Obama and the Gay Military...

[Toke]

Men under fire become savage. What would happen to a woman among men in the fox holes would also befall a gay man.

If that is a real problem, then the military have other problems than just DADT.

 

[Cleon]

I don't think this is so cut-and-dry.

Men under fire become savage. What would happen to a woman among men in the fox holes would also befall a gay man.

This isn't a matter of everyday fairness in the workplace.

When living in a live-and-death environment where you are killing and your buddies are being killed constantly, the social rules that make us civilized break down. It is best, I believe, that in such an environment it is best that everyone is of the same orientation and gender. Otherwise a feeding frenzy takes place because there is no order or care to hold people back from their most primative actions.

There is that famous case of that woman contractor going to the front lines in Iraq. Jamie Leigh Jones. She was not supposed to be among men who felt they might not live the next day and had nothing to loose. She needed reconstructive surgery after the incident.

I just think that if you do not know, you should not protest. And people who seem to be the most vocal about insisting gays are open in the military would never and have never been in the military.

Well, that's a huge honkin' heaping steaming pile of fail, right there.

First of all, because women are serving on the front lines, in combat positions, and are doing a heluva job.

Second, because a number of posters on this thread who are ok with repealing DADT are active duty or retired military.

Third, it is absolutely despicable to think that what happened to Ms. Jones is just to be expected because men "have nothing to lose." Despicable, disgusting, and a whole bunch of other adjectives that would likely breach the MA.

Fourth, it doesn't even matter, because Ms. Jones wasn't gang-raped by US soldiers, she was gang-raped by mercen--excuse me, "contractors." Nor did it happen in combat, nor under particularly stressful conditions, nor...You know what? The comparison is so abominable that I'm not going to continue explaining why it's a load of crap.

You fail. No soup for you. NEXT!

 

[geni]

I don't think this is so cut-and-dry.

Men under fire become savage. What would happen to a woman among men in the fox holes would also befall a gay man.

British army who's spent quite a bit of time under fire of late have found this not to be the case.

When living in a live-and-death environment where you are killing and your buddies are being killed constantly, the social rules that make us civilized break down.

Hasn't happened since about WW2 and remeber the soviets did manage to field women on the front line in that war.

It is best, I believe, that in such an environment it is best that everyone is of the same orientation and gender. Otherwise a feeding frenzy takes place because there is no order or care to hold people back from their most primative actions.

You have an impressively low opinion of the quality of training in the US army. The whole point of militry training is that when things go to hell you react how you've been trained

There is that famous case of that woman contractor going to the front lines in Iraq. Jamie Leigh Jones. She was not supposed to be among men who felt they might not live the next day and had nothing to loose. She needed reconstructive surgery after the incident.

Not front lines. Not US army troops. The issues with poorly trained/disciplined support personel are known but not really relivant to the issue at hand.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't think this is so cut-and-dry.

Men under fire become savage. What would happen to a woman among men in the fox holes would also befall a gay man.

This isn't a matter of everyday fairness in the workplace.

When living in a live-and-death environment where you are killing and your buddies are being killed constantly, the social rules that make us civilized break down. It is best, I believe, that in such an environment it is best that everyone is of the same orientation and gender. Otherwise a feeding frenzy takes place because there is no order or care to hold people back from their most primative actions.

There is that famous case of that woman contractor going to the front lines in Iraq. Jamie Leigh Jones. She was not supposed to be among men who felt they might not live the next day and had nothing to loose. She needed reconstructive surgery after the incident.

I just think that if you do not know, you should not protest. And people who seem to be the most vocal about insisting gays are open in the military would never and have never been in the military.

That is one angle. Here is another. Sure it is a problem with men being homophobic. But, at the same time, all straight men are to a degree homophobic. What do you expect? Do you expect that all men go to sensitivity training classes? It is the military! It is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It exists to break and destroy and defend. It is a monarchy by design. And that works best. Too bad that it is not fair. Life is not fair. It never was and it never will be.

Military personnel do not need the extra training. Military personnel do not need additional distractions and concerns to do their job. What works best for them to get their job done best serves us all.

Interestingly, military members are trained to remain calm under fire - not to become savage. As I recall, the main concern from the military was that in a firefight, men would attempt to be chivalrous towards their female counterparts and risk their own lives/the mission attempting to protect the female member(s) of the team. That has nothing to do with men becoming savage.

Last I heard, there weren't any gay guys propositioning their buddies in the middle of firefights. And as far as most of the military is concerned, they don't seem to care who has their back - just so long as the someone who does is competent.

The biggest headache for the military would be accommodations - separating heteros and homos into different bunks. But, really, that's no different than separating based on gender. And, if they wanted, they could combine the homosexual men and women together into one tent!

Bottom line is this (are you ready for it?):

Homosexuals already serve in your military, every day, every FOL, all over the world. Get over it already.

 

[Toke]

Communal showers from day one as recruits may help the squad over any uneasiness caused by differences in sex and sexual orientation. If the members of a squad cannot trust each other, they better stay home.

 

[drkitten]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Like "shall" vs. "may", "and" vs. "or" is a very important distinction in legislation.

