More on "Don't Ask; Don't Tell!

On the surface Frank I would agree with you that it is not helping to get rid of people in an area of need. But the policy is what it is. While I am not totally sure I agree with it, it is the policy. So the first question is, should the military make an exception for gays in the field of Arabic translations? I don't see how they can. Otherwise, logically, how can the dump other gays if they allow some to stay.

Secondly, when looking at the big picture, 20 kicked out in 7 years does not seem like much at all. I would be curious to know what that percentage works out to be and how it compares to other occupations in the military. Granted, each one kicked out is one less that can be used in Iraq, and considering the military feels there is a shortage of interpretors, every one kept would help.

CoastalRat
Twenty when there is a crying need as there is for these people is twenty too many.
Stupid is as stupid does.

How many people have been booted out of the military for murder, drunken driving or any of hundreds of other crimes? How many have been booted out for hundreds of non-criminal things (i.e. financial irresponsibility, failure to qualify for a security clearance, etc..)? Should the military just drop all their standards and keep everyone because there is a "crying need" as you put it?

I agree that it's more an indication of how the policy hurts the military than anything else.

Fishin

The crying need is immediate and intimately involved in the conflict in the Mid east. Where we can easily replace those discharged for crimes and whatever. The Arabic speakers who a vital element in the war in Iraq cannot be. In addition the only crime is that they told. You don't bite off your nose to spite your face. At least rational people do not.

Psssst: I hate to tell them, but when I was at DLIWC in 1967-68 the language classes were crawling with gay guys. They hung out with each other and we straights never much cared what or who they did.

They got invited to all the good motel parties because they seemed to have the best acid in California, and if you needed an in to get you into a place like Doc's or (I think it was called ) the Pony (I never went) one of them could get you in. (Not the Red Pony down on the docks, that was just another beer bar.)

Anyway, everyone looking to get their codeword clearances was asked numerous times if they were, or knew of anyone, who was gay. The logic, so-called, of all this inquiry was that gay people might be subjected to blackmail of some kind by foriegn agents. Yeah. Well, the gay guys all knew how to keep their mouths shut and, it was the Age of Aquarius, the straight guys just shrugged such questions off.


===
I did screw up once. At a meeting in Texas, the subject of homosexuality came up (again) and I mentioned that I had gotten a Christmas card from a friend of mine who was gay. The questioner's face grew grave.
(Now I had had my clearance at that point for almost two years.)
"And did you send him one back?" He asked.
"Uh, no," I said, "I am the worst correspondent in the world."
"Er, how did you know him?" His hands were starting to shake a little.
"I was a theatre major, sir. You know how it is with show business people, .......but I was always a little too normal for that crazy life..... ha ha."
He made a note. I thought I would be getting sent to AirConditioning and Maintenance School instead of staying in Intelligence, but then he said, "Do you have a church?" and I knew I was saved.

"I'm actually working part time with the youth pastor at the First Christian Church here in town and with the Inter-Faith Ministry out at the college campus."

The relief on his face was palpable. He made another note and I was free to go.

I didn't tell him that the youth pastor I was working with was gay.

Joe (Keep your head down. No, Wait! Not down! uh)Nation

Rationale people also don't make long term policy decisions based on a pressing need at one point in time which is exactly what you are suggesting they should do. I'd wager that there were more people toissed out of DLI based on an inability to get a security clearance in the last 7 years than these 20 that were discharged based on the don't ask, don't tell policy (mostly because I know that almost half the people that go into DLI end up getting booted because of clearance problems. The wash out rate is tremendously high.).

There may be plenty of valid reasons to change the policy but this isn't one of them.

Fishin
How about making an exception because of the circumstances.

Pssst! They already know!

I knew quite a few people that were gay or lesbian during my 20+ years in I coulld count the number of people that cared on one hand. In one unit I was in the Commander was a lesbian and everyone knew it. She would never have had any problems but she had an on-going sexual relationship with a junior enlisted woman in the unit that turned sour and the Airman opened her mouth and got the Commander fired. She wasn't thrown out of the service though. She was just reassigned to a position where she wasn't a Commander any more. But having sex with your subordinates is a no-no anyway - whether it's hetrosexual or homosexual. *shrugs*

Reread the 1st line in my previous response to you.

Fishin
'"

I said nothing of long term policy. Just an exception while the need is so great. As for the overall policy, gays in the military have never given it much thought. I would suppose that their were gays in the military when I was in the service. However, in those days gays were deep in the closet.

Do you honestly think that such an exception wouldn't be a major long term policy change? You know as well as I that once the genie is out of the bottle there's no putting him back in here.

