Pentagon Sees Little Impact if DADT Is Repealed

[KDLarsen]

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has concluded that allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the United States armed forces presents a low risk to the military’s effectiveness, even at a time of war, and that 70 percent of service members believe that the impact of repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law would be either positive, mixed or of no consequence at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/us/politics/01military.html?_r=1&hp

Let's see if the Congress has the balls to finally get rid of this abomination.

 

[Thunder]

but ..but...the unit cohesion!!!

the military will fall apart!!! Russia and China will be at our doorsteps!!

the world will end!!!

 

[Cleon]

I bet Bill Thompson is already formulating his next letter to Congress...

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It would put other soldiers in danger. Imagine the whole unit dug into a fox hole, their camouflage uniforms keeping them perfectly hidden from the enemy, except for the gay guy who is dressed head to toe in pink with silver rhinestones.

 

[Garrette]

It would put other soldiers in danger. Imagine the whole unit dug into a fox hole, their camouflage uniforms keeping them perfectly hidden from the enemy, except for the gay guy who is dressed head to toe in pink with silver rhinestones.

He walks point.

 

[Spindrift]

He walks point.

Sounds kinky.

These are the same lames excuses for not integrating the services back in the 1940's.
Over much caterwalling about how it would ruin everything, Truman just did it and told them to work it out, which they did. Obama should grow a set and do the same thing.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Sounds kinky.

These are the same lames excuses for not integrating the services back in the 1940's.
Over much caterwalling about how it would ruin everything, Truman just did it and told them to work it out, which they did. Obama should grow a set and do the same thing.

How does he invalidate DADT? it's a law, not a policy.

 

[Garrette]

Sounds kinky.

These are the same lames excuses for not integrating the services back in the 1940's.
Over much caterwalling about how it would ruin everything, Truman just did it and told them to work it out, which they did. Obama should grow a set and do the same thing.

I agree it needs to be done, but as has been frequently pointed out it requires Congressional action. Perhaps Obama needs a set to kick Congress into action, but that's a separate thing.

 

[Thunder]

Israel allows gays in the military.

what other countries allow gays in their militaries?

 

[Garrette]

Israel allows gays in the military.

what other countries allow gays in their militaries?

Yeah, but whose gays?

 

[thaiboxerken]

McCain and Lindsey are calling for a study of the study.

 

[patchbunny]

McCain and Lindsey are calling for a study of the study.

Of course, because it doesn't agree with their beliefs. If it had said repealing DADT was a bad thing, they'd consider the issue settled.

 

[patchbunny]

Israel allows gays in the military.

what other countries allow gays in their militaries?

I know Britain has for a while now. I believe Canada does, too.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

McCain and Lindsey are calling for a study of the study.

So are McKeon and Joe "You lie" Wilson.

 

[dudalb]

He walks point.

Or is Fragbait.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree it needs to be done, but as has been frequently pointed out it requires Congressional action. Perhaps Obama needs a set to kick Congress into action, but that's a separate thing.

It took Obama more than a year even to ask Congress to do something.

And why does it require legislation if the courts are willing to reject DADT as unconstitutional? I don't understand why Obama supports staying the court order that would nix DADT when it's clear Congress is going to drag its feet on this.

Why isn't the judiciary's rejection of DADT an adequate solution? All it would take is the executive branch to quit arguing its side in court.

 

[drkitten]

And why does it require legislation if the courts are willing to reject DADT as unconstitutional?

Because Obama doesn't accept that judgement (and it's not final yet, pending appeal).

I don't understand why Obama supports staying the court order that would nix DADT

Because the idea that Congress can't set the rules for the military is a potentially dangerous idea (and one that most observers consider to be wrong). Just because Congress sets a policy that is wrong-headed and dangerous doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

I gave an example in a related discussion that I'm not going to bother to find. Suppose that Congress passed a law that, to reduce friendly fire casualties, all uniforms must be made of hunter-orange ripstop nylon and be equipped with flashing LEDs so that they can be easily seen.

This would, of course, be a death sentence to American soldiers,.... but it's not far from the historical example of the famous "red trousers" that the French government dictated for its troops in WWI (in the interests of troop morale and espirit-de-corps(e), of course). Obviously this is a bad policy that reduces American military efficiency.

But it would be equally or more dreadful for a court to step in and say that a soldier's right to free expression trumps the military necessity of wearing a uniform, and therefore Congress has no right to set uniform standards of any type.

Basically, Obama -- and most sensible observers -- are really worried about the baby-to-bathwater ratio this decision involves.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because the idea that Congress can't set the rules for the military is a potentially dangerous idea (and one that most observers consider to be wrong).

I find much more dangerous the idea that because it pertains to the military, judicial review isn't somehow enough. If it's unconstitutional, I don't want the Executive Branch to be able to veto the judiciary.

Just because Congress sets a policy that is wrong-headed and dangerous doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

No, it's an unconstitutional law because it violates the Constitution. (I believe the judge cited the First Amendment and due process.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And why does it require legislation if the courts are willing to reject DADT as unconstitutional?

Because Obama doesn't accept that judgement (and it's not final yet, pending appeal).

I don't think your response answers my question. It doesn't actually require legislation to overturn DADT if the judiciary finds it unconstitutional.

Basically, Obama -- and most sensible observers -- are really worried about the baby-to-bathwater ratio this decision involves.

Sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. No one is suggesting that the courts take over the role of Commander in Chief, or whatever it is you're worried about. But I also don't think that's the proper role of the Legislative Branch either.

Why are you worried about the judiciary doing something it isn't at all likely to do but you're not worried that Congress might make more boneheaded decisions wrt to the military?

 

[Garrette]

Someone with far more legal expertise than I may certainly correct me, but I remember from a long ago class that federal court decisions do not necessarily have national authority (as opposed to simply in the district of that particular court) unless and until the Supreme Court upholds the decision.

Assuming I'm not way off base, POTUS is well within bounds not to abide by that ruling.