Er,.... no.

Entire books have been written on this topic; I recommend Lawrence Solon's "The Language of Judges." With respect to the "and/or" distinction, I cannot improve on the State of New York's conciseness of phrasing:

Generally, the words 'or' and 'and' may be construed as interchangeable in a statute when necessary.

While the phrasing is New York's, the concept exists at the Federal level and in most state rules of procedure as well.

 

[D'rok]

Er,.... no.

Entire books have been written on this topic; I recommend Lawrence Solon's "The Language of Judges." With respect to the "and/or" distinction, I cannot improve on the State of New York's conciseness of phrasing:



While the phrasing is New York's, the concept exists at the Federal level and in most state rules of procedure as well.

Chalk it up to another difference between American and Canadian law, I guess. Interesting.

 

[D'rok]

Er,.... no.

Entire books have been written on this topic; I recommend Lawrence Solon's "The Language of Judges." With respect to the "and/or" distinction, I cannot improve on the State of New York's conciseness of phrasing:



While the phrasing is New York's, the concept exists at the Federal level and in most state rules of procedure as well.

On second thought, I note that you left off the end of the sentence, which reads "to effect legislative intent". This distinctly qualifies the phrase "when necessary" wouldn't you say?

I quick bit of research shows that this is simply statutory interpretation at work. The and/or rule is deployed if, and only if one or the other of the words obviously conflict with the legislative intent. Otherwise, their plain and ordinary conjunctive/disjunctive meanings apply.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

When living in a live-and-death environment where you are killing and your buddies are being killed constantly, the social rules that make us civilized break down. It is best, I believe, that in such an environment it is best that everyone is of the same orientation and gender.

So why not a 'don't ask, don't tell' for the heterosexuals. If your reveal you have a wife, you get booted off.

 

[drkitten]

Chalk it up to another difference between American and Canadian law, I guess. Interesting.

Actually, my bet is that the same concept exists in Canadian law (and I suspect it was inherited from English Common Law). The underlying judicial argument is applicable everywhere : "Lawmakers is dumb."

The sting is in the words "where necessary." Basically, lawyers are neither linguists nor logicians and tend not to write as precisely as they should. So this rule of procedure gives official license for judges to re-interpret statutes in a common-sense way that avoids obvious (or not so obvious) otherwise invalidating problems. It's akin to what linguists call the "cooperative principle," which essentially states that you should interpret a sentence in the way that makes sense in the underlying pragmatic context.

In this case, as discussed above in the UCSB white paper, if the law were interpreted in such a way that it gave the Secretary no discretion about whether or not to discharge an openly-gay serviceman and made it a purely Congressional decision, this would make the law blatantly unconstitutional (it would violate separation of powers).

There are therefore two choices. Throw out the entire law as invalid, or re-interpret the conjunctions in a way consistent with the overall constitutional framework.

 

[drkitten]

On second thought, I note that you left off the end of the sentence, which reads "to effect legislative intent". This distinctly qualifies the phrase "when necessary" wouldn't you say?

I quick bit of research shows that this is simply statutory interpretation at work. The and/or rule is deployed if, and only if one or the other of the words obviously conflict with the legislative intent.

Well, since the legislation as written is blatantly unconstitutional, and I doubt that the legislature intended to write a completely unenforceable law, I submit that the law was intended to be in compliance and re-interpretation is therefore appropriate.

 

[Thunder]

So, according to this BBC News page, Obama is going to have a go at getting rid of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell situation.

Will he succeed?

what is a "Gay" military?

 

[zooterkin]

I don't think this is so cut-and-dry.

Men under fire become savage. What would happen to a woman among men in the fox holes would also befall a gay man.

This isn't a matter of everyday fairness in the workplace.

When living in a live-and-death environment where you are killing and your buddies are being killed constantly, the social rules that make us civilized break down. It is best, I believe, that in such an environment it is best that everyone is of the same orientation and gender. Otherwise a feeding frenzy takes place because there is no order or care to hold people back from their most primative actions.

There is that famous case of that woman contractor going to the front lines in Iraq. Jamie Leigh Jones. She was not supposed to be among men who felt they might not live the next day and had nothing to loose. She needed reconstructive surgery after the incident.

I just think that if you do not know, you should not protest. And people who seem to be the most vocal about insisting gays are open in the military would never and have never been in the military.

That is one angle. Here is another. Sure it is a problem with men being homophobic. But, at the same time, all straight men are to a degree homophobic. What do you expect? Do you expect that all men go to sensitivity training classes? It is the military! It is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It exists to break and destroy and defend. It is a monarchy by design. And that works best. Too bad that it is not fair. Life is not fair. It never was and it never will be.

Military personnel do not need the extra training. Military personnel do not need additional distractions and concerns to do their job. What works best for them to get their job done best serves us all.

Really, what a load of tosh. It should be 'cut and dried'.


And I can't believe no-one's mentioned the Gay Gordons yet...

 

[D'rok]

Actually, my bet is that the same concept exists in Canadian law (and I suspect it was inherited from English Common Law). The underlying judicial argument is applicable everywhere : "Lawmakers is dumb."

