Question answered.
On 12/19/2010 03:26 PM, GregfromBoston wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I haven't bashed anyone on this, let alone you.
>
> The constitution mandates a military subserviant to civilian rule.
> Not ruleS, but rule. This is that case. 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) was a
> congressional act banning gays from military service outright. That
> just got killed too (ok, I haven't read the actual bill, but if it
> doesn't, then it damned well better and fast, because Justice Virginia
> Phillips rules does so explicitely.
>
> Please tell me they are not THAT dumb, as to leave the US Code out.
>
> On Dec 19, 3:14 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> fromhttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread621767/pg1
>>
>> First of all, this is not a gay bashing post, nor is it a pro-gay post. This
>> is neutral. I simply want to point out some things that might change how
>> everyone views what is going on, if you can separate yourselves from
>> personal experience and opinions, one way or another. This post will
>> hopefully ignite thoughtful introspection, not hateful debates one way or
>> another. Consider the following before making a comment, and please add to
>> it with thoughtful, respectful discussion.
>>
>> When our country first formed an organized military, it needed rules to
>> govern the unique culture that it is. Considering the time frame and moral
>> and religious backbone of the men during that time, the UCMJ very much made
>> sense. To hate the UCMJ, one would also have to hate the Declaration of
>> Independence, because it was the same men who formed the very first "draft"
>> that their military would be held accountable. Interestingly, most of what
>> was covered in the original 69 Articles of War in 1775 (which was a year
>> after the signing of the Declaration of Independence), had to do with
>> desertion with stiff punishments of death, and behavior that was honorable
>> and gentlemanly. It wasn't until the following revisions over the next
>> century that great lengths were taken to define moral sexual ideals -
>> apparently, lewd sex acts had warranted stiff guidelines straight across the
>> board, to include heterosexuals. However, one article from 1775 would cover
>> any indecencies that the "gentlemen" of those days would dare not put into
>> words on a formal document...
>>
>> Art. XLVII. Whatsoever commissioned officer shall be convicted before a
>> general court-martial, of behaving in a scandalous, infamous manner, such as
>> is unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman, shall be
>> discharged from the service.
>>
>> Articles of War<http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_06-30-75.asp>
>>
>> On 30 June 1775, the Second Continental Congress established 69 Articles of
>> War to govern the conduct of the Continental Army. Effective upon its
>> ratification in 1789, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution
>> provided that Congress has the power to regulate the land and naval
>> forces.[1] On 10 April 1806, the United States Congress enacted 101 Articles
>> of War (which applied to both the Army and the Navy), which were not
>> significantly revised until over a century later. The military justice
>> system continued to operate under the Articles of War until 31 May 1951,
>> when the Uniform Code of Military Justice went into effect. The UCMJ was
>> passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S.
>> Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.
>>
>> UCMJ<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice>
>>
>> So many people are so willing to bash the laws of the military, but I dare
>> say few have ever read the UCMJ in it's entirety. Here's the problem with
>> messing with military law....when you try to change it to fit one group, you
>> end up implicating them and many others with other laws, so then THOSE laws
>> will need to be altered, and then that affects other laws. It turns into an
>> ugly mess. Forget gay rights for a moment, (yes, I have gay friends in the
>> military, I'm a vet, and I'm straight, so this isn't about that)....what
>> congress is about to do (IF they do), is to dismantle almost the entire
>> UCMJ. Hear what I'm saying please....it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to
>> reassemble it and still protect everyone while upholding law and order
>> within its ranks. This is precisely why gay military members are still being
>> told NOT to be open about their sexuality, but recruiters can now recruit
>> gays without secrecy. Here's the problem....
>>
>> If someone signed up under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, it actually
>> protected their careers, because once they "came out", then they were
>> subject to the UCMJ under Article 83 for Fraudulent Enlistment, Article 125
>> for Sodomy, Article 133 for conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman
>> (which also includes all ranks and females), Article 134-9 for wrongful
>> cohabitation (if they were living with their lover), Article 134-19 for
>> False Swearing under oath that they swore not to LIE and that all enlistment
>> information was true to the best of their knowledge, and Article 134 for
>> General acts that disrupt the good order and discipline of the armed forces,
>> or brings discredit to the armed forces.
>>
>> All those who KNEW someone was gay and didn't say anything would be charged
>> under Article 77, for knowing that this military member was breaking the
>> above UCMJ laws, but didn't say anything...this falls under Principles.
>> Hence, "don't ask" protected the hetero military member from having
>> knowledge that could implicate him/her, and "don't tell" protected the gay
>> member from being caught in a lie OR from being charged with all the above
>> articles.
