iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

DADT Is Back, But Decisions All Go To Obama Civilian Appointees

ANNE FLAHERTY   10/21/10 08:08 PM ET   AP

Dadt
A protestor from the LaRouche PAC, left, walks past demonstrators protesting the discharge of gays from the military, Thursday, Oct. 21, 2010, in Seattle outside Hec Edmundson Pavilion on the University of Washington campus in Seattle, where President Barack Obama and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. later held a rally. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department on Thursday declared that "don't ask, don't tell" is once again the law of the land but set up a new system that could make it tougher to get thrown of the military for being openly gay.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday ordered that all dismissals under the 1993 law be decided by one of the four service secretaries in consultation with the military's general counsel and Gates' personnel chief.

Defense officials said the change was not intended to slow the rate of discharges. In his memo, Gates wrote that the purpose of narrowing those in charge was to "ensure uniformity and care in the enforcement" at a time of "legal uncertainty."

Still, the move puts the question of who can be dismissed from the service for being openly gay in the hands of just six people – all of them civilian political appointees who work for an administration that thinks the law is unjust. Before Thursday's order, the dismissal of gay enlisted personnel could be done by any commanding officer at a rank equivalent to a one-star general.

The change follows an eight-day suspension of the ban after a federal judge in California ordered the military to stop enforcing it. An appeals court on Wednesday agreed to the administration's request to a temporary stay of the court order, although that could be overturned too within a matter of days.

The legal wrangling has left many gay troops uncertain as to whether they could still be kicked out of the service for speaking up. At the same time, some former service members discharged for being gay have tried to re-enlist although the fate of their applications remains uncertain.

The Pentagon says it doesn't know how it will handle any cases of gay troops who may have disclosed their sexual orientation during the law's moratorium or cases of gay troops who tried to enlist. Officials also say they don't know how many cases might present a legal challenge.

A senior official said the Pentagon "will evaluate each case, one at a time."

The official, who demanded anonymity in turn for speaking about the case, said the Pentagon believes that most gay troops stayed quiet during the week the ban was lifted because of warnings by gay rights advocates that they could still lose their jobs.

The official also said that the Pentagon would use the same criteria to determine whether a service member violated "don't ask, don't tell," even though each case must be decided at the senior echelons of the Pentagon.

The official said that the order does not mean the Pentagon "will separate more or fewer people."

The official briefed reporters Thursday for the first time since the court's Oct. 12 injunction. While press officials cited protocol as the reason for demanding anonymity, the official's reluctance to speak publicly seemed to indicate an unwillingness to wade into the spotlight as such a political case makes its way through the courts.

President Barack Obama has said he supports repeal of the law, but wants Congress – not the courts – to decide its fate. He also has agreed to the military's request that it be given more time to implement any changes.

But Obama's decision to appeal the court order has put his civilian appointees in the awkward position of defending the law just weeks away from congressional midterm elections. Several gay rights advocates have said they are angry and frustrated with the administration's handling of the case and with congressional Democrats for not acting sooner to repeal the law.

"It can't be OK to be gay on Tuesday and not on Thursday," said Richard Socarides, a former Clinton White House adviser on gay rights. "That's no way to run a military."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — The Defense Department on Thursday declared that "don't ask, don't tell" is once again the law of the land but set up a new system that could make it tougher to get thrown of the mi...
WASHINGTON — The Defense Department on Thursday declared that "don't ask, don't tell" is once again the law of the land but set up a new system that could make it tougher to get thrown of the mi...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 478
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
Kyle Carlson
Progressive Professional Millennial
02:01 PM on 10/29/2010
We need to change tactics to make DADT even more of a painful PR issue for the White House.

There are different levels of judicial review of the constitutionality of a given statute. The easiest standard for a suspect statute to overcome is the “Mere Rationality Standard.” To pass the rationality standard for constitutionality a statute must 1) pursue a legitimate state objective (state as in gov’t, not as in 50 states) and 2) the means chosen to pursue this objective must be rationally related to the objective.

Here’s where the PR attack comes in. Ask Obama/Ax/Gibbs/Whoever what the legitimate state objective of DADT is, then ask them how DADT is rationally related to achieving that objective.

For example:
Press Secretary Gibbs, is DADT a rational method to achieve increased unit cohesion in the military?
President Obama, you’ve stated DADT harms unit moral/cohesion and damages military readiness, as a constitutional scholar, do you believe DADT rationally pursues a legitimate state interest?

