The Department of Justice filed a motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Log Cabin Republicans v. United States case, asking the court for “emergency” reconsideration of its July 6 decision to lift the stay of the worldwide injunction of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, reports Metro Weekly.
Administrative separation board hearings proceeding and discharges are continuing under DADT, and since the passage of the repeal act the Air Force has confirmed three discharges and one resignation related to 10 U.S.C. 654 in 2011, according to the publication, which notes:
One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson, said in a statement provided to Metro Weekly, “The Administration’s response to this latest development in the Log Cabin Republicans lawsuit is unfathomable and confusing. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ should be completely dead by now.”
Yes, it should. I wonder if the Obama administration would be fighting this suit if it had been brought by LGBT Democrats rather than Republicans.
More. From the San Francisco Chronicle, “Obama’s Lawyers Seek to Re-Impose ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’
Furthermore. R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, on why the Log Cabin suit has mattered.
27 Comments for “Discharges Continue Under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell””
posted by Wilberforce on
You wonder? I don’t think so. Even to ask such a stupid question shows that you’re convinced of it.
I think Obama is playing politics again, dodging and weaving for a political benefit beyond my vision. The Clintons did a ton of this and were hated for it by the left. I actually applaud the dance.
In this case, I could care less. Once dadt is history, all of these actions will be set right. So this is another non-issue, or in your case, another chance to spit venom at one of our allies.
posted by Doug on
Time to get back on your medication Stephen.
posted by LesGS on
After going to read the linked Metro Weekly article, it looks to me like the DOJ doesn’t want the military’s process of ridding itself of DADT or its authority with its service members undermined, which seems reasonable to me. (It should also be noted that the four instances of discharge/resignation were instigated by the service members involved themselves, apparently wanting early release.)
That said, I think it’s completely appropriate that we keep pushing against the constraints which keep us from living as full citizens.
posted by Tom on
I wonder if the Obama administration would be fighting this suit if it had been brought by LGBT Democrats rather than Republicans.
Oh, come on, Stephen.
A reading of the facts clearly reported in the press would lead any fair-minded person to conclude that the motion to reconsider stems from the DOD’s desire to implement DADT repeal according to the plan, so as to implement the policy without disruption.
There isn’t a hint of political paranoia involved, except in your own suggestion that the military is playing political games. Get a grip, dear.
posted by another steve on
So you think if HRC had brought this suit the Obama administration would be fighting it? In your dreams.
posted by Lymis on
Yeesh.
To buy into that, you have to believe that the Administration, the public, and, for that matter, the Republicans, think of the Log Cabin Republicans in this context as sufficiently representative of the Republican Party that fighting them would constitute partisan politics.
Sorry, but if this lawsuit doesn’t just fizzle out because it’s declared legally moot by repeal, nobody is going to see this a a Republican win, and pretending otherwise is absurd.
No argument that it is/was an effort by a small group of Republican people, but it is far more characterized by their fighting uphill against the mainstream policies every step of the way.
posted by Tom on
So you think if HRC had brought this suit the Obama administration would be fighting it?
I think exactly that.
In your dreams.
Don’t forget that the administration stuck to its guns during the year before the DADT vote under intense pressure from the HRC and other groups, insisting on repeal through the legislative process rather than executive order, then set a course for legislative repeal and stuck by it despite howls from all over the left-side of the Democratic Party that the administration was mishandling the legislative process.
Since the legislation passed last December, the DADT repeal process seems to me to have been remarkably free of politics. President Obama has done exactly what he said he would do, which is allow the military to study the implications and potential problems of implementation, build a plan and implement the plan.
The motion to reconsider is entirely consistent with the administration’s actions throughout the implementation process. And the response from the left-side of the Democratic Party to the administration’s motion to reconsider has been predictable, too — anger and dismay.
posted by BobN on
“according to the publication, which notes”
Of course, the publication also “noted” that all the separations which have happened have been at the request of the discharged service member, i.e. completely voluntary.
I wonder if Stephen would have pointed that out if the President were a Republican…
posted by another steve on
Just not true. Do you care at all about being honest, or just about insulting the blogger (stupid question, I know, clearly it’s the latter).
