“Not Guilty, Not Ashamed, and Not Finished”

Jim Burroway

March 19th, 2010

Capt. Jim Pietrangelo and Lt. Daniel Choi following their court appearance and release. (Metro Weekly)

Capt. Jim Pietrangelo and Lt. Daniel Choi following their court appearance and release. (Metro Weekly)

That’s the plea that Lt. Daniel Choi entered at his arraignment in DC Superior Court this afternoon, according to tweets from a reporter at Metro Weekly. Choi and Capt. Jim Pietrangelo were arrested yesterday and charged with “failure to obey a lawful order” after chaining themselves to the White House fence in protest over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  Pietrangelo also pleaded not guilty. Both were reportedly brought into the court room in handcuffs and chains.  Trial is set for April 26.

Richard W. Fitch

March 19th, 2010

***YES***

John

March 19th, 2010

I support them in seeking a repeal of DADT now, not sometime “later”, but I am disturbed by 2 active-duty military officers in full uniform pulling such a public stunt as this. Officially at least the military is supposed to be non-partisan and not use the uniform for politics. Does it happen? Of course. It’s also very very risky.

Both men have sacrificed their careers even if DADT is repealed. Higher-ups will make sure of that because one thing the military despises is an officer for any reason making the military look bad. I trust they both know that and were willing to make the sacrifice.

All in all I question how effective this is going to be. Our main argument is that the arguments for DADT are invalid, especially concerning “unit cohesion”. We want gay servicemembers to be held to the same standards as straight ones. Well, one of those standards is don’t use the uniform for politics or so blatantly for personal gain. Even if its not always enforced, loopholes are found that one could drive a Mack truck through at times, etc., that one is still very high. This could easily backfire and engender not necessarily more support for DADT, but let’s say less-enthusiastic support for repeal. Time will tell I suppose and I do hope I’m wrong.

Edwin

March 19th, 2010

DADT should never have been put in effect in the first place. Just another law that was railroaded in by all the homophobs of Clinton’s service in the White House.

MJC

March 20th, 2010

Bravo, Lt. Choi. Bravo. And I am straight.

John

March 20th, 2010

No it shouldn’t have, Edwin. It was a stupid law and we’ve lost 17 years because of it with thousands of people needlessly effected by it. Yet the sight of two active-duty military officers in full uniform pulling a stunt like this at the official residence of the CiC? That’s not right. What else can military officers do to protest the CiC and we just excuse it? What about those sympathetic to the TEA Party movement? We have civilian control for a reason.

I support the cause but find this stunt to be more than a little disturbing.

Richard Rush

March 20th, 2010

When oppressed minorities limit themselves to playing by all the rules established by their oppressors they shouldn’t be surprised when they get more oppression. Can anyone name an oppressed minority that has received equal rights and status by limiting themselves to asking politely? There may be some, but I just can’t think of any right now.

Lt. Daniel Choi is a hero, in my opinion.

Ben in Oakland

March 20th, 2010

Dan Choi comment:

There was no freer moment than being in that prison. It was freeing for me, and I thought of all of the other people that were still trapped – that were still handcuffed and fettered in their hearts. And we might have been caged up physically, but the message was very clear to all of the people who think that equality can be purchased with a donation, or with a cocktail party, or with tokens, that are serving in a public role. We are worth more than tokens. We have absolute value. And when the person who is oppressed by his own country wants to find out how to get that dignity back – being chained up and being arrested – that’s how you get your dignity conferred back upon you. And so I think that by actions, my call is to every leader – not just talking gay leaders – I’m talking any leader who believes in America, and the promises of America can be manifest. We’re gonna do it again. And we’re going to keep doing it until the promises are manifest. And we will not stop. This is a very clear message to President Obama and any other leader who supposes to talk for the American promise and the American people. We will not go away.”

The man is a hero.

Scott P.

March 20th, 2010

Could someone please clarify something for me? I thought both these gentlemen were expelled by the military. Or have they been reinstated?

Timothy Kincaid

March 20th, 2010

Scott P.,

Choi is still in processing.

John

March 20th, 2010

Richard: And where do you wish to draw the line? Start allowing servicemembers to pull stunts like this whenever they feel its necessary and what will the results be? If servicemembers disagree with public policy and feel strongly enough about it that they cannot refrain from speaking out publically, they need to resign or seek discharge before doing so. It is not their place to be questioning public policy while in uniform, let alone publically protesting it at the official residence of the Commander-in-Chief! That sets a VERY dangerous precedent and runs the risk of changing the military into something none of us would like.

Look, I don’t know Choi & Pietrangelo personally. I know a couple of fellas I respect that seem to think well of Choi (not sure if they know Pietrangelo), which puts him up a notch to me without having even met the man. Choi has been very impressive in interviews, speeches and online. Yet this stunt I cannot agree with. If he had resigned his commission first and then did this, I’d have no problem with it, but not while still in the service. That was wrong.

