Dan Choi Trial Over 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' White House Protest Put On Hold

By JESSICA GRESKO, Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- A gay former Army lieutenant who handcuffed himself to the White House fence to protest the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy may be closer to having charges against him dismissed after a judge put his trial on hold Wednesday.

Dan Choi, a West Point graduate who was dismissed from the Army after revealing that he is gay, has been on trial in federal court in Washington since Monday. A government prosecutor says he failed to obey an order to leave the White House in November 2010 when he and 12 others handcuffed themselves to the fence.

Police eventually removed the protesters using bolt cutters. If convicted Choi faces a fine and up to six months in jail.

Choi and his attorneys claim he is being harshly prosecuted because he is gay and outspoken. They want the charge against him dismissed.

The protest was not Choi's first time at the White House. He was also arrested in March and April 2010 for similar protests. In those instances, however, government attorneys brought charges against him in local court where he would not have faced jail time. They then decided not to go forward with the cases.

On Wednesday, the judge presiding over the current case said he believes Choi has shown, at least preliminarily, that he is being treated differently because of the subject of his protests: "don't ask, don't tell." President Barack Obama put an end to the policy in July. As of Sept. 20, gay service members will be able to acknowledge their sexual orientation openly.

Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola said the testimony presented at trial suggested that "the nature of his speech or what he said," meant Choi was prosecuted differently, according to a transcript of the proceedings.

As a result of Facciola's statements, an attorney for the government, Angela George, said she planned to have the judge's actions reviewed by higher authorities, and Facciola put the trial on hold for 10 days. In papers filed with the court, George says Choi was treated no differently than other similar protesters.

One of Choi's attorneys, Robert Feldman, said he believed that the judge's comments Wednesday mean his client has "effectively won the case" and that the charges against him will ultimately be dismissed.

Twelve other demonstrators arrested with Choi previously accepted a deal with prosecutors, agreeing to plead guilty in federal court but serve no jail time if they were not re-arrested within four months. Choi rejected a similar plea deal prosecutors offered Friday.

Comments

[SonyaInTx]

12:07 PM on 09/02/2011

Dan went about this the wrong way.

The Obama administration is dealing with DADT in the courts. He should have sit tight and let them do their work.

There were mass protests during the civil rights movement of the 1950's-60's. But it was the work of the legal team at the NAACP led by Thurgood Marshall and Marshall on the Supreme Court that made the change happen.....

[Hillbilly49]

11:35 AM on 09/02/2011

Dan should get a medal; not a trial.  It's time to get rid of this right wing nonsense; after all it is the 21st century.

[WhiteGuy]

11:22 AM on 09/02/2011

Separate but not Equal is what the Obama Gays want. Pick and choose their assignments rather then take the ones they were given like everyone else. Too bad, take orders and do what you are told. Welcome to the US Military this is not the open Gay Israel Miltary .

[duckpuddle]

11:32 AM on 09/02/2011

Obama Gays? Who are they?

What are you talking about?

I here consistent rejection of separate by equal by all the gay people that I know.

[Hillbilly49]

11:36 AM on 09/02/2011

It's nice to see someone as old as you posting.

[CrossingTheLD]

11:14 AM on 09/02/2011

The military exists to defend democracy, not practice it. Choi knew the rules at the time of his enlistment. The Army will not ask his orientation, nor should he offer it, otherewise face a discharge.

In the meantime, however, he got a top education from one of the premier engineering schools in the country, for free. When it came time for him to fulfill his service obligation, he reneged. Given that he did this during a time when our military is engaged in two foreign conflicts, this is especially repre+hensible.

- A 10 year Army veteran

[duckpuddle]

11:34 AM on 09/02/2011

He made a choice and is dealing with the consequences. He felt his cause was just.

You are correct the military is not a democracy. That is why the repeal is being implemented with a a vote by service personnel.

[duckpuddle]

11:45 AM on 09/02/2011

...without a vote...

[ethiopia1a]

10:04 AM on 09/02/2011

If only you religious yokels had any idea how many homosexuals already serve. Your would bibles spontaneously combust.

[PWM]

10:16 AM on 09/02/2011

Even in the state of Israel gays can openly serve in the military.

[WhiteGuy]

08:48 AM on 09/02/2011

HE/SHE Complex?

[WhiteGuy]

08:47 AM on 09/02/2011

Maybe he is MAD he is not a real Man

[Grada3784]

09:17 AM on 09/02/2011

In a knockdown- drag out between you and Lt. Choi, I'd bet on the Lt.

[PWM]

10:20 AM on 09/02/2011

Do you think about homosexuals often?

[WhiteGuy]

08:45 AM on 09/02/2011

BUSH Don't Ask Don't Tell

OBAMA Do Ask Do Tell

[CrossingTheLD]

11:10 AM on 09/02/2011

No, more like:

OBAMA Don't Ask, Don't Ask.

[akutan]

07:46 AM on 09/02/2011

He is mad because he failed to earn the E.I.B.

[makeck]

08:22 AM on 09/02/2011

That, coupled with the fact that I do not see a Ranger Tab on his uniform, means he was not a very good Infantry Officer. Its obvious he was twice passed over for promotion to Captain. 1LTs who are twice passed over for promotion to Captain are NOT eligible to be considered for promotion after that, it's an AUTOMATIC discharge, though there are forms of appeal.

Even after DADT repeal, Dan Choi will not be allowed on Active Duty, and it has nothing to do with what he has done since he got off Active Duty. He was simply not qualified for the job he had.

Though he might still be eligible to rejoin the National Guard, not sure, the different states have different rules.

[PWM]

10:22 AM on 09/02/2011

How do you know?

[akutan]

11:12 AM on 09/02/2011

The only reason an Infantryman will not wear an E.I.B. is because he is wearing his C.I.B.

[akutan]

11:15 AM on 09/02/2011

This Lt is an un-qualified infantry officer. No ranger tab, no expert infantry badge. He is like a secretary who types 10 words per minute.

[istanbulite]

03:43 AM on 09/02/2011

Thanks to all for commenting. It is important to remember that we can say what we want and represent what we believe and who we are. That is what has made the USA strong and intact. It is what saves us from extremists of any type. We can right the ship when it has gone too far one way or the other.
However, this right was denied to Lt Choi when he was in the Army. He could not speak of an essential part of himself. While some commentors will suggest that it is not important or relevant, I would suggest a simple test. For one week, carry a pad and pencil and note everytime you make reference to your sexual orientation. ie That guy or girl is gorgeous, or the new bar in town is very busy, or my sf/bf/wife/husband is being cranky. If you want to go a step further, then try to note every time that your eyes focus on someone of the same or opposite gender. Lastly, try to stop yourself from doing the above.

[duckpuddle]

11:41 AM on 09/02/2011

RE: However, this right was denied to Lt Choi when he was in the Army.

That's correct. He could have fought his discharge (similar to what the LCR did), but I don't think he did. He decided to go the protest/civil disobedience route.

[kittykatluvr21]

03:23 AM on 09/02/2011

He is being charged with failure to obey a lawful order.... although he was already DISCHARGED from the Army. Am I the only one here shaking my head here?

[jbarelli]

03:02 AM on 09/02/2011

Could we please stop comparing Mr. Choi to Rosa Parks? There are a few differences.

Rosa Parks protested at the beginning of the civil rights movement.

Dan Choi protested at the end of the effort to allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Rosa Parks risked her life in protesting unfair treatment. (Literally - civil rights protesters were routinely lynched.)

Dan Choi risked not being sent to Iraq.

Rosa Parks worked at a number of different jobs and used her speaking fees to fund a foundation for college scholarships.

Dan Choi is paid up to $10,000.00 for speaking, and also receives first class travel and accomodations.

