Internet bitching spat?
By Michael Cosgrove.

Governments are not shaking in their boots, there are no calls to investigate the issues brought up in the leaks, heads have not rolled, is this no more than a glitzy Assange mediafest and a distraction for bored Internet denizens?
So, what have we got here at the end of the day? Let’s divide it up into four areas. WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, the support campaign that is going on to defend them, and their opponents in the American government.
The only changes going on at WikiLeaks right now are those brought about by internal dissent and departures due to what is alleged to be Assange’s autocratic and media-hungry character, which is said to be overshadowing the site and its work. The site has been brought down once or twice recently, but that was not the work of cloak-and-dagger CIA computer experts or Cyber Command, it was, much more prosaically, the work of an American patriot who spends his time attacking anti-American Internet sites in general. Ho hum, business as usual."

Just a media hound, heh.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301584#ixzz18aO0KFmy

[Clarice]

I don't want to create any trouble, but bad weather follows Hit as much as it does Gore. Just saying.

[Danube of Thought]

"heads have not rolled"

How do we know that, particularly in Afghanistan?

[DebinNC]

The Joint Chiefs are all white guys. Gates and 4 of the 6 Chiefs are leaving soon, leaving Obama to pick">http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1780">pick their replacements. Who he picks to replace Gates should be interesting, because Obama sees enemies everywhere now.

[hank kelly]

I'm a an Air Force veteran of the Viet Nam war. I have to shake my head at some of the comments against gays serving openly in the military. I'm trying to understand what is so unique about the U.S. military. 25 other nations have it and have no problems with it. But we have current and former military who go spastic over it. If you are such a tough ass soldier, get over it. Worry about the enemy, not your fellow soldier who happens to be gay.

[sbw]

Bill S: One would think Libertarians would have Press Freedom at the top of their list, but it seems Property ownership is the primary concern

I'm inching toward libertarianism and property ownership is far more critical than press freedom.

Private property is the lynch pin of the commercial marketplace upon which solid democracy depends. Today, press freedom applies to businesses that seem to have a sense of privilege and no sense of what is the purpose of journalism.

Next!

[glasater]

It's ironic that Obama has refudiated a law by a former D president--DADT--and accepted a former R president's tax cuts.

[glasater]

SBW--I think Milton Friedman would agree with you:)

[Jim Ryan]

If the principle is correct that a soldier should have no complaint about having to be naked in the barracks in front of other soldiers who are sexually attracted to him, then we should make the barracks coed in order to lower costs.

[Rob Crawford]

Private property is the lynch pin of the commercial marketplace upon which solid democracy depends.

Being secure in your property means you have a place to go where you can say "sod the world" and -- barring you hurting someone else -- no one can say a thing about it.

[Captain Hate]

I'm trying to understand what is so unique about the U.S. military.

It's the best in the world. Is that so hard to understand?

[Clarice]

Exactly, sbw. Kelo was a far more significant and horrid decision than any of that nonsense about kids and signs at football games or any recent First Am SCOTUS decision that comes readily to mind.

[sbw]

I'm trying to understand what is so unique about the U.S. military

Better understanding of what is worth fighting for and why.

[PaulY]

What happens when gay soldiers start killing homophobe islamofascists and are unable to stop?

[anduril]

Seems a good place to link to a bit of close order swanning about.

[macphisto]

"I'm trying to understand what is so unique about the U.S. military."

have a nice day, Airman Moby.

[Threadkiller]

Great pieces Clarice. Looks like we are making McClintock famous. :)

From the DREAM thread:
--I know about McClintock's speech, where he made the mistake of taxes being raised during the Hoover administration, whereas the crushing tax hike was in '34, under FDR.--

Mel, I think you are working McClintock over on a technical foul. He always refers to the Smoot–Hawley">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act">Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act as Hoover's taking the recession into a depression and he justifies the tariffs as being taxes.

">http://mcclintock.house.gov/2009/06/special-order-speech-on-cap-and-trade.shtml"> When you discuss the folly of the Hoover Administration – how it turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930’s, the first thing that economists point to is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on over 20,000 imported products.

[Danube of Thought]

25 other nations have it and have no problems with it

How many men do those 25 nations combined have engaged in combat operations right now?

[Clarice]

Speaking of Hoover TK, I hoovered that quote from you, I think. Good thing I did; I don't recall seeing any other report of that important justification for voting for the tax bill.