The answer will either directly lead to the conclusion that DADT fails the mere rationality standard (i.e. is unconstitutional and should not be defended in court), OR
The answer will show a prominent WH official saying they think DADT is rational – a serious flip-flop and slam on the GLBT community.
06:09 PM on 10/22/2010
Obama could temporarily let gays serve while waiting for the courts or Congress to act by using his stop-loss power, which was explicitly granted by Congress in 1984 to override military discharges if troops are needed.

Stop-loss authority is a statutory authority enacted by Congress. It gives the president authority to suspend any law that involves the discharge of service members. In times of national emergency there might be lots of reasons.

Given all the accounts of valuable servicemen and servicewomen, such as Arabic translators, being discharged under DADT, it would seem a fairly straightforward case for Obama to make. That would buy a couple of years for Congress to act or the current legal challenge to reach the Supreme Court.

But he chooses not to act. Obama makes a choice.
HoosierInMaryland
HuffPo says my 'micro-bio is empty'
08:24 PM on 10/22/2010
Homosexuals can serve now, but they must remain silent. A stop-loss order would not change that, since a hold has been placed on the court decision.

The problem with allowing homosexuals to serve openly right now is that if DADT is not repealed one way or another, many bigoted 'commanders' will take revenge on anyone who is, or they suspect, a homosexual. Even if the servicemember is retained, bigoted heterosexuals could conclude it is open season on homosexuals, and make life miserable or impossible for homosexuals (or those so perceived). Bigots would probably even consider it 'open season' on sympathetic straights. All it takes is for a very small number of bigots to make life hell for all other military personnel. (Look at how disruptive 'Mama Grizzly' [aka SarahBaracuda, etc.] has made politics.) There are many more followers than leaders in the ranks of the military, especially when the 'leader' is a 'Service Academy officer'.

The only solution I see right now is for the Appeals Court to concur with the District Court decision, and/or for Congress to repeal DADT. Unless appealed to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS accepts the case and overturns the decision, the decision stands.

I don't like the current stalling, but IMO, the DADT policy is soon headed to the dustbin of history, even if we must wait a bit more. When DADT hits that dustbin, IMO, it will be more difficult to resurrect it than to take the vote from women, for example.
08:48 PM on 10/22/2010
It's already open season on homosexuals in the military. There's no reason to believe they'll be any less disciplined when there isn't a procedure that they can use to assist in their bullying.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LynnW49
"A great democracy must be progressive." TR
05:49 PM on 10/22/2010
In this thread I see again what I have seen in others about equality for gay Americans. That is the argument that criticism or anger from gay people and gay allies is going to "hurt the cause" or "alienate us supporters." There is sometimes an implied "you should be grateful to us" in such comments [before you leap, note that I am not talking about ALL such comments].

It seems to me that if you are for equality, you are for it. You are not for equality as long as the affected minority is polite, or always calm, or well-behaved on your terms. If you believe in justice, you don't believe that it only applies to people who behave as you would like them to.

Instead of saying things that border on "if you don't stop ranting you will lose me" how about embracing the anger and responding with some idea that 1) it is not personal and it doesn't take anything away from you, and 2) it is justified.

Not that the Constitution applies to all Americans yet, but I don't recall ever seeing a politeness clause in the 14th or any other amendment. I'd like to see that "justice for all" doesn't require any guidance from Emily Post.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LynnW49
"A great democracy must be progressive." TR
05:22 PM on 10/22/2010
"The Pentagon says it doesn't know how it will handle any cases of gay troops who may have disclosed their sexual orientation during the law's moratorium"

This is very simple. Follow the Commander in Cheif's passion for defending the law. At the time these folks might have disclosed their sexual orientation the LAW was that DADT was under injunction. Case closed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheWanderer
Above us only sky
04:53 PM on 10/22/2010
So is Obama an anti-gay Christian or an anti-gay Muslim? I can never remember.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
toldyeso
02:12 PM on 10/22/2010
Obama is no friend to the gay community -

He says he wants dont ask repealled by the congress...

Isn't it funny though that since hes losing us the House and at least 7-8 dem senators - we should believe him that he will get this passed in the next session when it failed in this one?

Translation:
Obama says wait until after HE is "reelected.

As with all things - its ALL about whats best for obama.

Thats why he campaigned on a whole tour with anti gay gospel singers headed up by self hating gay - the rev donnie mcgurkin and his "you can change" singers throughout the south during the primaries - on a quest to rev up the anti gay vote in the black churches (since hillary was/is openly and fiercly pro gay human rights)

Remember that?

Obama went on that tour even AFTER every gay rights group in the nation BEGGED HIM NOT TO!

But that didn't stop Obama!

Once again he and his arny of deceitful enablers are trying to "hoodwink and bamboozle" us into buying that he will overturn DADT.

Look we wont have the votes in the next congress for a congressional remedy for DADT.

Let the courts do their duty. They'll end it.

and if the SCOTUS overturns someday down the road

Hopefully by then we will have our congressional majorities back and we could pass a new DADT bill then if needed..

Obama is offering us NOTHING but "just words"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
04:14 PM on 10/22/2010
"As with all things - its ALL about whats best for obama."

That is exactly right. He won't do a thing on DADT until after 2012 and I don't believe he ever intended to. I have news for him: the GayTM is closed to him permanently. It's not closed to Democrats, just him. It's over.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Gay Pagan Man, Living Happily With Husband
03:06 PM on 10/31/2010
Fanned and faved. Obama never intended to do anything for us. I think it's time that the GLBT community realises that we were used to help him get the Presidency. Nothing more, nothing less.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:04 PM on 10/22/2010
Obama, in wanting Congress to repeal the law instead of having the courts nullify it, is negating the actual case for DADT's being wrong, and playing into the hands of the GOP.

What is wrong with DADT? It's unconstitutional? Why? Because it clearly violates due process and equal protection under the laws. That is the reason it must go.

Gibbs in his appearance yesterday refused to say whether Obama thought it unconstitutional. And the case for striking down DADT is precisely that it is unconstitutional.

Congress is not the arbiter of constitutionality. Obama's tactics, which he congratulates himself on being so ingenious and FAIR (Congress passed the law, let them repeal it) show neither understanding of the problem with DADT, or the political skill to see that Republican intransigence is only abetted by Democratic incompetence and/or ignorance and/or callousness and/or...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:15 PM on 10/22/2010
Obviously Obama doesn't actually believe what he's saying. He always lies to his base. And for the most part they keep taking it again and again and that's why the Democrats are to the right of Nixon and Reagan now.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:18 PM on 10/22/2010
He is a poor liar, but the will to believe among many Democrats is impressive.
photo
WASanford
I think, therefore I am mad as hell!
01:37 PM on 10/22/2010
The first part of the law's title is "Don't ask." But it's readily apparent that the military does ask, has asked, and will continue to ask in violation of the law's intent. If gay members of the military are subject to removal for violating the law, what about those officers who ask? Why shouldn't they be subjected to removal from our military as well? Just a thought. This can and it should get very ugly!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wizer
No more tiny coffins
03:10 PM on 10/22/2010
Good point but don't expect it to happen. I recently heard a Clinton aide explaining how the compromise to get DADT passed was supposed to work. He said the "Don't Ask" part was violated immediately by the military.

BTW: I know a young kid who went to the mall recently and talked to military recruiters there. Guess what they asked him?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paddy Murphy
03:48 PM on 10/22/2010
I was asked in 95, in direct violation of DADT. I never told, but was busted out anyway. I pointed this out to the JAG and was ignored. The process went forward and I never once got to confront my accusers. There was no due process.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LynnW49
"A great democracy must be progressive." TR
05:26 PM on 10/22/2010
You're right. And they should start with the ones who went looking for "gay" evidence in the emails of soldiers who were silent and had never "told" that they were gay.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bob Wood
A.T.C.G...(sigh)
12:58 PM on 10/22/2010
If people...all people, finally realize that sex is normal. NORMAL in all it's manifestations. Sex is bio-chemical. Sex isn't evil or sinful. Maybe people will get over the stupid fear of sex and get on with life. DADT is wrong, it was wrong to begin with and it will be wrong until it's done away with. In many ways the old adage, " the military is just like the boy scouts...except the boy scouts have adult leadership ", is true. Gay isn't a problem...peoples attitudes toward gays is a big problem...(sigh)
photo
WASanford
I think, therefore I am mad as hell!
01:47 PM on 10/22/2010
But sex is fun! We're not supposed to have that much enjoyment. A recent senatorial candidate has made the claim that it's sinful to masturbate even though it doesn't cause unwanted pregnancies or spread venereal disease. Go figure! Get it done while you still can!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bob Wood
A.T.C.G...(sigh)
01:53 PM on 10/22/2010
Yep...fighting for peace is right, making whoopie for chastity is wrong...duh...(sigh)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:17 PM on 10/22/2010
Don't blame the people. Even 68% of Republicans oppose DADT. The only people for it are old homophobes in power. People like gay hating Obama.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:25 PM on 10/22/2010
Honestly, I don't believe his motivation is homophobia, but rather his narcissism. He knows the Republicans will try to use the courts to strike down what he believes will be his legacy: health insurance reform, which he is convinced will vault him above FDR in the Presidential rankings. So he is trying to push issues of constitutionality and the courts into the shadows, and everything else that results from this is just collateral damage, as trivial as the loss of innocent life incurred by a Predator drone on the other side of the world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Disciple1
To err is human;To disagree with me is ignorant.
11:37 AM on 10/22/2010
@JayJonson: " Yes, I dislike this President." " ..logic truly does escape you."