I have nothing personal against Mr. Choi. If someone wants to pay him thousands of dollars to speak, that's their business. If he needs to play the martyr by refusing to take a deal pleading guilty to something he did, thereby getting his name plastered all over the papers once again, well, business is business, and any publicity is good publicity.

But seriously. Comparing him to Rosa Parks? That's insulting to every person that fought for civil rights and to every person that publicly supported allowing gays to serve in the military back before we had a President that actively supported their service.

You want to find someone to honor? Okay, get a book entitled "Conduct Unbecoming" and learn about the men and women that stood up before it was popular. Honor them.

[istanbulite]

03:50 AM on 09/02/2011

While I agree with much you have stated, lets also remember that these 2 individuals share minority status that is immutable. The test of time will determine if both are honorable or not. Both were brave (or some would say foolish) in their own manner. Change only happens when enough
people understand the unfairness or stupidity of rules or attitudes.

[TheBaffler]

08:15 AM on 09/02/2011

Why should he plead guilty to exercising his right to free speech? Why was he charged at all? He's clearly being singled out. Obama, not Choi, is drawing attention to Choi by this persecution.

[jbarelli]

10:49 AM on 09/02/2011

First, I doubt that the President of the United States is paying much attention to Mr. Choi.

Next, he's being charged because he refused the plea deal that all of the other folks arrested at the same time took. The "right to free speech" does not include the right to chain yourself to the White House fence.

Apparently the offers to speak (at $10,000 per speech) were dropping off, and Mr. Choi needed to get back in the headlines. In the words of the President that Mr. Choi apparently had no problem with, "mission accomplished".

No, the right of free speech isn't at issue here. The right of very expensive speech seems to be more to the point.

[Sean777]

10:15 PM on 09/01/2011

Under a republican administration Dan Choi will be imprisoned in Gitmo without trial

[TheBaffler]

11:05 PM on 09/01/2011

Like Obama's doing to Bradley Manning?

[Sean777]

06:43 PM on 09/07/2011

Good point actually but he is not in custody under a direct Presidential order; it is funny how you brought that case considering the fact that while Conservatives branded Manning as a traitor in Fox News, In April 2011, 295 democratic scholars, including legal scholars and philosophers signed a letter saying the conditions he experienced in solitary confinement amounted to a violation of the U.S. Constitution. So thanks to Democrats later that month the Pentagon transferred him to a medium-security facility in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, allowing him to interact with other pre-trial detainees.

[Brokenduck]

10:13 PM on 09/01/2011

What amazes me is the complete hypocracy on the part of trolls and others, who (see below) castigate Choi for what he did, and yet, they do nothing about the MUTINY that officers like Colin Powell and (many) others committed against Bill Clinton back before DADT was conjured up as the only other option to discontinuing the ban on gay service members. Clinton wanted to end the ban and was told by the highest brass in the military that they would not execute his order. And I have heard more than a few older conservatives lionize men like Douglas McArthur for showing the same kind of "bravery" that many are condemning Choi for showing.

And those of you who served in the military: thanks, but remember that you did not serve for me, nor anyone else but yourselves. Don't forget that. And do not hide behind your uniforms and think that you are any more of a citizen, or that your opinions have any more weight than any others who did not serve in the military. I served in the military and am no more an American than anyone else. Neither am I any less.

[frank day]

10:42 PM on 09/01/2011

Tr0ll

[TheBaffler]

09:53 PM on 09/01/2011

The O_bots will simply not abide anyone showing up their idol. It doesn't matter how flimsy the pretext is for persecuting someone who opposes Obama or any of his positions; ruthlessly persecuted he must be.

[frank day]

10:11 PM on 09/01/2011

Yawn.

[TheBaffler]

10:19 PM on 09/01/2011

What a blistering retort. It's a relief to know your servility bores you. Wouldn't want you do something that requires any effort, like gain the courage of your convictions, like Dan Choi has.