But Am I Safer, Mr. Secretary?

When someone invokes 'humane' treatment, what springs to mind for you? Maybe the ASPCA battling the abuse of dogs or PETA railing against the cruelty of animal testing; perhaps the ACLU advocating for proper treatment of terrorism detainees.

Whatever comes up, usually it involves people being urged to properly value the life of something that, for some reason, might be considered sub-human. It's the act of visiting kindness or compassion on something deemed less deserving -- which made it all the more telling last week when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said he was seeking "a more humane way" of enforcing the military's policy that bans gay men and lesbians from service.

To be specific, Gates gave an interview in which he said Pentagon lawyers were researching alternative ways of implementing the ban, which currently bears no resemblance, by the way, to the magnificent policy misnomer "don't ask, don't tell." Just to be clear, in many cases, soldiers are told on, they are investigated, and they are asked.

Among other things, Gates said they were reviewing whether third-party outings should necessarily prompt an investigation.

"When we're given information from someone with vengeance in mind or blackmail, somebody who has been jilted," Gates explained, "If somebody is outed by a third party, does that force us to take action? That's the kind of thing we're looking at -- seeing if there's a more humane way to apply the law until it gets changed."

If it sounds like the government has sometimes been a willing participant in the blackmail of men and women who are voluntarily defending America's freedom -- that's not far off.

Now on one level, Gates's comments were welcome -- they were the very first indication in several months that military leaders are engaging in serious discussions with President Barack Obama about changing the policy.

On another level, his words were not only offensive, but when the phrase was repeated last Sunday by the Joint Chiefs Chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen, the tandem laid bare the cultural generation gap that remains the biggest hurdle to our nation doing what 23 of our NATO allies have already done -- let those who are willing to die for their country do so in full view of their countrymen.

Even more striking to me was their misguided emphasis on some perverse notion of mercy when one would think their focus would be on building the strongest military possible. Is it really conceivable that, somehow, it hasn't occurred to these guys that kicking out some 13,000 soldiers over the past 16 years -- hundreds of whom had mission-critical skills -- might undermine the military's ability to effectively do its job? If that is the case, then nothing short of homophobia is blinding them from the truth.

And while it's perfectly noble for Sec. Gates and Adm. Mullen to be aspiring to a kinder, gentler force, quite frankly I think they're pondering the wrong question.

Shouldn't the measure of any military policy be whether it's promoting
national security in a manner consistent with our constitutional values?

With all due respect, Mr. Secretary, the next time you're mulling the ouster of gay service members, skip the paternalism and just tell us whether we're safer and whether we're upholding American ideals.

Comments

[S1m0n]

What I've been wondering is what it is that the military HAS which has been able to stop two successive democratic presidents - both of whom campaigned against military discrimination against gays - in their tracks when the time came to enact that mandate. What can it be that appears to have had the power to force President Obama to not only fail to act, but to do so while refusing to even address the issue or even to merely state his intention and timetable for acting in any concrete sense? NONE of that has occurred. What changed? What had the power to make this change occur? Why don't we know that, either?

[ricchase]

The time will come when all these issues regarding gay people are remembered as archaic government oddities. Much like, well, "allowing" women to vote.

[PlaceboStudman]

More needless pandering to the Evangelical factions that have invaded and taken over our military. Maybe in another 50 or 100 years this policy will be re-examined and repealed. Until then we are caught in the iron fisted grip that has its grasp around the necks of America and the government

[Romulus]

That's the kind of thing we're looking at -- seeing if there's a more humane way to apply the law until it gets changed."

UNTIL IT GETS CHANGED. Did you read that part, Ms. Eleveld? DADT is currently the law and it's not up to Gates or Mullen to violate it. Both are sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.

[schatsie]

Sorry, but what about all of Bush's signing statements saying that he would not enforce the laws almost 1000 and nobody PEEPED...

and all the other laws that were broken and the rampant fraud...BARACK NEEDS to bring back the WHISTLEBLOWERs who looked out for us citizens and the people who were outed and the GRUNTS THAT BUSH IMPUGNED....