Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Brigadier-General Keith Kerr and Brigadier-General Virgil Richard, both of the US Army, and Rear Admiral Alan Steinman of the Coast Guard, said the policy had been ineffective and undermined the military's core values - truth, honour, dignity, respect and integrity.
Is it fair, not really. But what is the alternative? There are an awful lot of poorly educated fundies in the enlisted ranks of the US armed forces. That creates a culture in the lower ranks, and that 'culture' is incompatable with that of an inclusive action such as allowing gays to serve openly. That in itself is sad. If we want to make it possible for gays to serve openly, that culture MUST change. Educating the ranks is going to take time and more than a little 'thinking outside the box' to use a cliche. That is something that the military isn't known for....so it will take time. Don't you feel, Mike, that a sudden policy change would be dangerous and violent?Darth Wong wrote:The reason for their complaint is obvious: a "don't ask, don't tell" policy means that someone who is gay must keep it a secret during his entire time in the military. So in effect, it's really no different than a policy of expelling gays from the military, except that you don't have to lie when you sign up. You just have to lie the rest of the time.
Only if the gays in question decide to take risks and be very open about their sexuality in front of personnel who will obviously take offense at it. I would assume that they can tell whether it would be a good idea. But what they don't need is the knowledge that the administration will penalize them as well. It's already bad enough that their fellow soldiers might beat the shit out of them for it; why does the administration have to weigh in with its heavy hand and warn them that they'd better keep it a secret or else?Col. Crackpot wrote:Is it fair, not really. But what is the alternative? There are an awful lot of poorly educated fundies in the enlisted ranks of the US armed forces. That creates a culture in the lower ranks, and that 'culture' is incompatable with that of an inclusive action such as allowing gays to serve openly. That in itself is sad. If we want to make it possible for gays to serve openly, that culture MUST change. Educating the ranks is going to take time and more than a little 'thinking outside the box' to use a cliche. That is something that the military isn't known for....so it will take time. Don't you feel, Mike, that a sudden policy change would be dangerous and violent?
The problem is being gay is ground for discharge from the military. No, not saying your gay, but merely finding out that your gay can get you kicked out of the military. This means that gay soldiers must lie their entire time in service if they hope to keep from getting discharged. They live in constant fear of the truth being found out and their reputation being smeared.Nathan F wrote:I might not be able to see this entirely objectively, seeing as though I'm not on 'that side of the fence', but I personally see nothing wrong with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Your personal sex life should have nothing to do with your military service, and frankly, it doesn't matter if you're gay or straight. If I was a unit commander, I'd not WANT to know what sexual orientation my troops were, because of the possible friction it could cause between the soldiers.
Because the job of a military is to kill people and break things efficiently. Given the state of US society today the problems arising from openly gay service members are seen to be a larger problume then the loss of some trained warm bodies.Darth Wong wrote:It's already bad enough that their fellow soldiers might beat the shit out of them for it; why does the administration have to weigh in with its heavy hand and warn them that they'd better keep it a secret or else?
Different countries have different cultures.PainRack wrote:Look, if gays can serve in our military and since openly declearing that they're gay has had no adverse effects on their relations with other members of the section, what harm does it do?
The US military integrated blacks and whites before the rest of the country was prepared to do so.Sea Skimmer wrote:Different countries have different cultures.PainRack wrote:Look, if gays can serve in our military and since openly declearing that they're gay has had no adverse effects on their relations with other members of the section, what harm does it do?
Replace "Homosexual" with "Black" and "Heterosexual" with "White" and then try saying that again.Axis Kast wrote:Nathan makes the argument.
It's very sad, but if there's a possibly that friction between heterosexual and homosexual troops could cause problems in the field, better to keep the topic under wraps.
it's axis, so don't hold your breath.Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Replace "Homosexual" with "Black" and "Heterosexual" with "White" and then try saying that again.Axis Kast wrote:Nathan makes the argument.
It's very sad, but if there's a possibly that friction between heterosexual and homosexual troops could cause problems in the field, better to keep the topic under wraps.
I will await your concession as the day rolls by...
LOL!Col. Crackpot wrote:it's axis, so don't hold your breath.Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Replace "Homosexual" with "Black" and "Heterosexual" with "White" and then try saying that again.Axis Kast wrote:Nathan makes the argument.
It's very sad, but if there's a possibly that friction between heterosexual and homosexual troops could cause problems in the field, better to keep the topic under wraps.
I will await your concession as the day rolls by...
It is a form of punishment that is used in the military, mostly for offenses that are not illegal in the civilian world. It is also used so that a court martial is not, there is no civilian equivalent. It does not go on a persons civilian criminal record like a court martial would.Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Nind if I ask what an 'Article 15' is? Some sort of demerit?
Uniform Code of Military Justice wrote:ART. 15. COMMANDING OFFICER'S NON-JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT
(a) Under such regulations as the President may prescribe, and under such additional regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, limitations may be placed on the powers granted by this article with respect to the kind and amount of punishment authorized, the categories of commanding officers and warrant officers exercising command authorized to exercise those powers, the applicability of this article to an accused who demands trial by court-martial, and the kinds of courts-martial to which the case may be referred upon such a demand. However, except in the case of a member attached to or embarked in a vessel, punishment may not be imposed upon any member of the armed forces under this article if the member has, before the imposition of such punishment, demanded trial by court-martial in lieu of such punishment. Under similar regulations, rules may be prescribed with respect to the suspension of punishments authorized by regulations of the Secretary concerned, a commanding officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction or an officer of general or flag rank in command may delegate his powers under this article to a principal assistant.
