Comments on The Last Debate: Army Protects Decorated Soldier By Firing Him

Well, Little Cicero, I think you're asking two sep...

2006-08-08T09:32:00.000-04:00

Well, Little Cicero, I think you're asking two separate questions. "Is DADT Constitutional?" is a separate legal issue aside from why the gay soldier is the one punished when his supervisors asked the forbidden question. But I'm glad you agree that the wrong person is in trouble, regardless of how we feel about the value of DADT.

This is a case of a violation of DADT by the "aske...

2006-08-07T22:03:00.000-04:00

This is a case of a violation of DADT by the "askers" rather than the "tellers". What more is there to say? People in the military don't believe in DADT, but that has little Constitutional significance. I ask you, in all your expertise, whether it is up to the courts to scrutinize policies in accord with the Constitution, or to scrutinize enforcements? We have been having a constitutional discussion- not simply a policy discussion. Is the policy defined by the enforcement? It very well may be, but if the policy is separate from the enforcement, then this report should not yield the condemnation of DADT that you're suggesting.

The Daily Show covered the story, and joked that B...

2006-08-07T21:30:00.000-04:00

The Daily Show covered the story, and joked that Bleu made a scathing criticism of the policy, but that nobody could understand it because it was in Arabic. Heh.

Well put. I have nothing to add but my agreement....

2006-08-07T20:43:00.000-04:00

Well put. I have nothing to add but my agreement.

Great post, Andy, although frustrating subject mat...

2006-08-07T16:43:00.000-04:00

Great post, Andy, although frustrating subject matter. How anyone can defend the DADT policy and still say they believe in freedom and liberty is beyond me.

Thanks, Mr. Lesh! : ) You make a great point. I ...

2006-08-07T14:12:00.000-04:00

Thanks, Mr. Lesh! : ) You make a great point. I wasn't able to find it again, but recently I read an article about conservative Christians and their attitudes toward homosexuality, and overwhelmingly, those that were opposed to homosexuality *claimed* they didn't know any homosexuals. I'm pretty sure they do, they just don't know it. And that is really the POINT of DADT, isn't it? If those tough-as-nails old army coots are forced to acknowledge that some of their best soldiers are gay, well...that would rock their worldview a bit now, wouldn't it?

Geez, Andy. I don't know which sector would lose ...

2006-08-07T13:50:00.000-04:00

Geez, Andy. I don't know which sector would lose / lost a more valuable player. The opera for losing you (having never heard you sing, through your stories I can only imagine your "chops"), or the LGBT Activist community if you didn't have to leave the opera.

My beef with DADT (aside from the BLATANT civil rights violations) is that any one with a modicum of intelligence can realize that this has to potential to turn into a McCarthy-esque witch hunt of grand scale.

Got a beef with a soldier? Accuse him of being gay! Hate your CO? Tell the brass you are pretty sure he hit on you! Once the accusation is made, it appears the burden of proof is on the accused. Private grievances become public and the armed services lose dedicated patriots because of this policy.

In all of the previous posts, I think LC did make a good point in acknowledging that his ignorance comes from not knowing any homosexuals and that the only way he can / might(?) understand the issues is to know and befriend one. Perhaps this gets to the crux of the issue: DADT should be abolished so the "homophobes" in the armed services can see that homosexuals can kick as much enemy butt as the straight folks.

Insitutional discrimination is well documented thr...

2006-08-07T12:33:00.000-04:00

Insitutional discrimination is well documented throughout the history of the armed services.

LC's position (after given facts) is a typical conservative, closed minded defense of institutional discrimination. I'll not attach a name to his position, as others did in that thread.

President Clinton could have simply ordered the end of homosexual discrimination, but he was more concerned with his own popularity.

Compare that to President Truman's desegragation decision over 55 years ago. Truman's decision (his polls were very low at the time) is a lesson in leadership by a Commander of the military.