[MayBee]

If the principle is correct that a soldier should have no complaint about having to be naked in the barracks in front of other soldiers who are sexually attracted to him,

Oh, I don't agree with that principle at all. I think it is a completely fair complaint.

The only thing I can say is it is happening now. Gay people are allowed in the military and they are sharing showers and bunks.
So it's really a matter of what's in the straight soldiers' heads, and I still agree that knowing someone might be looking is different than not knowing.

I don't know, but maybe knowing will make it easier to tell someone you aren't interested in having them eye you from across the room.
Regardless, it will take a mental adjustment. That's for sure.

[Gmax]

DOT

Do the blue helmet rape patrols count?

[Captain Hate]

As usual the dumbbells in Repuke Party central will make no political hay out of this by asking the key questions that might make the donks uncomfortable; such as if this was so important, why was it not voted on in, say, October so the strongly principled congressthings could have their commitment to this vitally important issue validated by the voters with it fresh in their memory.

[Clarice]

You are evil, Capt. You could say the same thing about the tax cut extension and the DREAM Act, couldn't you?

[Clarice]

Isn't this rich?
Assange is complaining that his Swedish police report was leaked and printed in the Guardian..heh

[Wind Rider]

Yep, 654 will be voided - BUT UCMJ Art 125 is still in place (the article prohibiting 'sodomy'). In practice, 125 is usually an 'add on', somewhat like 'resisting arrest' is piled on with a raft of other charges. Only recall 125 being charged once in my 24 years of mil experience - and that was in addition to rape.

Lots of folks being very imaginative about the impacts and effects of the repeal. As for general day to day interaction, things probably won't change a whole lot - because remember - this isn't about letting gays in, they already are, it's about some being allowed the charade of walking around doing the three monkeys impersonation and pretending they aren't. Keep that in mind reviewing all the "well how do we handle billeting, showering, etc". They're being handled today, just fine. The showering concern seems most humorous to me - more space and I'd relate the 'naked guy' story from a deployment I was on.

Point being - with gays already present, most aside from the most obtuse or utterly clueless are aware of it and have adjusted already. And in addition to rules on fraternization (vertical), there are also a raft of directives, controls, and regulations on interpersonal professional conduct standards (horizontal, rank wise) in place already as well.

Claims that all wheels must be re-invented with unobtanium are far too over-wrought.

[bunkerbuster]

"Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash."

--Winston Churchill

[Captain Hate]

Absolutely, C. The garbage that is trying to be pushed in this lame-duck session is a disgrace and meanwhile the employees of Duke Bros Inc have sent their togas out for dry-cleaning in anticipation of New Years parties rather than risk getting some road salt on them. Kudos to McConnell for keeping the troops pretty much in line but the quislings that caved on DADT should all receive primary challenges (not that it ultimately worked so well with Murscruntski). Boehner's done slightly less well in trying to herd a bunch of feral cats. To McCain and Graham's credit, they didn't stab us in the back during a particularly opportune window for doing so; I'm still in semi-shock over that.

[Clarice]

It's the gibbets, Capt.. the gibbets.why do you think Murkowsi didn't vote for the Dream act..There were lots of yummy pork bits in there for Alaska?

[Threadkiller]

--"So it's really a matter of what's in the straight soldiers' heads,"--

This does not seem so bad:
">http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2008/06/29/pride-soldiers-tto-080629.jpg">

I hope the straight soldiers don’t picture the rest of the parade in their heads:

">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Just_Married_at_Pride_Parade.jpg/220px-Just_Married_at_Pride_Parade.jpg">

Oh, never mind. Canada will help you make whatever mental picture you want.

">http://www.styleite.com/media/canada-military-transgender-uniforms/"> "The Canadian military has decided to allow its transgendered members to wear the uniform of their target gender. In fact, Canada’s National Defence Department has been helping to fund the sex change operations of its service members since 1998."

Some will get a Code Red and some will get a Code Fuchsia.

[boris]

All the "no big deal" assertions are fine but if true then enforcement of DADT would have been zilch. If the services saw this coming that would have been the easier transition.

Otherwise the size of the deal is an open question.

[Threadkiller]

Ah Clarice, I don't know what it is about the initials TM, but I am drawn to them. McClintock was the last gasp of hope for California for the foreseeable future. The GOP needs to frontline him.