Ben Mathis

March 20th, 2010

So John, how do you feel about the literal brigade of right wing conservative generals that comment on policies, court cases, etc, while in uniform. how about just this week General Jack Sheehan’s comment about the dutch having gay servicemembers? Seems it’s only when grunts want to say something that it’s not alright, and even then only when it’s not a republican talking point. Soldiers are involved in politics all day long and no one says a word till it’s about gay rights.

John

March 20th, 2010

Sheehan is an ass but is retired so can freely speak his mind, unpleasant as it is in this case. There is a big difference between an active duty servicemember being asked their personal opinion on a subject, especially by Congress, and taking an active role in opposing public policy. Soldiers are free to participate in politics privately, they are NOT free to do so publically especially against established policy. I don’t give a damn what the subject matter is because that’s irrelevant. Tell me, would you find it acceptable if that “birther” officer (name escapes me) who filed suit against the president (and rightly lost) because he didn’t recognize Obama as the valid CiC chaining himself to the White House? Where exactly do you draw the line with these stunts by active duty personnel? How exactly do you see this helping repeal of DADT?

johnathan

March 20th, 2010

John,

Let me first process this by saying I don’t know the first thing about the military — its proceedures nor its rankings, et cetera. Having said that, and with the understanding Sheehan is retired, why did he not tesitify in a simple suit and tie? He appeared in a military suit with all of his pins attached. Does this not also present a representation of the military uniform, in some form or another? In otherwords — retired or not — does Sheehan, when in said appearance, not also speak for the Military Apparatus? Really, when it comes down to it, how is his apperance in that “get up” any different than Choi’s, save for the fact that he is supposedly “retired?” Because, as far as I am concered, when I see “retired” Generals appering like that, speaking on behalf of current military protocol, they are no longer retired.

Just MY opinion. Take it at that value and level.

John

March 21st, 2010

I only read about Sheehan’s remarks, I didn’t see them on video or a picture of his testimony. If he made his remarks while in uniform that makes them even more despicable. Retired personnel are allowed to wear the uniform in certain circumstances, testimony before Congress would be one of them. Yet as asinine as his comments were he was asked to testify and give his opinion on DADT, which is not the same thing as publically protesting public policy by chaining oneself in full uniform to the official residence of the CiC. I just heard elsewhere that Pietrangelo was actually out of the service at the time which if that’s the case while his participation in this stunt is controversial it’s far more acceptable than Choi’s.

johnathan

March 21st, 2010

Let me rephrase my comments — I didn’t see them either, but assumed from the photograph in this article. Just after posting, I thought, “Maybe this picture is just a stock photo?” So, I don’t know whether he appeared in uniform or not. Does anyone on this board know?

Nevertheless, to Choi and Pietrangelo, I give my full support.

Richard W. Fitch

March 21st, 2010

Yes, this is NOT just a stock photo. They were uniformed as you see them. btw, this is the same courthouse that a few days earlier welcomed applicants for Marriage Equality to get their licenses. About 150 same-sex partners applied.

johnathan

March 21st, 2010

Richard, no, no…I don’t mean Choi and Pietrangelo…I mean Sheehan. Was that just a stock photo of Sheehan? Was Sheehan in uniform when HE testified? Does anyone know about that? I have no doubt about Choi and Pietrangelo appearing in uniform — and I fully applaud that necessary and courageous act.

Ben in Oakland

March 21st, 2010

Personally, I am wondering if sheehan wasu nder oath when he testified, and given the Dutch government’s response, whether he can be prosecuted for lying under oath.

Richard Rush

March 21st, 2010

Sheehan was NOT wearing a uniform during the senate testimony, although I don’t really care one way or the other.
Here is the video.

johnathan

March 21st, 2010

Richard, thank you for letting me know. And you’re right. I, too, care less. He is an a$$h*le in, or out, of uniform.

Timothy Kincaid

March 21st, 2010

A question about Choi and Pietrangelo,

these look to me just to be camouflage. Since this sort of attire can be purchased at all kinds of places and does not appear to have any insignia, is this actually a “uniform”?

In other words, if Choi wanted to appear in uniform, why wouldn’t he use his dress blues (or whatever he has) rather than what you’d wear to go play paintball?

Perhaps one of our readers who have served can answer.

Richard W. Fitch

March 21st, 2010

Timothy: The pics that I have found of Choi at the HRC rally show him in camo with his name and various military insignia. The first pics at the fence no longer show them. I don’t know at what point this change actually took place.

Richard W. Fitch

March 21st, 2010

Timothy – just got another pic of Choi just before the cuffs went on and he still had his patches, can’t see Jim. A comment elsewhere indicated that they went into the courthouse with and were taken before release.

John

March 22nd, 2010

Ben: It’s technically possible since in limited circumstances even retired personnel are subject to the UCMJ since they draw a pension. Yet prosecution in this case would be extremely difficult.

RR: Well that’s better but Sheehan still made an ass of himself regardless.

Timothy: Both Choi & Pietrangelo were wearing official US Army uniforms with military insignia at the time they pulled this stunt. Specifically, there were wearing ACUs.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Jubal

Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.