Nothing escapes me regarding this issue--including your blind, myopic intransigence. Whereas you should be coming down HARD on the backs and motives of the REPUBLICANS and BLUE DOG DEMS that recently stopped DADT repeal legislation from proceeding you're instead pontificating against the POTUS on a soap box made of confetti. There is no substance to the arguments of those that currently ostracize Obama about his handling of DADT. Your strident manner is losing you friends and supporters among those of us that ardently believe in human rights for ALL citizens of this nation. You REFUSE to see the progress and advancements forwarded by the WH in your behalf and that approach MAY cost you--the louder you rant without objectivity. If someone is trying help you, you don't punch them in the mouth and expect them to say, "Thank you".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:44 PM on 10/22/2010
The Dems put DADT repeal (and DREAM) in the defense appropriations bill. The Repubs threatened to filibuster. Reid pulled DADT and DREAM from the bill.

How serious were the Dems about passing DADT? Far less serious than Republicans who were blocking it, I think.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Disciple1
To err is human;To disagree with me is ignorant.
01:55 PM on 10/22/2010
You just made MY point!! It was the REPUBLICANS that threatened to fillibuster (I personally believe Reid should have called their bluff and allowed the fillibuster to initiate). This was all because the DADT and DREAM were the SPECIFIC components the red dogs OBJECTED to--not the Defense Appropriations part of it. It is a COMMON practice, by BOTH sides, to attach stalwart legislation as 'riders' to other bills. It was NEVER an issue of fiscal costs. Rather, neither bill--although quite beneficial to SIGNIFICANT segments of our society--would NOT have fit the anti-social agenda of the right wing.
02:27 PM on 10/22/2010
Remember that there were Democrats who joined the filibuster.

Including Blanche Lincoln, who Obama campaigned for in the primary and who the DNC gave an impressive $11M to keep on the ticket, even though she polled worse against Republicans than her non-Blue Dog opponent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
toldyeso
02:13 PM on 10/22/2010
Once again he and his arny of deceitful enablers are trying to "hoodwink and bamboozle" us into buying that he will overturn DADT.

Look we wont have the votes in the next congress for a congressional remedy for DADT.

Let the courts do their duty. They'll end it.

and if the SCOTUS overturns someday down the road

Hopefully by then we will have our congressional majorities back and we could pass a new DADT bill then if needed..
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wizer
No more tiny coffins
03:12 PM on 10/22/2010
This can't go to SCOTUS; the court is too politicalized and controlled by the rw. Obama needs to do the right thing and keep DADT away from SCOTUS.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:57 AM on 10/22/2010
The Obama strategy is to not take a politically dangerous stance two weeks before an election. In 3 weeks President Obama will either make another token gesture to the gay community (like his recent "It Gets Better" video) or blame the Republican takeover of Congress for why DADT is still on the books.

History is repeating itself you guys...Carter was unpopular and it led to a Conservative surge that pushed the GOP to the far right. Now Obama is unpopular and it's leading to a superconservative surge that is pushing the GOP into the extreme far right...
We are on a downward spiral my friends...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
toldyeso
02:13 PM on 10/22/2010
Isn't it funny though that since hes losing us the House and at least 7-8 dem senators - we should believe him that he will get this passed in the next session when it failed in this one?

Translation:
Obama says wait until after HE is "reelected.

As with all things - its ALL about whats best for obama.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:21 PM on 10/22/2010
You Obamabots will say any lie to yourselves to keep supporting him.

The fact is 68% of Republicans are against DADT. Obama has taken an unpopular decision in defending DADT. Obama is to the right of the Republican party base by some way. he is being brave in that he is attacking his own base but he knows his useful idiots will probably vote for him anyway.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wizer
No more tiny coffins
10:26 AM on 10/22/2010
More lesbians than gay men are discharged under DADT. The good ole boy network is alive and functioning well in the military.

One account states: Where women in the armed forces are concerned, “Although women comprise only 14% of the Army, lesbians received 48% of the Army’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ discharges in FYI 2009. In the Marines, women comprise just 6% of the force, but received 23% of discharges under the policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/washington/23pentagon.html
20 percent of Air Force personnel are women, 49 percent of its discharges under the policy last year were women.