From one of the links in the MW article, Navy Petty Officer’s DADT Discharge Hearing Raises Questions About DADT’s Continued Enforcement:
“For him, he was baffled …. He thought for sure his hearing was going to be put on hold,” she added. “He was fearful that they were trying to make this happen before implementation.” … Before learning the outcome of the hearing, however, McGehee discussed the “emotional and physical stress” that she said Morado was facing and added pointedly, “It really begins to make you question why we’re wasting the money on a hearing like this and also why were allowing the military to bully him.”
posted by grendel on
Not so fast Another Steve.
The claim was that all the separations have been at the request of the discharged service member (voluntary). If you keep reading that link you will see that the hearing panel did not vote for separation. So unless you have other evidence of involuntary separations, I think you were a little fast with your insults.
posted by Lymis on
As a gay veteran, I’m not willing to just find out that “the servicemember asked for the discharge” and then say “Oh, well all right then.”
Each case is different, and each person is different, but remember that under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, not only is there investigation and discharge for someone who outs themselves or is outed, but there is also often no support whatsoever for servicemembers who are being harassed or threatened because of their real or perceived sexual orientation. The Barry Winchell case (beaten to death after having reported fears for his own safety) is extreme, but not uncommon.
People want to characterize all the voluntary self-outings as some kind of “Oh, I got bored of being in the military, nobody told me it would be so hard” thing on the part of the gay servicemember.
But we can’t discount the “I knew the enemy might shoot at me, but I didn’t expect to be in more serious danger from my own fellow soldiers” aspects of things.
The clearly documented cases of lesbians being raped to “cure” them and being terrified to report it, the soldiers and sailors of both genders in fear for their lives and safety, and so on are the flip side of the DADT legacy.
posted by BobN on
“Just not true”
With all due respect, fuck you. I do not lie. I do not purposely misstate the situation when it would be convenient for me to do so. As a mere commenter on this site, as opposed to someone like Miller who, one assumes, does some preparation for his blog threads, I still do not avoid inconvenient truths. Had I read the article linked to the article linked to this thread and found the one case to which you refer, I would have said “all but one of which have been reported to be voluntary”.
Frankly, finding one that isn’t voluntary troubles me and I will look into it. I don’t even like the fact that the process is being followed even if no actual discharge takes place.
posted by Jorge on
I agree with everyone else who posted.
I am sympathetic to the DOJ’s argument and position here. However, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been found to be unconstitutional for all servicemembers; there must be sufficient cause to stay that ruling pending appeal. It is hard to argue that suspending it immediately will cause immediate, extreme, and irreparable harm if the repeal has been found to carry only low to moderate risks without any attempt at interevention, only low risks with appropriate intervention and training, and if intervention is underway.
Whether or not the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify there are no risks in accordance to the repeal law is not relevant to this legal question. The courts should be looking at the same information that is presented to the executive branch.
I do think if the Ninth Circuit ruled that the federal government appears to express no interest in defending the constitutionality of DADT, as the article cites, then the Circuit is absolutely NUTS.
posted by Tom on
I think Obama is playing politics again, dodging and weaving for a political benefit beyond my vision.
I thought about this comment today, and for the life of me, I can’t imagine any political advantage to the administration from filing and pursuing the motion to reconsider.
On the one hand, filing the motion pissed off the left-progressives in the Democratic Party, pissed off the gays and lesbians in the Democratic Party, and pissed off the DADT-repeal activists in and out of the Democratic Party. On the other, filing the motion pleased — who? The social conservatives won’t vote for President Obama under any circumstances, and I can’t think of an anti-repeal constituency that would vote for President Obama no matter what the administration did or didn’t do at this point with respect to the motion or anything else relating to DADT repeal.
So I don’t see any political gain from the motion to reconsider.
It is pretty obvious what happened. The military was moving forward on a careful timeline, the 9th Circuit order disrupted that timeline, the military pushed DOD/DOJ to go back and try to convince the 9th Circuit to allow the military to implement DADT repeal on the timeline, the President agreed, and ordered the motion filed.
If that’s what happened, I think that the President did the right thing. Military effectiveness and efficiency is important, and a few months’ delay isn’t the end of the world.
posted by Wilberforce on
So that is the benefit, allowing the military to implement the order on its own timeline without interferance from the court.