If there are valid reasons to abandon the policy then those responsible should do so and make the decision based on those factors. Creating a "temporary exception" is just a short cut around any discussion because the policy will never revert back once it's changed.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=43560&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


But in January 2002, more than a year before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the General Accounting Office warned that the Army was so short of translators fluent in Arabic and other difficult languages that "it does not have the linguistic capacity to support two concurrent major theaters of war." In other words, the Army, already heavily engaged in Afghanistan, lacked the translators to also support a major operation in Iraq.

According to the GAO, the Army had 84 authorized positions for interpreters but had filled only 42 - a 50 percent shortfall. That meant intelligence soldiers trying to extract information from inmates at Abu Ghraib have been forced to use Iraqi translators of duous reliability

.The problem isn't in the gay policy ..it's in the shortsighted approach to simultaneous fronts in Arabic countries.

The military doesn't hunt for gay people; the gay people do something that brings them to the attention of the JAG. If this happens and an investigation happens, they are going to be caught and discharged. There is a very clear line drawn in the sand when it comes to homosexuality in the military.

As long as the person doesn't lead an open gay life style while in the military, no one will find out. If you want to serve your country that badly then you will hold off on your openly gay life style.

And that something, of course, doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the person is competent at their job, whether they are achieving success at completing their mission, whether their skills and abilities make our military stronger, it just has to do with whether or not they revealed an innate portion of their being.

Homosexuality used to be something secret, it's not, at least in the free society of the United States, a secret anymore. The only institution that continues to struggle in this secret mindset is the military, not at your bank, not at the supermarket, not at the movie theatre (either in the offices or on the screen) not even at your school, the secret is out and so are gay people.

So what's the problem with them serving? Sex? This may come as a shock to some but there is a lot of sex going on between members of the military even as we speak. If a E4 sees an E4 coming through the rye you can just bet your next paycheck that if they see eye to eye there's going to be some comings and goings going on. Should there be rules on restricting such behavior if it affects the mission? You bet. Several Air Force Generals have been reduced in rank and removed from command in the past two years because they couldn't behave themselves with underlings or they used their rank to force underlings to their sexual will, (How's that for a sexual life style?), but to remove from service a competent officer or non-com because they are homosexual makes no mission sense.
And my advice to those whose sensibilities might be offended if a person of their own sex made a pass at them is to heed the words of Ronald Reagan, a man whose career most likely brought him into contact with one or two gay people, "Just say no." or "No thank you." if you want to be polite.

Joe (Am I giving off some vibe or am I really that cute?) Nation

A member of the armed forces can always engage in homosexual activities, provided they fall under the criteria of the "Queen for a Day" regulations:

[size=16][url=http://www.sldn.org/templates/get/record.html?section=19&record=68]Queen for a Day[/url][/size] Service members will nearly always face discharge if the military finds that they have engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited homosexual acts. There is an exception, however, for service members who convince a discharge board that the act or acts were an unusual event and are not likely to happen again. Service members often call this the "Queen for a Day" clause. It is officially called the five retention criteria. To be retained in the military despite evidence of homosexual acts, service members must demonstrate that: (1) Such acts are a departure from [their] usual and customary behavior; (2) Such acts . . . are unlikely to recur; (3) Such acts were not accomplished by the use of force, coercion or intimidation; (4) Under the particular circumstances of the case, the [service member's] continued presence in the Armed Forces is consistent with the interests of the Armed Forces in proper discipline, good order and morale of the Service; and, (5) The [service member] does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts. The regulations are the same for officers and enlisted members. Some service members, on rare occasion, have been successful under this exception by presenting truthful evidence of a heterosexual life and unusual circumstances leading to the homosexual acts. Service members have presented testimony about heterosexual relationships; evidence of stressful circumstances at the time of the gay acts (e.g., the death of a spouse or parent, a divorce or trauma from an abusive heterosexual relationship); and, witnesses who say they have never seen any indication of homosexual behavior. Expert witnesses such as psychologists and sexologists have been called by service members to testify, for example, that the service members are not predisposed to homosexual activity and that the incidents in question are the kind of incidents that are due to unusual circumstances. These are examples, not an exhaustive list. Although the chances of being retained are very low, service members facing discharge for gay acts should ask their attorney about this option if they think they can meet the five retention criteria.

So, in effect, a service member can engage in homosexual acts as long as he or she isn't homosexual.

Gorsh.

"Catch-22" was nonfiction, wasn't it?

It is the military after all.

But seriously, there is this mis-perception in some circles that sexuality is a choice and that homosexuals have made a bad, and temporary, choice, that one can be reversed or re-educated out of - the description used is usually accompanied by the word lifestyle.

Once again you will have to privide proof that homosexuallity isn't a choice. When medical science proves this, then there won't be an issue.