Pentagon Warns Congress To Hurry Up On DADT Repeal

SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia — The Pentagon's top leaders warned Sunday that if Congress fails to repeal the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the courts may order changes that military leaders consider too fast or poorly thought-out.

The Pentagon is trying to make it easier for the Senate to consider lifting the ban in the current postelection session. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday he will release a study of the effects of repeal on Nov. 30, a day earlier than planned.

That could allow the Senate Armed Services Committee to hold hearings on the ban the same week.

The report on the impact of lifting the ban is meant as a guide for Congress as it considers what the Pentagon hopes will be a gradual and carefully calibrated change.

The Washington Post has reported that the study concludes the military can lift the ban with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts.

"The timing and the legislative approach and so on, that is completely up to the Congress. All I know is if this law is going to change, it's better to be changed by legislation rather than have it struck down by the courts," Gates said.

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said later that Gates pushed his staff to deliver the report a day early in order "to ensure members of the Armed Services Committee are able to read and consider the complex, lengthy report before holding hearings with its authors and the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Gates spoke in Bolivia, where he is attending a regional defense conference.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said he supports Congress using its lame-duck session to end the ban known as "don't ask, don't tell."

"The courts are very active on this. And my concern is that at some point in time the courts could change this law and in that not give us the right amount of time to implement it," Mullen said on ABC's "This Week."

Mullen said he supports ending the ban because asking people to lie about themselves "goes counter to who we are as an institution."

Comments

[Grumpy Old Dude]

03:20 PM on 11/24/2010

wyldthings 43 minutes ago (2:13 PM)
135 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
You don't read well do you skippy. There has been multiple conflics around the world through the centuries not declared wars and all Congress has to do is defund the war. You are absolutely crazy to believe that the Constitution gives the President the power to take us to war by himself. Even Undeclared wars such as Iraq, Vietnam and Korea he has to rely on Congress for funds.
However you might be right that he can unilaterly remove the troops.

************************************************************************************************************
Perhaps you can't read too well Skippy! I made the point that the President can send troops into harms way without a declaration of war. I asked you if you new how many times we have fought undeclared wars! There are only 5 wars in which the United States formally declared war against a foreign nation, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. Using this strict definition of a declaration of war, the United States has not formally declared war with Iraq. However, the Iraq War Resolution passed by the Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
Congress can withhold funds if they disagree with the President and then you make the same case against me in argument. It appears to me you just like to argue for the sake of argument, so this will be my last reply to you!

[treadway123]

06:04 PM on 11/23/2010

How many people in the Military has to say they see NO harm in repealing DADT, before congress/senate listen to them? I have NOT heard one military expert say don't do it! It's the homophic GOP that holding it back, an a few Blue Dog Dem's! It's time to get this over an done with now!

[Ioan Lightoller]

06:59 PM on 11/23/2010

Probably 100% and then I still wonder. These people have an animus against GLBT people and they will do whatever they can to hold off the day that we have the same rights as straight people.

[MadAs]

08:40 PM on 11/22/2010

During WWII it was often said, "There were no atheists in foxholes," meaning fear overcame one's belief system.

So if fear can change one's beliefs to meld to circumstances, I doubt sexual preference is even a fleeting thought among our troops.

[Cori527]

11:19 PM on 11/22/2010

Nice point.

[jws2346]

09:07 AM on 11/23/2010

faved Yeah, son of a gun? (err.., we's not talkin' stun guns neither?)

[treadway123]

06:09 PM on 11/23/2010

Palin is always bragging on our military, while her son I am sure don't care rather is comrad is Gay or not, as long as he has his back------Yet, Palin still rails against repealing DADT! Her view points, just might get her son left out in the cold at a time he needs protected, an that would be the saddest day in our History. What if Gays just decide to walk off the job right smack in the middle of a war zone? By not allowing them to be who they are that is exactly what we are doing to them, letting them die without honor of their identity!

[wyldthings]

03:45 PM on 11/22/2010

You just don't get it do you. Obama supports the repeal of DADT! Congress supports the repeal and so do 80% of Americans. Truman had a draft to back him up Obama does not want to risk a draft nor does the Congress. I can see it now "Hell No We Won't Go!" This is an illegal war and I will not be drafted!

[Ioan Lightoller]

07:05 PM on 11/23/2010

Wonderful. SO GLBTs should sacrifice their being able to live open, honest lives? If you feel that way about the war (so do I), then register as a conscientious objector or go to Canada.

[wyldthings]

09:15 PM on 11/23/2010

Loan, Let me ask you something! In the sixties many Gay and straight men used the cover of homosexuality to avoid the draft. Although I agree with your sentiment I have to say yes. I've seen many men die in battle and I never heard one express I'm straight or Gay. Only 1% of people serve in the U.S military and if that % drops because of the repeal well then what? Like I said many times I support the repeal of DADT I'm just unsure what will happen.

[Angel1999]

07:24 PM on 11/23/2010

Look, either people want to serve their country or they don't. The question is, will the disaster be what you claim? I asked before and got no answer, but even thought Truman had the draft, their must have been career military who also opposed integration. These people could retire if they chose (at least some of them). Was there a mass exodus of enlisted men following the order to integrate. I don't recall ever hearing about the armies command structure falling apart as all the officers left.

[wyldthings]

09:05 PM on 11/23/2010

I hear you angel. Like I said before I'm for the repeal of DADT. A commissioned officer has to have permission to retire his Commission. Therefore we will never know how many retired. And like I've said in posts I do not know what will happen. It may mean since people do not enlist the use of force (WAR) might not be used so readily. It might succeed 100% and the nay sayers such as myself will be relieved. Because having served in front line combat nobody cares about your sexual orientation only that you protect each other. But I know many men on the Vietnam wall that were drafted in the Sixties and never came home. So you know, that is my one and only concern is a draft

[wyldthings]

10:12 PM on 11/23/2010

I will say this about the chain of command in the Military. Read General Powell's book and he will assure you that the Military Chain of Command was decimated by the turmoil of the draft in the Vietnam war. That is why they stopped the draft and started an all volunteer Military!

[islanddreamer]

03:31 PM on 11/22/2010

This is so stupid it's beyond belief! If the Pentagon is worried about being unprepared if the courts end up deciding DADT instead of Congress then why aren't they getting prepared for the change regardless? And what is so monumental about going from gays serving in the military incognito to gays serving openly? What really changes? And were do bisexuals fit into all of this? You never hear about them but you can bet there are even more switch hitters in the military than there are gays. DADT has been studied to death by the military and everyone else. It's not a complex issue. It is simple: Extend freedom of speech to all service members. And then deal with it! Deal with the fact that the guy next to you in the shower might be eying you. He might be openly gay or he might be married with children at home or ...who cares! Grow up people!

[Anthony Medford]

03:24 PM on 11/22/2010

Not sure how a great country like America can let gay soldiers die and fight for every Americans right to freedom but make them lie about who they are, is that freedom I ask you.
I thank all gay or bi soldiers should use the DADT policy to leave the military to show how it would really effect our national security with out them. Why be apart of a lie to protect freedom if it is a lie there really are no freedoms.

[Grumpy Old Dude]

03:23 PM on 11/22/2010

Repost
Things must have changed since I was in the service, especially the chain of command. The top dog in the chain of command used to be the POTUS, if the Commander in Chief gave an order the military saluted smartly, said yes sir, and did it..........bottom line! President Obama IMO, should show some courage and by Presidential Order change the DADT policy! Those that do not salute smartly and carry out the order..........have no honor........get rid of them......­...uncerem­oniously with Dishonorable Discharges­..........­this will put to rest once and for all who REALLY has "honor".

[MadAs]

08:47 PM on 11/22/2010

You really are a grumpy old dude. But you might have to get a bit grumpier AND LOUDER to get your congressfolks to HEAR YOU.

[HarrietM]

08:14 PM on 11/23/2010

As I understand it, Obama cannot just reverse the law. He has to have it done properly. If he just signs the order and changes a law that was passed by Congress it will be overstepping his authority.

To quote the article I have posted below, "Congress had actually passed a law imposing the discriminatory rule, and so only Congress can repeal it."
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/19/is-obama-s-excuse-for-not-repealing-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-legitimate.html#

And this site has some comments after that explain the same thing:
http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/rep_nancy_pelosi_claims_dont_ask_dont_tell_will_be_gone_by_the_end_of_the_year

The Law (everything except text):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d103:1:./temp/~bdIFwc:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d103query.html|

The Amendment that was proposed to leave DADT to the discretion of the President:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HZ00316:

If you don't feel like reading the amendment I will just tell you: It failed.

This law cannot just be killed by the President. He has to get Congress to kill it. He isn't being cowardly. He is being lawful. Lawful is inconvenient from time to time, but I'm pretty sure we do want our President to be lawful.

If it helps, the whole thing makes me grumpy, too.

[HarrietM]

08:26 PM on 11/23/2010

The link for the law did not go through completely. I am posting it again. if it does not work this time then you will have to cut & paste the rest of it into your address bar.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d103:1:./temp/~bdIFwc:@@%20@L&summ2=m%20&|/bss/d10%203query.htm%20l|

[Grumpy Old Dude]

08:38 PM on 11/23/2010

Harriet, I never accused him of being cowardly. Second, he is the Commander and Chief what he orders, the military must carry out.......and congress can pass all the laws they want.......but they can not pass a law limiting the Presidents authority as Commander in Chief as spelled out by the Constitution...........as a matter of fact they can't pass any law that limits a Presidents constitutional authority in any area, this would require an amendment to the Constitution.......the three branches of government are equal.......one branch can not pass laws limiting the power of the others. The congress often passes laws that are totally meaningless.........they are designed to play to the prejudices and bigotry of low information voters..........such as the defense of marriage act!

[Kaneb]

03:15 PM on 11/22/2010

Straight men don't take orders from gays...That's a fact!

[JShankel]

03:23 PM on 11/22/2010

Um, no, straight men don't worry about who is and who isn't gay.  Never even occurs to us to worry about it.  Because we're straight.

[Kaneb]

05:08 PM on 11/22/2010

Me and a lot of men I know personally wouldn't. I know some women whou would't either. Most people on this site live in this make believe world of liberal vs conservative and in reality it is all just perception.

And I don't hate gay people and I have nothing against gays.

[TBJ]

03:39 PM on 11/22/2010

Some already do.

It's been known for years that there's little to no disruption caused by allowing openly gay soldiers to serve. http://www.sldn.org/pages/dod-reports-about-department-of-defense-commissioned-reports

And, if you're trolling, please stop.

[PhilipB]

04:20 PM on 11/22/2010

Thank you.

[Kaneb]

05:14 PM on 11/22/2010

What is trolling?

[blindhog]

02:29 PM on 11/22/2010

THE REASON THEY WANT THIS PUSHED THROUGH NOW IS THAT THE REUGS DON'T WANT THIS ISSUE HANGING AROUND THEIR NECK,

IF THE DEMOCRATS PASS IT UNDER THIS LAME DUCK SESSION, THE REPUGS CAN GALVANIZE THEIR BASE AND SAY TO THEM, "SEE WHAT THE RADICAL DIMOCRATS DID? THAT'S WHAT YOU GET WHEN WE AREN'T IN OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!!"

[onionboy]

03:17 PM on 11/22/2010

I don't think it's a radical position when the majority of Americans and a majority of active enlisted personnel all support it.

[carcol]

02:28 PM on 11/22/2010

DADT is the equivalent of the health care(medical care) debate.Other countries have it but the U.S doesnt want it.

[Ioan Lightoller]

02:48 PM on 11/22/2010

This country doesn't seem to want ANYTHING progressive countries have.

[The Iron Cage]

04:00 PM on 11/22/2010

The polls state otherwise.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/quinnipiac-poll-58-of-americans-support-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell.php

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6194325-503544.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32787.html

I understand how easy and tempting it is to decry the people of this country, but let's please stick to the facts.

[funserious]

02:11 PM on 11/22/2010

The knuckle dragging on this issue is pathetic......ridiculous and sad.

[Ioan Lightoller]

02:50 PM on 11/22/2010

Hey, now! Don't pick on those thar Neanderthals. LOL Fanned and faved!

You are right, though...the knuckle-dragging is pathetic...and ridiculous...and sad. Sadly this country will have to be dragged into the 21st Century kicking and screaming.

[RainbowPhoenix]

02:11 PM on 11/22/2010

Seventy percent of people both in and out of the military support repeal. It's strange that the countries that already allow open service haven't seen any harm to their militaries.

[TBJ]

02:14 PM on 11/22/2010

And I think you're a leprechaun. Doesn't make it true; don't ignore the poll results.

And unless you care to elaborate on the "harm" and "risk", all you're doing is the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building.

[Kaneb]

02:18 PM on 11/22/2010

Fire is what it will be if the military should repeal DADT. I have nothing against the gays.

[Jason N]

02:01 PM on 11/22/2010

How many here are aware that the legislation the Pentagon so desperately wants passed (to avoid a court order) isn't repeal at all? All the current law does is give the President and a panel of the Joint Chiefs discretion on when, how, and what repeal is.

[RainbowPhoenix]

02:02 PM on 11/22/2010

And they're all in favor of appeal.

[Jason N]

02:04 PM on 11/22/2010

Wait until they're solution is, repeal over the course of 4 years to avoid offending new enlistees and that separate quarters/ showers are required for gays and lesbians. They won't seem so in favor of repeal then.

[Jason N]

02:05 PM on 11/22/2010

And it's precious that you actually believe that.

[Pennsanic]

01:59 PM on 11/22/2010

Write to (or call) your senators today to urge them to repeal! They won't do anything if they are not pushed.

[JayJonson]

01:58 PM on 11/22/2010

I hope that DADT repeal finally takes place, but I am doubtful. Obama has so bungled this matter that it is unlikely that the filibuster will be overcome, or if it is, that the Republicans will not amend the bill into meaninglessness. In any case, we need to thank Dan Choi, Robin McGehee, and the 11 other brave activists who got arrested last week by handcuffing themselves to the White House fence. Without them, you can bet that DADT repeal would not even have come up in the lameduck session. Here is a link to an article from the brave 13 who talks about why they acted and what they accomplished: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/22/921887/-DADT:-What-Was-Accomplished-A-Week-Ago

[taddles]

02:30 PM on 11/22/2010

"Without them, you can bet that DADT repeal would not even have come up in the lameduck session"

Except for the fact that Obama has been on the phones with senators for over a week, (well before Dan Choi and the other brave activists were arrested) pushing for the Defense Authorization Bill with DADT attached to be brought to the floor. Without him you can bet it wouldn't have been brought out until next year.

[broui]

02:34 PM on 11/22/2010

I take issue with your contention that "Obama has so bungled this matter".

I don't suppose you realize that when the law was enacted it was written such that it could not be Repealed by Presidential order.

Obama therefore HAD to defend it in the courts. He also HAD to proceed through the congress as he's done.

He's handled it the best anyone could. He's given it the best shot possible.

The ignorance people have on this issue is astounding.

[Jason N]

02:53 PM on 11/22/2010

"Obama therefore HAD to defend it in the courts"

This is 100% false. The DOJ has no obligation to defend laws found unconstitutional by the court. None.

"He's handled it the best anyone could."

Would you say calling a WNBA team to congratulate them on their championship, (while not calling a single Senator) during the DADT cloture vote was the "best he could do"?