>>
>> There are possibly more articles that could apply to both gays and
>> straights, but I think I made the general point. It's not just one simple
>> rule that congress needs to change, it is many, but there is no way to
>> unscrew this mess, which is why military officials are butting heads with
>> congress right now. THIS is why the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came into
>> effect to begin with, because it protected everyone from the laws that would
>> prevent them from serving their country in the first place. Are you reading
>> this?? Don't ask, don't tell was never a bad thing, folks, but now that it
>> is getting shoved aside, what will happen next IS a bad thing. They either
>> have to change all these laws, or punish a lot of people - lots of job
>> losses! Overlooking the law is bad news - you can't run a military without
>> laws. Congress is purposely backing the military into a corner, and the
>> military heads are trying like heck to talk some sense into these
>> politicians. Forget all the gay rights hype for a minute...unless they
>> grandfather all the current members under a protection clause, there will be
>> a lot of job losses if these folks ever decide to "come out". What is the
>> military suppose to do, since they are at the mercy of Congress who makes
>> and sets the laws for the UCMJ, and judges who aren't consulting with the
>> men who know best?
>>
>> Certain members of congress are purposely using the gay rights issues and
>> increased public fervor to pressure these changes, (thanks to the media),
>> but I challenge everyone to set aside temporary and/or perceived discomforts
>> for a moment and consider WHY this is happening. It is not good! I believe
>> this has little to do with gay rights. I propose that gay rights are being
>> used to piggyback a different agenda....one that will need to disarm the
>> laws that govern behavior in our military services. Why? I don't
>> know...that's for the conspiracy forum. But having the experience and
>> connections that I have, I am not alone in feeling that this bypasses gay
>> constituent demands. I believe there is something much deeper going on
>> here.
>>
>> Have a made a clearer picture for everyone yet?
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:03 PM, GregfromBoston<greg.vinc...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> No, thats the US Code. 10 U.S.C. § 654(b). recodified by congress
>>> (dem congress) in 1993. That is WHY Clinton did DADT. Both are done.
>>> On Dec 19, 2:47 pm, dick thompson<rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> The existing UCMJ bans all gays completely.
>>>> On 12/19/2010 11:00 AM, Tommy News wrote:
>>>>> Wrong again Kieth. Isolated incidents do not pass muster.
>>>>> The existing Military Code of Conduct will be more than adequate for
>>>>> any isolated behavioral incidents which may arise.
>>>>> On 12/19/10, Keith In Tampa<keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Tom,
>>>>>> Two words, four syllables that completely destroy your premise:
>>>>>> "Bradley Manning"
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Tommy News<tommysn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> No, Poorly said and and highly homophobic, Keith and Mark.
>>>>>>> Gays make fine, well behaved soldiers, and are well practiced at
>>>>>>> hiding and surpressing their sexuality, unlike many straight soldiers
>>>>>>> who go around bragging about thier sexual conquests, being vulgar,
>>> and
>>>>>>> showwing "affection" in public.
>>>>>>> The exixting Military Code odf Conduct will be more than adequate for
>>>>>>> any isolated behavioral incidents which may arise.
>>>>>>> DADT repeal is a resounding victory for Civil Rights equality.
>>>>>>> On 12/19/10, Keith In Tampa<keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Well said Mark. It's a brand new day, and a brand new
>>> world....Little
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> folks like Tom have a clue.
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:37 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE
>>>>>>>> <markmka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hurray, Now they are subject to the complaints of the men and women
>>>>>>>>> they serve with under the UCMJ..... the reason for DADT in the
>>> first
>>>>>>>>> place....Do not cry when instead of simple discharge those gay
>>>>>>>>> soldiers and sailors garner BCDs and DDs for being openly Gay and
>>>>>>>>> offending just one other person with "sexually oriented behaviour".
>>>>>>>>> Be careful what you wish for..... you just may get it.
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 11:46 am, Tommy News<tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Senate Vote on Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal is Scheduled for 3 PM
>>>>>>>>>> Saturday. Debate is in progress now. Tune in to C-Span 2 to Watch.
>>> 63
>>>>>>>>>> Senators voted for Cloture, 60 Votes were needed, and that is a
>>> great
>>>>>>>>>> sign! Grand Obstructionist Party Senator John McCain is attempting
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> obstruct and block the repeal vote.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>>>>>>>>>> Have a great day,
>>>>>>>>>> Tommy
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>>>>>> For options& help seehttp://
>>> groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>>>>>> * Visit our other community at
>> ...
>>
>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment