Adminsitration Seeks Change to Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[Broomstick]

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the first time, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is outlining potential Obama administration plans to enforce the "don't ask, don't tell" rule selectively so that some gays could serve in the military.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says there may be flexibility in applying "don't ask, don't tell."

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says there may be flexibility in applying "don't ask, don't tell."

Gates said he is looking at ways to make the policy "more humane," including letting people serve who may have been outed due to vengeance or a jilted lover. The remarks appeared in a transcript the Pentagon released Tuesday.

In addition, Capt. John Kirby, spokesman for Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday the chairman "supports the idea of a less draconian way of enforcing the policy."

Instituted in 1993, "don't ask, don't tell" ended the military's practice of asking potential service members if they are gay, but it requires the dismissal of openly gay service members.

Gates told reporters traveling with him, "One of the things we're looking at -- is there flexibility in how we apply this law?"

Gates indicated he is looking at several options. "Let me give you an example. Do we need to be driven when the information, to take action on somebody, if we get that information from somebody who may have vengeance in mind or blackmail or somebody who has been jilted?"

Gates said he has discussed the issue with President Obama and also during a meeting with his top war-fighting commanders last week.

At that military meeting, Gates said, "The issue that we face is that how do we begin to do preparations and simultaneously the administration move forward in terms of asking the Congress to change the law."

Shortly before the president's inauguration, spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama was committed to repealing the policy. In a response to a question on the Web site Change.gov asking whether Obama would get rid of "don't ask, don't tell," Gibbs said: "You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.' "

Gibbs later clarified that "not everything will get done in the beginning, but [the president is] committed to following through" with ending the policy.

During the presidential campaign, Obama said he would work to end the policy, but because it is dictated by federal law, he cannot end it unilaterally.

Five months into his presidency, Obama has been criticized for not moving fast enough to propose a repeal of the rule to Congress. Gates did not indicate the Pentagon was yet supporting a full repeal.

"What we have is a law -- be it a policy or a regulation -- and as I discovered when I got into it, it's a very prescriptive law. It doesn't leave much to the imagination for a lot of flexibility. And so one of the things we're looking at -- is there flexibility in how we apply this law?"

The secretary appears to be proposing interim measures. "If somebody is outed by a third party ... does that force us to take an action? And I don't know the answer to that, and I don't want to pretend to," Gates said. "But that's the kind of thing we're looking at to see if there's at least a more humane way to apply the law until the law gets changed."

President Clinton tried to lift the ban on gays in the military when he took office, but the military leadership strenuously opposed him.

Congress stripped Clinton of his power to change the policy and forced him to accept the "don't ask, don't tell" compromise, a law that only Congress can repeal

I'm particularly interested in how the LGBT segment of SD.net view this.

Myself, I view it as a positive, a way of moderating the current law until that law can be appealed. One of the more damaging aspects of DADT was the problem of third parties outing a homosexual service members whose conduct was otherwise acceptable (or even superior). This would go a long way to mitigate such damage, in that it would (ideally) insulate honorable service people from malicious intent. They would be judged on their conduct, not on hearsay. It would also allow the military to keep valuable personnel instead of being compelled to discharge them due to third party malice.

Granted it's not as good as an appeal, but is it an acceptable interim measure?

[Simon_Jester]

As an interim measure, it has one big advantage- it limits the damage caused by the DADT policy until we can have a national debate over whether or not to drop the policy.

I think we should drop it, shifting to a "don't ask, don't care" model*. But I also think that it's really dangerous to enact social policy shifts on a top-down basis without getting general agreement on the issue.
_______

A good example of the problem is Prohibition in the United States. Regardless of whether prohibiting alcohol was a good idea or a bad one,* it was clearly a bad idea to pass it before the nation as a whole was ready to follow it. A lot of people got railroaded into supporting it because of the actions of the self-righteous wing of the temperance movement, but we didn't really have a national consensus in which most Americans honestly believed that alcohol was such a bad thing it should be illegal.

The result? People ignored a law that they thought was stupid. Because there were so many Americans who still wanted alcohol, a massive smuggling industry sprang up to provide it, with results that are well known.

Prohibition would not have passed had there been a serious attempt to figure out what the American people wanted, rather than a small group trying to impose their will on the public as a whole. Even if that small group had been right, trying to force the issue before the country was ready was a mistake. It created a law that most of the public was inclined to ignore, and setting up the law to be ignored is a bad idea on general principles.

*I think it was a very bad idea.
________

Another, more recent example in the US is abortion. In 1972, abortion was illegal in almost all parts of the US, and there were still a LOT of Americans who liked it that way. The nation's sexual mores were relaxing over time, but they hadn't relaxed to the point where the general public was comfortable with legalized abortions.

Then in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled (to summarize) that a woman had a right to have an abortion. This overturned laws in most of the country. Overnight, we went from "abortion is illegal almost everywhere" to "abortion is legal everywhere."

Social conservatives rebelled almost immediately. Abortion became a rallying point for reactionaries, because to a social conservative, abortion was indistinguishable from murder. The idea that huge numbers of children were being murdered (aborted) every year gave social conservatives a very strong reason to try and undo Roe v. Wade.

The result? Religious conservatives in America were given a wedge issue that made them far more powerful than they ever would have been before. Those same conservatives suddenly had cause to resent "judicial activism," and to blame this new murderous decadence they saw around them on "liberals"- an ill-defined group that could be associated with almost everything the government had done since the 1930s.

Which in turn led to the rise of the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush-era Republican party. I'd call that a disaster, and the disaster happened in large part because the government tried to force reforms too quickly, on a country that was still too conservative to accept it without a fight.
_______

The practical upshot of all this is that I think we should be careful to make sure we have a democratic consensus behind social policy changes. As long as the people opposed to the change are in the minority, we're safe. But if the people opposed are a majority, or even a 50/50 split, trying to force the issue is likely to do more harm than good.

[CaptJodan]

On the surface, I'd say it's positive. Deep seeded paranoia makes me wonder if the stop-gap might be all that they end up doing, but there are other things on the man's plate, and we're only 6 months in to the first year. If nothing else, the attempt to make a more "humane" reading of the policy shows an attempt and desire to change things in the right direction.

It really depends on how "interim" it is. I actually expect the promise to be upheld in the first four years, not the theoredical last four.

[Samuel]

But I also think that it's really dangerous to enact social policy shifts on a top-down basis without getting general agreement on the issue.

No, it is only a problem when the bayonets are removed.

Regardless of whether prohibiting alcohol was a good idea or a bad one,* it was clearly a bad idea to pass it before the nation as a whole was ready to follow it. A lot of people got railroaded into supporting it because of the actions of the self-righteous wing of the temperance movement, but we didn't really have a national consensus in which most Americans honestly believed that alcohol was such a bad thing it should be illegal.

Even consensus does not make it any better an idea.

The result? People ignored a law that they thought was stupid.

No, people ignored it because they wanted to drink alcohol. The reason that the current war on drugs was not as much as a clusterfuck is because fewer individuals were taking drugs before they were banned than alcohol.

Social conservatives rebelled almost immediately.

Actually, it wasn't until several years later. Immediately after there was no impact on them. Hell, Nixon was in favor of it. They just got the records that had his comments- he didn't like it, but he thought it was a good idea "in the cases of interracial marriage or rape". Nixon was slightly racist.

and to blame this new murderous decadence they saw around them on "liberals"- an ill-defined group that could be associated with almost everything the government had done since the 1930s.

They have always blamed things on liberals.

Which in turn led to the rise of the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush-era Republican party. I'd call that a disaster, and the disaster happened in large part because the government tried to force reforms too quickly, on a country that was still too conservative to accept it without a fight.

Actually, Carter was responsible for bringing evangelicals back into the political limelight. I'm sure they could find a cause to protest even without abortion- pornography is the most obvious.

The practical upshot of all this is that I think we should be careful to make sure we have a democratic consensus behind social policy changes. As long as the people opposed to the change are in the minority, we're safe. But if the people opposed are a majority, or even a 50/50 split, trying to force the issue is likely to do more harm than good.

Except that the changes in policy shift the amount of people in favor of the policy. Once something has been normal for a while it becomes harder to change.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

It's definitely a positive step but of course, not sufficient. The administration does not have to enforce DADT while it's attempting to repeal it. With such broad support across party lines, I have yet to see a convincing argument that enforcing DADT will significantly hurt the administration's political capital elsewhere. I recently just came across this little NYT opinion video, which sheds a bit of light on what some gay servicemen and women in relationships have to go through and it's just downright heartbreaking.

[Wicked Pilot]

There are plenty of low level officers who already look the other way on this type thing. We have several in our unit who fit every stereotype of gay with the exception of outright saying 'I'm gay'. Otherwise they do their job and nobody fucks with them. We undoubtedly have more who fit no stereotype. I'm sure though if either group muttered those two words we'd have planes falling out of the sky and the terrorist would win.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

It seems to me like it's a very situational thing. There are some parts in the military where a many look the other way, and other parts where some are just less fortunate.

[Alyeska]

This is a step in the right direction. The theory behind DADT was Don't Ask, DON'T TELL. How they let 3rd party hersay into this to railroad people who are honorably serving their country and followed the rules, that just pisses me off. More so when critical service personal are outed. Pilots with long terms of service, linguists who know a language in very high demand. That is cutting off the nose to spite the face. Now, if we can get rid of DADT, so much the better.

[Starglider]

It seems to me like it's a very situational thing. There are some parts in the military where a many look the other way, and other parts where some are just less fortunate.

I'm curious if there's any systematic difference between the three main armed services, in DADT enforcement. Does anyone here know?

[Samuel]

It seems to me like it's a very situational thing. There are some parts in the military where a many look the other way, and other parts where some are just less fortunate.

I'm curious if there's any systematic difference between the three main armed services, in DADT enforcement. Does anyone here know?

I heard the navy is supposed to be the lackest, but I don't have anything definate.

[dragon]

This is a step in the right direction. The theory behind DADT was Don't Ask, DON'T TELL. How they let 3rd party hersay into this to railroad people who are honorably serving their country and followed the rules, that just pisses me off. More so when critical service personal are outed. Pilots with long terms of service, linguists who know a language in very high demand. That is cutting off the nose to spite the face. Now, if we can get rid of DADT, so much the better.

The funny thing is when the people from the JAG office used to brief our unit on the DADT they kept telling us that hersay is not enough to have someone removed. This way a disgruntal fellow solider can't fake revenge as there must be enough evidence to start an offical inquiry. One of the example he gave us was the following.

The unit 1SG sees one of his soldiers go into a gay bar or paticapate in a gay pride parade. THis is not enough that they can start an investigation. Now if he finds the soldier involved in carnal activaties with a member of the same sex thats a different story. However the legal person told us thats theres ways of getting around that as well that falls fully with in the scopes of the don't ask, don't tell policy.

However for those thats been in the military we all know thats just because the rules say one thing doesn't mean much and that the higher ups did to do what they despite if its right or wrong. I would say more but I have to go catch a bus before I'm late for class.

[Molyneux]

This seems to be something along the lines of "necessary, but not sufficient"...DADT simply has got to go.
Ah well...in the meantime, at least I have a near-guaranteed out if the draft ever gets called up again.

[Darth Wong]

It's definitely a positive step but of course, not sufficient. The administration does not have to enforce DADT while it's attempting to repeal it.

Uh, yes they do. Deliberate non-enforcement of the law is essentially the same as repealing the law without going through proper channels. It's exactly the sort of scoff-law behaviour the Bush Administration was infamous for.

What they're doing here is arguing that there is room to re-interpret the law so that service members who are "outed" by someone else don't get treated as "openly gay" members. It's a re-interpretation, not an outright "I don't agree with this law so I'm going to treat it as toilet paper" statement.

[Setzer]

The way some of the people in the Navy talk, you'd think we were the Sacred Band of Thebes. Even men who are perfectly straight jokingly flirt with eachother, and no one gives a shit. Repealing DADT just seems to be common sense at this point.

[Zwinmar]

I know when I was in even the rumor caused that Marine to disappear from the unit.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

It's definitely a positive step but of course, not sufficient. The administration does not have to enforce DADT while it's attempting to repeal it.

Uh, yes they do. Deliberate non-enforcement of the law is essentially the same as repealing the law without going through proper channels. It's exactly the sort of scoff-law behaviour the Bush Administration was infamous for.

What they're doing here is arguing that there is room to re-interpret the law so that service members who are "outed" by someone else don't get treated as "openly gay" members. It's a re-interpretation, not an outright "I don't agree with this law so I'm going to treat it as toilet paper" statement.

I was under the impression that it was well within the legal limits of the administration to issue an executive order to stop enforcing DADT. But it seems that you're mainly arguing that such actions (assuming if they were legal) would be an unethical use of power.

[Darth Wong]

I was under the impression that it was well within the legal limits of the administration to issue an executive order to stop enforcing DADT.

I'm no lawyer, but in any practical sense, if this is legal, then it would mean that the President has the personal ability to nullify any law he wishes to, with no real checks or balances.

But it seems that you're mainly arguing that such actions (assuming if they were legal) would be an unethical use of power.

One can argue the ethics of the situation from many angles, but is this really a precedent you want to be set and accepted?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I'm no lawyer, but in any practical sense, if this is legal, then it would mean that the President has the personal ability to nullify any law he wishes to, with no real checks or balances.

Admittedly, I'm a little fuzzy on the legalities of presidential executive orders as well. It just seemed as if most people understood this as well within the president's rights. Harry Truman issued an executive order desegregating the military in 1948 and I don't think people would consider that as a precedent to justify allowing the president to nullify any law he wishes. Then again, I don't think there was a law passed by Congress enforcing segregation (I could be wrong on this). I don't know what the scope of the implications of such an executive order would be.

One can argue the ethics of the situation from many angles, but is this really a precedent you want to be set and accepted?

I know Bush seemed to think he could throw out just about any kind of executive order he wanted and that's certainly not the precedent I like being set and accepted. I don't know if an executive order regarding the military is the same thing, however.

[Mr Bean]

I'm no lawyer, but in any practical sense, if this is legal, then it would mean that the President has the personal ability to nullify any law he wishes to, with no real checks or balances.

He has the right as the President as Commander in Chief to order the services to stop prosecuting DADT cases until the law can be reviewed, this is due to his dual authority as head of the military and head of the executive branch. Legally he can get away with it only in matters such as this. And it only applies to military specific laws, or at least so Supremes has ruled. Of course Bush the second expanded it to anything and everything and Obama as many feared has done nothing to pull back this expansion of Presidential power.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Of course Bush the second expanded it to anything and everything and Obama as many feared has done nothing to pull back this expansion of Presidential power.

Shouldn't the scaling back of Bush's expansion of presidential power be the job of one of the other two branches of government? How are we supposed to expect the executive branch to be its own checks and balances?

[Broomstick]

I'm no lawyer, but in any practical sense, if this is legal, then it would mean that the President has the personal ability to nullify any law he wishes to, with no real checks or balances.

Admittedly, I'm a little fuzzy on the legalities of presidential executive orders as well. It just seemed as if most people understood this as well within the president's rights. Harry Truman issued an executive order desegregating the military in 1948 and I don't think people would consider that as a precedent to justify allowing the president to nullify any law he wishes.

Truman issued executive order 9981 in July 1948. The army did not actually desegregate until July 1951. So even a direct order from the Commander in Chief will not guarantee an immediate end to any form of discrimination in the US military. It was not until some of the initial units sent to Korea were decimated and their remnants combined without regard to race (so desperate was the manpower situation) that the military finally stopped the racial bullshit (and don't we all know that racial bigotry in the US military still exists in festering pockets).

[Simon_Jester]

But I also think that it's really dangerous to enact social policy shifts on a top-down basis without getting general agreement on the issue.

No, it is only a problem when the bayonets are removed.

You're right, but I'll have to remove them sooner or later. And if I don't want to create a police state in the name of ensuring greater freedom through my reforms, then I'll have to remove the bayonets very quickly, and use them only sparingly.
______

Even consensus does not make it any better an idea.

Again, you're right. The catch is that even when you've got a reform that is objectively a good idea, there are ways to implement it that are just plain bad policy. And doing things that way will cause you a lot of trouble in the long run, regardless of whether you were right or wrong in the first place.

Bad tactics can make good strategy irrelevant.
_____

They [American social conservatives] have always blamed things on liberals.

Yes, but abortion gave them something really big to blame on liberals.

It's always best to weaken your enemy until he can't stop you before giving him a symbol to rally the troops with.
_____

Actually, Carter was responsible for bringing evangelicals back into the political limelight. I'm sure they could find a cause to protest even without abortion- pornography is the most obvious.

I agree that the picture is more complicated than "abortion and only abortion => evangelical revolt => thirty years of policy disasters in America."

But abortion became a very powerful weapon for the "pro-life" movement. Remember that, as you say, Carter mobilized the evangelicals... but Carter was a Democrat. Why were the Republicans so effective at welding effectively all the religious fanatics into their camp in the years after that?

I submit that one reason they found it so easy was because of wedge issues. Taking an anti-abortion stance didn't cost them very much politically, and it split off a lot of social conservatives who were cautiously accepting of the overall '70s Democratic program.

It wasn't the only reason we have such a mess in American politics today, but it was a powerful weapon in the hands of the people who made the mess.
_____

The practical upshot of all this is that I think we should be careful to make sure we have a democratic consensus behind social policy changes. As long as the people opposed to the change are in the minority, we're safe. But if the people opposed are a majority, or even a 50/50 split, trying to force the issue is likely to do more harm than good.

Except that the changes in policy shift the amount of people in favor of the policy. Once something has been normal for a while it becomes harder to change.

True, but that only works when you make changes people can live with. If you try to force more change than people are willing to tolerate, they rebel, and you wind up in trouble whether you were making the right changes or not.

I don't really like that fact, because it means that sometimes there's something I think the country ought to do, but that I don't think the public will accept if their leaders try to impose it on them. And then I have to say stuff like "maybe we should go slower on this." I don't care for the way it makes me sound, but I believe it anyway. There are too many examples of a reformer trying to go too far too fast and losing the people they needed to make the reforms stick.

[Samuel]

You're right, but I'll have to remove them sooner or later. And if I don't want to create a police state in the name of ensuring greater freedom through my reforms, then I'll have to remove the bayonets very quickly, and use them only sparingly.

Technically it isn't a police state. It is merely insuring that local authorities actually obey the lawful orders of their superiors instead of openly violating the law. Force is used because they are blatantly breaking the law.

Yes, but abortion gave them something really big to blame on liberals.

I'm not sure- they also find evolution a big issue and the fight against it mirrors that fight against abortion. It is quite possible that the religious right could have been whipped up by anything they precieve as immorality. It might be less effective, but it would still work- look at how they reacted to homosexuality.

[Simon_Jester]

You're right, but I'll have to remove them sooner or later. And if I don't want to create a police state in the name of ensuring greater freedom through my reforms, then I'll have to remove the bayonets very quickly, and use them only sparingly.

Technically it isn't a police state. It is merely insuring that local authorities actually obey the lawful orders of their superiors instead of openly violating the law. Force is used because they are blatantly breaking the law.

I'm saying that I have to use enforcers sparingly to not have a police force. If I have to keep enforcers around to point guns at local governments and make them do what I say, and to keep them around all the time, for long periods, then I have what is in essence a police state.

Yes, but abortion gave them something really big to blame on liberals.

I'm not sure- they also find evolution a big issue and the fight against it mirrors that fight against abortion. It is quite possible that the religious right could have been whipped up by anything they precieve as immorality. It might be less effective, but it would still work- look at how they reacted to homosexuality.

But there are significant differences between their campaigns against homosexuality and the theory of evolution and their campaign against abortion.

The first and most obvious one is that abortion is the only one of these issues that allows you to directly accuse your enemies of murdering babies. Infanticide is almost universally opposed. You don't have to be a religious fanatic to oppose murdering babies, and if you think that fetuses are babies, then abortion becomes a powerful wedge issue for you.

The entire abortion debate revolves around the definition of "person." For American social conservatives (including the ones who aren't religious fanatics), "person" is generally defined to begin at conception. And if you believe that, then abortion is mass murder and there's no way around it. When someone like Pat Robertson gets up and starts denouncing abortion as mass murder, even people who aren't with him all the way will react positively to him. It gives him a lot more clout than he would wield without being able to use the abortion debate in his favor.
________

What I'm trying to get at is that progressives, Roe v. Wade was a very flawed victory. Liberalization works best as a gradual process. If your goal was to establish legalized abortion in American society, your best bet would be to let people to come around to the idea that "abortion is tolerable" quietly- or waiting for the old guard to die without passing on their memes to their children, as was already happening on other issues like race.

But the Supreme Court's top-down attack forced all the states to legalize abortions. That included the liberal ones already willing to reconsider their abortion bans, and the ultraconservative ones that were decades away from that point. As a result, many Americans resent the fact that (in their minds) they were forced to accept infanticide by a bunch of unelected, unaccountable judges.

The upside from the liberal standpoint, of course, is that abortion is officially tolerated legally in America. The downside is that the way it became legal had a lot of damaging side effects.

[Darth Wong]

This sounds like a lot of nonsense to me. We had plenty of liberal precedents imposed on us in a top-down manner in Canada (most recently being gay marriage), and it didn't cause a backlash. The "backlash" is more simply explained as Americans being intrinsically more conservative and reactionary.