I’ve seen this pattern a lot, as done by the Clintons, and I’ve learned to suspend judgement on their actions. They’re smarter than I am, and they always had access to information that I didn’t. I used to get such a kick from seeing their machinations show results. The Clinton economy and federal surplus were a couple of those results.
posted by Hunter on
Tom: You’re talking about a military that took ten months to figure out what to do; as far as I’ve been able to find out, all other militaries that have instituted open service did it in less than six months, start to finish. Do we smell a little foot-dragging here? I don’t think ending the policy two or three months before they’re comfortable is going to damage anything.
There’s also the fact that Obama assured Congress that the military would be in control of the process, which is outrageously wrong to begin with. Now the court is threatening to disrupt his scenario, which he can’t tolerate very well, apparently.
If it takes the 9th Circuit to remind everyone that the military is under civilian control, so be it.
posted by Tom on
You’re talking about a military that took ten months to figure out what to do; as far as I’ve been able to find out, all other militaries that have instituted open service did it in less than six months, start to finish.
The other countries had smaller military forces to train for the change, and operated in countries without (or with significantly less) religious and political resistance to the change. Countries reap what they sow, just like people do, and our country has to deal with a thirty-year history (starting with the Anita Bryant in Florida) of work by a virulent and vicious anti-gay alliance between religious conservatives and the Republican Party that worked very hard to demonize gays and lesbians and build fear into Americans. The long campaign poisoned the well, and it is a fact of our political and cultural landscape. None of the other countries involved had to deal with anything like it.
Do we smell a little foot-dragging here?
Maybe foot-dragging is involved, Hunter, but there is little evidence to support that suspicion. Military leadership took a consistent position from the beginning: (1) study the implications and issues of repeal, (2) create an implementation plan to address the implications and overcome any anticipated problems, and (3) implement according to plan. The military executed (1) and (2) on the timeline it said it would, and has been moving along on (3) according to the timeline. I don’t think that it is unreasonable for the military to ask the court to hold off and let it finish the job of implementation.
There’s also the fact that Obama assured Congress that the military would be in control of the process, which is outrageously wrong to begin with.
We differ in our opinion. I think that President Obama acted correctly. We have civilian control of the military in our tradition, and that tradition is important. But civilian control doesn’t necessarily mean that politicians should meddle in the details of military operations. Instead, politicians should set the policy and the timeline, and order the military to implement the policy on the timeline, overseeing at DOD level to make sure that it is happening as ordered. As far as I am concerned, that’s what happened in this case, and I think it was the right thing to do.
Now the court is threatening to disrupt his scenario, which he can’t tolerate very well, apparently.
The motion to reconsider is nothing more than the DOD asking to court to hold off so that the military can implement repeal according to plan. I don’t think that President Obama’s ego is involved.
If it takes the 9th Circuit to remind everyone that the military is under civilian control, so be it.
Do I smell a red herring? The military isn’t showing any signs of undermining civilian control (in the broader sense) or DADT repeal (in the narrower) that I can see.
The folks who are trying to undermine the process of repeal are not the military leaders, but the Republican assholes in Congress who are offering up bill after bill (e.g. the latest little gem, defunding the chaplains’ offices so that they can’t perform marriages in states where it is legal to do so). If nothing else, in my view, we are getting a good lesson in why civilian control should confine itself to policy and timeline, leaving implementation to the military. The military, if nothing else, is competent.
posted by Doug on
“It should also be noted that the four instances of discharge/resignation were instigated by the service members involved themselves, apparently wanting early release.”
Stephen is just practicing for his new job at Fox News. Only tell half the story and spin the rest. It’s really pretty pathetic Stephen.
posted by Another Steve on
You are completely wrong, or intentionally mendacious. The discharges are not “voluntary.” Did you read the linked articles, or can’t you abide any data that doesn’t praise Obama and make you feel oh so good because you’re a big liberal Democrat? From the linked article:
“For him, he was baffled …. He thought for sure his hearing was going to be put on hold,” she added. “He was fearful that they were trying to make this happen before implementation.” … Before learning the outcome of the hearing, however, McGehee discussed the “emotional and physical stress” that she said Morado was facing and added pointedly, “It really begins to make you question why we’re wasting the money on a hearing like this and also why were allowing the military to bully him.”
Navy Petty Officer’s DADT Discharge Hearing Raises Questions About DADT’s Continued Enforcement
posted by grendel on
I’m sorry Another Steve, but you are completely wrong, or intentionally mendacious. Did you read your own link, or can’t you abide any data that doesn’t vilify Obama and make you feel oh so good because you’re a big conservative Republican? From the linked article:
“The fact that everyone knows that the Pentagon hasn’t discharged anyone since Obama signed the repeal law, and yet we are seeing, on the unit level, discharge procedures still going forward — it’s creating an almost harder position for some people.”
There have not been any involuntary separations, which have to be approved by the Pentagon itself. Soldiers are still being dragged through the discharge process. But no one is being discharged. You can argue that the entire process should be halted at all levels pending the final repeal, but the fact remains that no one has been involuntarily discharged as you claim.
posted by another steve on
By your own admission, “soliers are still being dragged through the discharge process.” Yes, they are. And their lives are being upended. But apparently, that’s nothing to you.
posted by grendel on
Moving the goalposts are we?
You called Doug a liar because he said there had been no involuntary discharges. He was correct; there have not been any. So when you said he was lying, you were (to use your own words) completely wrong or intentionally mendacious. Whichever it was I don’t much care. I’m not wasting any more time with you.
posted by Brian Miller on
The administration was successful (partially) in its appeal to restore DADT yesterday evening.
That means that over 7 months after DADT was “repealed,” it’s still in force.
posted by Tom on
I notice that the “Update” article Stephen posted made clear that his snark (“I wonder if the Obama administration would be fighting this suit if it had been brought by LGBT Democrats rather than Republicans.” ) was misplaced:
“The Justice Department, in today’s request to keep the lower-court ruling on hold, said it’s asking the appeals court to “permit the orderly process for repealing” the policy to resume.” That is, of course, exactly what was reflected in the DOJ brief, with supporting reasons.
Stephen’s remark reminded me of a hilarious riff Rachael Maddow did a few weeks ago, in which she took a dozen ideas original proposed by Republicans in Congress, then endorsed by President Obama, and then rejected by the same Republicans because President Obama had agreed with them.
Each of the dozen video segments in the riff followed this formula: (1) video clip showing Republican [X] proposing idea [Y]; (2) video clip showing President Obama endorsing idea [Y]; (3) video clip showing Republican [X] saying that idea [Y] was absolutely terrible, worse than eating live babies.
I think that Stephen as been around Republicans too long. Not everyone in the government acts like a two-year-old in a snit. There are still a few adults in the room.
posted by Jorge on
It is pretty obvious what happened. The military was moving forward on a careful timeline, the 9th Circuit order disrupted that timeline, the military pushed DOD/DOJ to go back and try to convince the 9th Circuit to allow the military to implement DADT repeal on the timeline, the President agreed, and ordered the motion filed.
That’s what I gathered from a more recent story, too. I’m skeptical that implementing the repeal by judicial decree a few months early would be the end of the world, which I would think is what the government would have to prove. I can see how such an argument can be made with some credibility; I would still reject it. Here it seems that the court has ordered the policy to continue but separations to stop. I approve. It looks like for whatever reason the government thinks that will allow it to continue to implement the repeal. You know our military is still trying to explain this to our soldiers.
It is also quite possible that for legal reasons the Obama administration wishes to draw a distinction and state while it believes DADT is bad policy, it is not unconstitutional.
posted by Lymis on
Whether it is the intention or not, another effect is that if the law is repealed without the constitutional issue being resolved, then it can be passed again at a future date by a future Congress, or depending on what else is going on with gay rights, reinstituted as a policy by a future President.
If the case goes forward, the actual constitutionality may be addressed in a clear and definitive way.
I don’t think the “eleven dimension chess” theory quite works here – I doubt that’s the Administration’s intent, but it may be the effect.
posted by Lymis on
The update is that the court said that the government can still continue to turn away out gay applicants but they cannot investigate, discharge or penalize any serving member who is currently in.
Not 100% ideal, but certainly good news as we move forward.