Well this didn't take long...

The Christian Science Monitor

'Don't ask, don't tell' back in force after appeals court issues stay
By Warren Richey,*Staff writer / October 20, 2010

An appeals court decides that 'don't ask, don't tell' can temporarily remain in effect as legal proceedings continue.

Yeh - We all knew it was coming, didn't we?

Too bad this administration "had" to appeal it.

At least it is headed in the right direction. It certainly wouldn't have gotten this far under the R's.

Why would Obama shoot themselves in the collective foot after all those promises Obama made about DADT?

The Obama Administration is not shooting themselves in the foot...

It's because the commander in chief has a responsibility to safeguard the authority of the office of the President IAW the separation of powers. As you have remarked, there needs to be an orderly transition. If some judge can bark orders at the military and force it to rearrange its priorities (to effect immediate implementation) on this issue, judges could do so on other issues for whatever reasons. It would set a precedent that undermines the power of the Executive branch.

I don't need you to quote the oath. Obama promised to do away with DADT. The simple solution would have been for the CIC to issue an order the day after he took office. The military does not need some orderly transition. It is no different from the integration of blacks and women. There were plenty of top down orders that came from the leadership that people didn't like and don't like. But you take your marching orders and make the appropriate change. Screw the lower court rulings, they are not needed and I don't think carry much weight when it comes to establishing policy and procedure in the military.

Well, the oath Obama took is the basis for what is happening now.

There is a pretty good editorial in the NY Times today about this business,
and another possible route the CIC could possibly take.

But there does seem to be unanimity among the legal dogs
that since DADT is in a law passed by Congrees, it is not like the integration
of Blacks and women in the services to be voided by executive order.

At least that is how I understand and accept what is going on now.

Wait which is it? The bold (mine) in the first or the second?

Systematic in the since that the order is given, the troops are prepped for what is coming, and the change is made.

NOT, systematic in the sense that the military needs to do some study or poll among staff weenies to see if they are ok with it as Gates stated recently. There has been a sea of change in the attitude since the 70's when I first joined. It will not go well at first in many units. Others will not care. But as I listened to the discussion in the immediate news I have modified my stance on it and they just need to get it done. They need to stop circling around the issue and just do it.

It couldn't be voided, but it could be rendered toothless. But only so long as the executive order remains in effect.

It's possible that if he had issued the executive order, there would be less impetus for Congress to act, so maybe it's better in the long run to not issue the order.

The same might be true for the judicial order. It's a lower level court, so it can be overruled. If the Justice Department had declined to appeal, Congress may have thought that there was no longer any hurry to repeal the law, only to have another case come through later and put it back in effect.

Appealing to the Supreme Court is tricky. While it would be best for them to get to the Supreme Court and lose, that puts them in the position of actively supporting a Constitutional right for the government to discriminate against gays, which is not a defensible position. And given the makeup of the court, they could win, which would be the worst outcome. Even if Congress repealed the law, there would be Supreme Court precedent that homophobia is a valid government position.

I would have thought that leaving the anti-DADT judicial order in place might have been the best option. Enter the Supreme Court battle with months of openly gay military service already in place.

The bottom line folks is that the CIC can issue an order and it will the lay of the land. Congress can back it up for him if they want.

This is exactly the type of situation where "change" is needed.
There shouldn't be all this time and money wasted on something so painfully
obvious to virtually everyone.
<insert frustrated smilie here>

Merc, to your point about CIC issuing a order, the problem is that another CIC (President) could resend that order and the whole issue would ping-pong.

Here is what is happening today...


Posted on Advocate.com
November 05, 2010

Log Cabin Petitions Supreme Court
By Kerry Eleveld

Look, in my 20+ years the CIC issued a number of orders, and his subordinates did the same, and they all became the law of the land for the immediate. Whether is changes in 4 or 8 years is insignificant, the point is that the process is started and people accept it as the norm, whether we agree with it or not. And I assure you there are a few issues that we did not agree with. But you take your orders and drive on. That is what we are paid to do. The CIC can do the same with DADT.

My understanding is that DADT is a law passed by Congress.

If any President/CIC were to issue such an order defying that law, it could be an impeachable offense.
Maybe my understanding is not correct, so enlighten me...

One of the issues Obama campaigned on was elimination of DADT.
Obama has said he wants Congress to overturn DADT.
Obama has had several opportunities to take the route of issuing an order as CIC,
but instead he has taken the route of formally appealing (via the Dept of Justice) the issue up thru the federal courts.

