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