This is the current rule for statutory interpretation in Canada:

"Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament."

Regarding and/or, there is at least one statute where the words would by necessity be strictly constructed - the Criminal Code. Elements of an offence are listed using "and" or "or". If the former, all the elements have to be present for someone to be charged; if the latter, any of the elements. Same goes for defences and sentencing. There can't be any and/or interchange in the criminal law context.

Anyways, this is a derail, and I concede that you are probably correct in your interpretation of DADT.

 

[drkitten]

Regarding and/or, there is at least one statute where the words would by necessity be strictly constructed - the Criminal Code. Elements of an offence are listed using "and" or "or". If the former, all the elements have to be present for someone to be charged; if the latter, any of the elements. Same goes for defences and sentencing. There can't be any and/or interchange in the criminal law context.

Actually, I'll bet you a small sum that there can be. Canada, like most common law jurisdictions, includes an understanding of the terms actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). For conduct to be criminalizable, it typically must have both components. E.g., to commit fraud, you must both make a false statement and know that it is false but intend it to be believed. (See R. vs. Dugdale).

A badly written law that criminalized the actus reus "or" the mens rea (instead of "and") would be unenforceable as written, even if the prosecution could prove both elements. I don't think that any Canadian court would have difficulty with interpreting the "or" as an "and" in such a case, especially if there were clear evidence of legislative intent and if the alternative were letting a clearly-guilty defendant off scot-free.

Anyways, this is a derail,

Meh. Derails are half the fun of internet fora.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I expect that by the end of his first term, he will have succeeded in changing that policy.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't think this is so cut-and-dry.

You sure make it cut and dried.

Men under fire become savage. What would happen to a woman among men in the fox holes would also befall a gay man.

That is crap. war is not an excuse for going bonkers. You are wrong.

This isn't a matter of everyday fairness in the workplace.

No it is amtter of the COTUS.

When living in a live-and-death environment where you are killing and your buddies are being killed constantly, the social rules that make us civilized break down.

Bull crap, you don't follow the rules you get sent to teh stockade.

It is best, I believe, that in such an environment it is best that everyone is of the same orientation and gender.

based upon personal prejudice, some believe that everyone should be a born again Xian. they aren't right either.

Otherwise a feeding frenzy takes place because there is no order or care to hold people back from their most primative actions.

i would not want to fight with you, you are a person lacking discipline.

There is that famous case of that woman contractor going to the front lines in Iraq. Jamie Leigh Jones. She was not supposed to be among men who felt they might not live the next day and had nothing to loose. She needed reconstructive surgery after the incident.

those men are potential criminals, you are an apologist for alleged rapists.

I just think that if you do not know, you should not protest. And people who seem to be the most vocal about insisting gays are open in the military would never and have never been in the military.

And your data on that is?
i have known a lot of people in the military, and guess what, some of them are homosexuals.

Bigotry is not data.

That is one angle. Here is another. Sure it is a problem with men being homophobic. But, at the same time, all straight men are to a degree homophobic.

They are? really, what an assertion without basis. I am so afraid of gay men, about afraid of them as I am a lesbian.
You are a mess.

What do you expect? Do you expect that all men go to sensitivity training classes? It is the military! It is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It exists to break and destroy and defend. It is a monarchy by design. And that works best. Too bad that it is not fair. Life is not fair. It never was and it never will be.

this from the same person who would break discipline because you are in combat?

Military personnel do not need the extra training. Military personnel do not need additional distractions and concerns to do their job. What works best for them to get their job done best serves us all.

And you are full of assertion with nothing but your bigotry.In one post you support the breaking of military discipline and rape.

 

[Dancing David]

So why not a 'don't ask, don't tell' for the heterosexuals. If your reveal you have a wife, you get booted off.

Exactly!

 

[Dancing David]

I expect that by the end of his first term, he will have succeeded in changing that policy.

I agree, but there are like three more years.

 

[D'rok]

Actually, I'll bet you a small sum that there can be. Canada, like most common law jurisdictions, includes an understanding of the terms actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). For conduct to be criminalizable, it typically must have both components. E.g., to commit fraud, you must both make a false statement and know that it is false but intend it to be believed. (See R. vs. Dugdale).

A badly written law that criminalized the actus reus "or" the mens rea (instead of "and") would be unenforceable as written, even if the prosecution could prove both elements. I don't think that any Canadian court would have difficulty with interpreting the "or" as an "and" in such a case, especially if there were clear evidence of legislative intent and if the alternative were letting a clearly-guilty defendant off scot-free.

The Criminal Code supersedes the common law. If a criminal offence was that badly written, it would be challenged on Charter grounds the second the Crown tried to charge someone with it. It would, in fact, be un-constitutional for any court to convict someone based on statutory interpretation of an unclear criminal offence. That would be a prima facie violation of s. 7 of the Charter of Rights which says "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." A judge doesn't have the power under common law to fix vague, overbroad or imprecise Criminal Code provisions. The constitutional jurisprudence is clear on this sort of thing. Conviction under a poorly written law has already been found to violate s. 7.

It would get punted back to parliament to get fixed, and no one would be convicted of the offence until parliament had done so.