Skip to main content

View Diary: DADT Repeal: Iraq Vet Takes the Lead in Congress (164 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "more humane way"?? (4+ / 0-)

    The Secretary of Defense stated last week that he’s looking "to see if there's at least a more humane way to apply the law until the law gets changed."

     Seems to me that that would lead to even more discrimination (favoritism?) in that military officers could decide to apply the current law to those individuals they don't like (for whatever trivial reason) while turning a blind eye only to those they do (or those who brownnose the most.)
     How about the SOD tell the military to act as if  DADT has been repealed until the law gets changed?

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 10:22:55 AM PDT

    •  He's talking about not discharging people (8+ / 0-)

      who were outed involuntarily.

      •  I realize that, but would it be applied equally, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Predictor, KentuckyKat

        or would higher ups have the authority to then "review" the history of an involuntarily outed person to find some other reason to kick them out?  Ie. could they cherry pick?

        My Karma just ran over your Dogma

        by FoundingFatherDAR on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 10:40:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You don't think they "cherry pick" now? (0+ / 0-)

          One of the many bad things about DADT is that it is incoherent, especially as it is used.

          And as with all legislation with cute marketing names, the reality of DADT has nothing to do with "Don't ask, don't tell". It is a smokescreen for the armed forces to do whatever they want in these situations.

          Logic is by its very nature an abstraction of reality, so from a certain viewpoint any time you apply logic it is illogical to do so.

          by Name Withheld By Request on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 11:59:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't understand this at all (0+ / 0-)

        If the reason for DADT is because some people are uncomfortable serving with any gays, then where's the logic in letting some gays serve openly because they were outed involuntarily?  It means that the fact that they actually are gay is no longer relevant, so why does it matter for anyone?  I am 100% in favor of ending DADT yesterday, but this compromise seems to make the whole issue revolve around how a person's sexual orientation becomes known, which seems to be a really stupid way of deciding whether or not to end a person's career.

        "We *can* go back to the Dark Ages! The crust of learning and good manners and tolerance is so thin!" -- Sinclair Lewis

        by Nespolo on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 01:13:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think it's a good sign (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jay C, SallyCat, emsprater, Predictor

      that he's looking for a solution to make things better while waiting for legislation.

      I do wonder though why the president couldn't help him with that.  He could issue an executive order very quickly that acted as a bridge.  Perhaps that is what they are going to do and Pres. Obama is just waiting for a recommendation from Gates and officers in the military who will actually have to implement it, and then will make it official by exec. order.

      I do hope that it applies to Lt. Dan Choi and reverses his discharge before it happens.  I'm pretty sure that a lot of people (like Murphy, Sestak) have gone to bat for Choi behind the scenes.  He's the one who really put DADT back into the spotlight and successfully attempted to force some action on it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site