So, I ask you very specifically: why do you believe Obama is refraining from issuing an order as CIC to overturn DADT ?

Look up the definition of impeachable events for our president and enlighten yourself.

Because in the shadow of the elections he was not about to do another thing that would jeopardize votes. He promised to get it repealed and he has not done so. Just like he promised to close Gitmo, which he has not. It could overturned in the short term with the stroke of a pen and then let the courts deal with it. In the mean time it would send a clear signal where he stands on the issue and then pass it off to a final arbitrator. In the mean time those in Congress can take the time to form a bill that would support his edict.

From here

As I stated...

convenient timing

I'm wondering why Politifact quoted a source from a blog post quoting a letter from candidate Obama dated Feb 28, 2008. Shouldn't they be using something more, uh whats the word, concrete or current or something. That just seems pretty weak.

Come on Classic, at least quote MTP's link fairly:

Go to the sources at the top of the page Lamp...
You'll see what is listed as sources. I wasn't taking a shot at MTP at all.

Oh, and on a side note - I think his letter is more political fodder than anything else.

At the top of that same web page there is an ad for Quiznos pizza.
Should we also "wonder" if Obama is selling pizzas from the White House ? :rolleyes:

MTP gave a quote and a valid link to that quote.
At the bottom of that article is it's list of sources,
none of which include the blog or letter you reference.

While I wish he'd use more of the levers of power available to him, the timing of this is irrelevant, as it is not the first time he has said this. Why is it notable that he said on the day after the election the same thing he'd been saying repeatedly before the election?

This is the part I am referring to. I tried to tell you where it was and went further to specifically state

Classic: that is the source for the Obama promise, not the article. The article sources are at the bottom of it like Lamp stated.
The website is saying they got the Obama promise from the blog, not any of the information for article.

Ok - gotcha - That makes more sense. My bad.
Thanks for that MTP and thanks for the screenshot. I couldn't make that happen after 20 tries.... Doh!

Sec Defense's 400K questionnaire is being "run up the flag pole".
Unfortunately, it seems conclusions are being leaked, but no data.

I, personally, am surprised that while the manly Marine General Amos
objects to repealing DADT, the Navy is reported to be OK with it.
"... it is not a matter of sleeping accomodations"

But I don't see why it has become a "Republican" issue, except for being Sen McCain's last hoorah.
I think the real issue is identified in this article... a matter of leadership.

NY Times

Little Harm Found if Gay Ban Is Lifted
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: November 11, 2010

He should just do it and let them sue him about it - I'd love to hear their arguments against. Fuckin' jerkholes!

I take back a tiny little bit of what I said last October about Sec Defense Gates.
Somewhere I heard it was Gates that ordered his Report one day earlier than Dec 1st, and that
could make a difference in allowing DADT to be voted on in the current legislative session.

NY Times Editorial
No Time to Wait for Justice
Published: November 23, 2010

Sounds like it should be more than a "tiny little bit" - seems like he did what he could to enact the change you agree with. Or am I missing something?

Well Classic, that goes back to my previous (OP) postings in this thread.

I know - I know. I think it would be more of a virtual 180 instead of the tiny bit.
I also think Obama should incessantly & repeatedly voice his opinion about this issue.
Leave no stone unturned. This is the most basic slam dunk there is. Stop it ASAP.

Yesterday the Joint Chiefs of Staff and today the Generals in Hearings,
all responded that they can and will implement repeal of DADT
when it is passed and (I think) all agreed it should be repealed.

But Army and Marine Generals want to wait "until the War is over".

Senator John McCain says "he and 42(?) other Republicans will not allow
repeal of DADT because the economy is in the tank"

We will check with Johnny after the weekend to get his "Monday-reason"
for opposing DADT will be,
and if he can remember what was his "Friday-reason"

That was never the issue. The real issue is about bogging Congress down with irrelevant issues so that the lame duck Congress cannot pass other 'critical' legislation. This is a perfect issue to be obstructionist.

NY Times
‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal Falls Short in Senate
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR 3 minutes ago


Added from another NY Times article:

The talking heads on TV are saying that the repeal of DADT will happen tomorrow (Sat, Dec 18).

So we'll either see the Republicans vote again for filibuster,
or a few from the New England states cross over that line.

Or maybe, the Republicans will do another of their flip-flops,
and all 40 vote for repeal.
Then they will claim they are the ones who repealed DADT.

Hopefully, we'll see the repeal of DADT, no matter what the tally.

Bravo. It is time for a change. I hope it passes, without demoncratic or republickin earmarks or riders.

Maybe this thread will be dead in the next 30 hours.

The Senate's procedural vote (against filibuster) passed 63 to 33.
Now for 30 hours of Senate debate, unless the Republicans wish to shorten that time.

And yes, McCain is still doing his thing of warning against dire consequences to come from repeal.

Just came across this list of Republicans voting Yea:

The Senate moved the final vote on repeal of DADT to this afternoon, and it passed !

Here is a blog write-up of what happened during the day:

Here are some post-vote remarks by Senators:

And to Merc...

Although we've disagreed on many issues over the past few months,
I'm very pleased that you and I have been in agreement on this issue.
It was originally your words that prompted me to start this thread
I'm very pleased, indeed.

Bravo!

Does this mean those that have been booted out, sadly legally, can be reinstated, or at least re-up?

I am pretty sure they will all be able to rejoin if that was the only reason they were booted and it was not for sexual misconduct or something else.

Agreed.

Here's a nice story to go along with Obama's signing ceremony,
and to finish off this effort.


Read more: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gayso...#ixzz18sEeeden

Wow, I am surprised this guy got away with this. It was not that long ago. I see an early retirement for him in the next 30 days. The problem is they are going to have to find a new captain for the ship before it leaves.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...-due-to-videos

Merc, your comments and link must not refer to the post above it,
but are starting a new drift, unrelated to DADT.

If it is DADT, I don't see the connection.
If not, the link shows the military has still some foolish officers in command.

Since I hope and believe the repeal of DADT will be lead
to changing hearts and minds in both the military and civilian life,
I'm starting to wonder which minority group will be the next
to become the targets of the bigots.

I'm sure the film industry can come up with new epithets
for the DI's to use in their "boot camp" training scenes.
Then we will have another way to age-date war movies.

It is related because here we have a major commander publicly making biased and derogatory remarks on a public ships tv channel against gay and women. It was out of line. But yet he got away with it for quite some time with no obvious repercussions. It is completely relevant to the thread.

OK, gotcha

When you have attitudes like that coming from the command it will breed violence and support those who have really bigoted attitudes towards the needed change. Further it may alienate those who would other wise step up and come forward when needed to support their fellow sailors, who they themselves may not be gay, but who might otherwise be afraid, because of peer and command pressure to not do the right thing. If the commander is publicly making derogatory remarks against gays the last thing a person is going to do is go against that commanders feelings by reporting or supporting those around them. Command Climate is everything in the military. It makes or breaks organizations.

It's maggots, not faggots.

"I see an early retirement for him in the next 30 days."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/04...bright-future/

I've not followed this story on Honors.
If the movie event was several years ago:

1) Why was he even promoted from 2nd to 1st command (May 2010) ?

2) Who is over-riding his promotion and forcing his "retirement" ?

3) Does it link directly to the repeal of DADT, or is that coincidental ?

I think it is politically motivated. I watched the videos & they are no worse than what you see on Comedy Central.

But a US warship is not comedy central, at least I hope not. Location, location, location.

1) The incident wasn't vigorously contested; so, the promotion went through based upon the remainder of his service record. At the time, gay sailors contesting it could have been construed as violating DADT, straight sailors contesting it as ombudsmen could have been construed as failing to report a violation (guilt by association), and straight sailors contesting it autonomously could have been construed as supporting what was then considered to be a detriment to military service. No one has a right to serve in the military and no one has a right to a security clearance (which may be required to hold federal job positions both military and civilian). Security clearances are very political.

2) His retirement will be brought about by all those in his chain of command and political oversight committees who are concerned with military personnel recruitment and retention. Captain Honor has become a PR nightmare.

3) Our all volunteer military is overextended. Prerequisites for military service changes under such circumstances: age requirements are broadened, education requirements are lowered, some criminal backgrounds are waivered, females work in close combat roles ... etc. The implementation of DADT and its eventual repeal come about because of neither kind heartedness nor fairness by the military hierarchy and politicos. It came about just as the other changes and waivers did, because they desperately needed skills that are possessed by some who would not otherwise be eligible for military service. Captain Honor's command style became an obstacle to that objective through the specific topics he made light of and the timing of the DADT repeal.

:lol:

I feel a bit sorry for Honors; he has done a lot of excellent service, and had he been no more than a junior officer these videos would get him a moderate smack on the wrist. But you just can't have a 2IC or a captain behaving like that. I'd like to see him resign "voluntarily" rather than be pushed.

Sexbon, thank you for such a well-composed reply.