(b) Subject to subsection (a) any commanding officer may, in addition to or in lieu of admonition or reprimand, impose one or more of the following disciplinary punishments for minor offenses without the intervention of a court-martial--
(1) upon officers of his command--
(A) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more that 30 consecutive days;
(B) if imposed by an officer exercising general court-martial jurisdictions or an officer of general flag rank in command--
(i) arrest in quarters for not more than 30 consecutive days;
(ii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for two months;
(iii) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 60 consecutive days;
(iv) detention of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for three months;
(2) upon other personnel of his command--
(A) if imposed upon a person attached to or embarked in a vessel, confinement on bread and water or diminished rations for not more than three consecutive days;
(B) correctional custody for not more than seven consecutive days;
(C) forfeiture of not more than seven days' pay;
(D) reduction to the next inferior pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction;
(E) extra duties, including fatigue or other duties, for not more than 14 consecutive days;
(F) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 14 consecutive days;
(G) detention of not more than 14 days' pay;
(H) if imposed by an officer of the grade of major or lieutenant commander, or above--
(i) the punishment authorized under clause (A);
(ii) correctional custody for not more than 30 consecutive days;
(iii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for two months;
(iv) reduction to the lowest or any intermediate pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction, by an enlisted member in a pay grade above E-4 may not be reduced more than two pay grades;
(v) extra duties, including fatigue or other duties, for not more than 45 consecutive days;
(vi) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 60 consecutive days;
(vii) detention of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for three months.
Detention of pay shall be for a stated period of not more than one year but if the offender's term of service expires earlier, the detention shall terminate upon that expiration. No two or more of the punishments of arrest in quarters, confinement or bread and water or diminished rations, correctional custody, extra duties, and restriction may be combined to run consecutively in the maximum amount impossible for each. Whenever any of those punishments are combined to run consecutively, there must be an apportionment. In addition, forfeiture of pay may not bee combined with detention of pay without an apportionment. For the purpose of this subsection, "correctional custody" is the physical restraint of a person during duty or nonduty hours and may include extra duties, fatigue duties, or hard labor. If practicable, correctional custody will not be served in immediate association with persons awaiting trial or held in confinement pursuant to trial by court-martial.
(c) An officer in charge may impose upon enlisted members assigned to the unit of which he is in charge such of the punishment authorized under subsection (b)(2)(A)-(G) as the Secretary concerned may specifically prescribe by regulation.
(d) The officer who imposes the punishment authorized in subsection (b), or his successor in command, may, at any time, suspend probationally any part or amount of the unexecuted punishment imposed and may suspend probationally a reduction in grade or forfeiture imposed under subsection (b), whether or not executed. In addition, he may, at any time, remit or mitigate any part or amount of the unexecuted punishment imposed and may set aside in whole or in part the punishment, whether executed or unexecuted, and restore all rights, privileges and property affected. He may also mitigate reduction in grade to forfeiture or detention of pay. When mitigating--
(1) arrest in quarters to restriction;
(2) confinement on bread and water or diminished rations to correctional custody;
(3) correctional custody confinement on bread and water or diminished rations to extra duties or restriction, or both; or
(4) extra duties to restriction;
the mitigated punishment shall not be for a greater period than the punishment mitigated. When mitigating forfeiture of pay to detention of pay, the amount of detention shall not be greater than the amount of the forfeiture. When mitigating reduction in grade to forfeiture or detention of pay, the amount of the forfeiture or detention shall not be greater than the amount that could have been imposed initially under this article by the officer who imposed the punishment mitigated.
(e) A person punished under this article who considers his punishment unjust or disproportionate to the offense may, through proper channels, appeal to the next superior authority. The appeal shall be promptly forwarded and decided, but the person punished may in the meantime be required to undergo the punishment adjudged. The superior authority may exercise the same powers with respect to punishment imposed as may be exercised under subsection (d) by the officer who imposed the punishment. Before acting on appeal from a punishment of--
(1) arrest in quarters for more than seven days;
(2) correctional custody for more than seven days;
(3) forfeiture of more than seven days' pay;
(4) reduction of one or more pay grades from the fourth or a higher pay grade;
(5) extra duties for more than 14 days;
(6) restriction for more than 14 days; or
(7) detention of more than 14 days' pay;
the authority who is to act on the appeal shall refer the case to a judge advocate or a lawyer of the Department of Transportation for consideration and advice, and may so refer the case upon appeal from any punishment imposed under subsection (b).
(f) The imposition and enforcement of disciplinary punishment under this article for any act or omission is not a bar to trial by court-martial for a serious crime or offense growing out of the same act or omission, and not properly punishable under this article; but the fact that a disciplinary punishment has been enforced may be shown by the accuse upon trial, and when so shown shall be considered in determining the measure of punishment to be adjudged in the event of a finding of guilty.
(g) The Secretary concerned may, by regulation, prescribe the form of records to be kept under this article and may also prescribe that certain categories of those proceedings shall be in writing.
I remember a couple of times the British government tried to reduce sailors pay..they mutinied. You can have as many laws as you like but some laws/regulations are going to be flouted, and people, in uniform or not, are people.Sam Or I wrote:Lets look at the underline question here. How much control should the government have over a soilders body?
If it comes down from the command (as article 125 does) taking right or wrong out of it, a soilder is obligated to obey the orders. Lets not forget, this is the MILITARY, not a coperation. It has been proven in military courts that its not your body anymore, its the governments. People have been known to get article 15's and loosing rank for getting sunburns (basically damaging government property). You can be jailed and kicked out for refusing a vacantation. There is talk of issuing manditory birth control to female soilders before the a war. A soilder basically has no rights when it comes to his or her body when the command orders something to be so. So if the command says you cannot commit sodomy, you don't do it, straight or gay. If it comes down from the command you don't drink alcohol, you don't do it.