[Clarice]

He delivered such a clear sensible explanation. It was a treat compared to the mumbo jumbo we mostly hear, TK

[btims]

Few homosexual men have long term "partners", they inherently are drawn to promiscuous life styles.

Secondly, homosexual men tend to be effeminate, tend to be overly sensitive and thus lack aggressiveness (killer instinct), that is needed in warriors.

They only reason this will become law is become Hussein bin Obama, as s far leftist, is paying back a major constituency - the homosexual lobby. Just like Harry Reid attempted to pay back the illegal (latino) "community" (with the DREAM Act)which put him over hte top in the Nevada senate race last month.

The actual percentage of the general population that is homosexual is very, very small - perhaps 2%. In the armed forces, probably even less. Just remember, homosexuals are a disproportionate percentage of the news media and show business, thus they get a lot of face and microphone time to push their agenda.

They already are allowed to serve in uniform, what DADT repeal is about is, what all homosexual activism is about - they are looking for APPROVAL.

Like this nation doesn't have more pressing issues to concern itself......

[BR]

Sandy, read yours with interest. Thank you.

On the humorous side, America's new weapon, an Army of Gays. Imagine the male-dominated Muslim tgts quaking at the thought of unbridled raping and pillaging by the West.

Btw, was there ever in history such an army that was successful? Greece?

I have this funny play-with-history script where soldiers dressed like Queen with pink boas and their amplifiers blaring on their chariots wreak havoc into Alexander's phalanxes on the plains of Persia, so that Darius could live happily with his beautiful wife.

[Daddy T]

I will forbid my son from serving in the military will a group of flaming fudge packers. I'd rather have the terrorists come here and I'll fight them in the streets (well, more like from my balcony with a rifle).

[Jack is Back!]

What happens when gay soldiers start killing homophobe islamofascists and are unable to stop?

Or the inverse! What happens when the jihadi's find out those guys outside the wire are gay? Do they make delectable hostages if captured or are they richer targets? And the guy in one of the comments above who noted his deployment and how they handled gays in their unit - was this a close quarters combat unit? And you knew for certain some of the members were gay? I'd like to know how it affected your unit's performance. I have a hard time seeing a Marine recon unit with an openly gay member. Just my optics.

[Stephanie]

Imagine the male-dominated Muslim tgts quaking at the thought of unbridled raping and pillaging by the West.

We should train their goats to turn on em...

Goats of Arabia, rise up!

[Clarice]

On March 2010.Gates changed enforcement of DADT,only a general or flag officer could remove someone from the services for homosexual conduct;info about homosexual conduct had to be given under oath;info given to certain third persons--for example psychotherapists,clergy, lawyers--could not be used in support of discharge proceedings.

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40782.pdf

[Clarice]

The services were anticipating the shift, it seems. I can't find figures on the numbers of personnel removed for violating DADT.I bet it was small. Smaller than the 2% figure of the estimated homosexuals in the general population.

[Danube of Thought]

"Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash."

--Winston Churchill

Not the USN.

[anduril]

No rum?

[MarkJ]

"The senior enlisted Soldier serving under General David Petraeus in Afghanistan is now also on the record “pushing for” repeal — and saying those who don’t like it can leave:"

Memo for above soldier: "You must think you're Superman, because, with that attitude, you may end up fighting the Taliban pretty much all by yourself."

[Jack is Back!]

Any Giant's fans here? I used to be but after this showing, Tom Coughlin can go find a nice retirement community. What a comeback - Vick is some player and I am not even close to being a fan of the Eagles.

[Stephanie]

Why is the rum always gone?

[Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)]

With DADT that partner is not entitled to any benefits normally available to military spouses, without it that partner will.

Clarice,

I'm actually not sure that is true. If a gay soldier is married, I assume their spouse gets benefits whether they talk about it or not, and if the gay soldier is not married, I assume the partner doesn't - which of course opens a whole new ball of wax.

[Thomas Collins]

Nice footwork by DeSean Jackson making sure the clock had run out before he stepped into the end zone for the winning touchdown on his punt return. Of course, if he had dropped the ball or that Giant in the end zone hadn't let up and got to him, Jackson would have been mighty embarrassed.

[MayBee]

Vick is some player and I am not even close to being a fan of the Eagles.

It makes me happy to see someone who has been given a second chance actually work hard to take advantage of it.