"Women make up 15 percent of the armed forces, so to find they represent nearly 50 percent of Army and Air Force discharges under ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is shocking,” said Aubrey Sarvis, the organization’s executive director. “Women in particular have been caught in the crosshairs of this counterproductive law.”
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:16 AM on 10/22/2010
In view of America's viewing habits, perhaps if the military lesbians were allowed to make military pornos, we might do a lot to solve the deficit problem.

But hey. We already have military snuff pornos. They are called wars based on lies. The only folks who profit are the contractors. On a good day, they make a killing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jonna Brewer
New generation hippie.
01:25 PM on 10/22/2010
My opinion, and it IS only an opinion, have not done research on it, is that many lesbians are reported after turning down propositions by male service members (have sex with me and I'll keep your secret). We know that women in the military face sexual harassment and sexual assault that is often times not punished.
02:24 PM on 10/22/2010
Straight woman are also being reported under DADT for turning down propositions and complaining about sexual harassment (and rape).

After all, any woman who refuses her commander's advances MUST be a lesbian with no sense of humor. (Sarcasm)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wizer
No more tiny coffins
02:37 PM on 10/22/2010
This is true, sorry, I cannot provide source for another reason (figure it out). Women out each other for the same reason, too.

Military women raped face another problem: They are told, you want a military career, suck it up and don't report it.
10:20 AM on 10/22/2010
May I suggest an edit?

You write: "an administration that thinks the law is unjust."

I think that should be amended to "an administration that claims they think the law is unjust."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
01:39 PM on 10/22/2010
Exactly. Today we have more evidence that Obama did not have to appeal the ruling striking down DADT: "Obama did have choices on the DADT case: 'not appealing is neither risky nor out of the ordinary' "

"One of those respected constitutional military legal experts who's been quoted in the press in recent days is Diane Mazur, a former Air Force officer who is a law professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. In an interview on the show on Wednesday, Mazur told me that President Obama is on much more solid ground in not appealing this decision than even Bill Clinton was when he decided that the ban on people with HIV in the military was unconstitutional and refused to defend it. In Mazur's legal analysis, not appealing is neither risky nor out of the ordinary. As Ted Olson said, it's actually "appropriate." We also talked about how the president could end the discharges now and the options he has had all along. "

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/10/obama-did-have-options-on-dadt-case.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
toldyeso
02:15 PM on 10/22/2010
yup

fanned
10:08 AM on 10/22/2010
Voting for and supporting Obama has been one of the biggest mistakes of my life. It actually makes me throw-up in my mouth.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:25 PM on 10/22/2010
Back when Obama was elected (and I knew all this was going to happen of course, as so many did) I figured that some good might come of it if he was so lousy and so obviously lousy that people would finally see what a farce the so-called two party system was and that there was really just one party.

In many ways I think the elites made a mistake in allowing two Democratic landslides. It makes the game too obvious. Still so few are seeing past the curtain.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wizer
No more tiny coffins
03:03 PM on 10/22/2010
Well, looking back, what was the option? A cancer-ridden flipflopper and his brainless christian conservative VP? Obama was the better choice between the two options but this is just madness at this point. Do away with DADT, two federal courts have ruled it unconstitutional, congress is not going to vote to do away with it; a lame-duck session? Forget that, there's no incentive to vote the right way and the r's will never do that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrUniteUs
09:44 AM on 10/22/2010
Good political move by the Log Cabin Republicans.
The goal is to cause pro gay democrats to become dischanted.
and encourage anti-gay Republicans to vote.Distracts
from the many issue, the economy.

Most people don't even know Log Cabin Republican pushed this forward.
so the "liberals" and the President get the blame.
The President had already agreed with the military on the best way to proceed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:26 AM on 10/22/2010
The Log Cabin Republicans filed this lawsuit in 2004 when George W Bush was President.

Don't Ask Don't Tell was passed by a Democratically controlled Congress and signed into law by a Democratic President in 1993. Democrats don't need Republicans to embarrass them on this issue.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:20 AM on 10/22/2010
We are a nation of laws. Not that they are rational... If "Justice delayed is justice denied," then 6 years for this lawsuit to get to where it is coupled with Obama's nonsensical continuation based on the false prophet of "process," then we must acknowledge that the whole "democratic" judicial and political system has failed, ethically, morally, substantively and procedurally. And not just on this issue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
01:41 PM on 10/22/2010
Where have you been? The president didn't even try to get DADT repealed in the senate.