John, intent is everything. Using your murder analogy, people receive lesser sentences or get off entirely on *intent* alone. (If you did something benign (self-defense) you usually get off, if you did something malevolent, you go to jail, and if you did something stupid or are mentally unstable it’s up in the air; same action, different standard.)

Self-defense is usually not considered to be murder under the law, hence why I chose that word above. Yes, if you are talking about legal proceedings intent is considered and should either man face a courts-martial I’m sure they will use this as part of their defense. I doubt in either case it would prove to be very effective in a military court. Even varying sentences for convictions which takes intent into account that you mention above still doesn’t mitigate that the defendant committed an offense that is not sanctioned under the law.

That said, in your example, the damage done (a death) would not be mitigated by the intent. But chaining yourself to a fence to obtain justice? I think that the intent can mitigate that.

If this were a civilian case I would agree, but not when it comes to the military. Choi appears to have disobeyed a valid order and committed an act of public protest against the CiC, both very serious offenses in the military. Mixon attempted an end-run around the chain of command to subvert the CiC, also a serious offense though in his case one that will probably only bring about a forced retirement. We have rules for servicemembers for a reason, without them the military cannot function properly and the highest principle is its strict subordination to civilian authorities. Both men stepped over the line in different ways when it comes to that principle regardless of their motives. Now do I expect the military to throw the book at them? Not really. The military hates bad PR and both cases are fraught with risk of lots of it.

(or military law since I have good reason to guess that you hold that in higher esteem that the civilian laws of the country you’re defending

You’re guess would be incorrect since we do not live in a Banana Republic yet and military law would be very wrong for civilians just as civilian law would be a disaster if applied in full to servicemembers.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that that’s the right path to take here; people who play Mr. Nice Guy aren’t going to get this draconian law changed

Perhaps, though I have my doubts that an ACT-UP approach will be all that effective but instead play right into the hands of DADT advocates. Yet even if I’m wrong about that there remains the fact that such actions by civilians are not excusable from servicemembers against their civilian authorities, nor should they be. If a servicemember wishes to engage in such activities they should leave the military first and then feel free to do so to their heart’s content.

That said, in your example, the damage done (a death) would not be mitigated by the intent. But chaining yourself to a fence to obtain justice? I think that the intent can mitigate that.

Ultimately, you’re getting at consistent application of the law (or military law since I have good reason to guess that you hold that in higher esteem that the civilian laws of the country you’re defending (and therefore would exercise the same selective standard you’re opposing here)). Unfortunately, I don’t think that that’s the right path to take here; people who play Mr. Nice Guy aren’t going to get this draconian law changed since there’s already a military/Congressional/religious culture built supporting it and Choi already blatantly violated one law (DADT), so he’s already stepped over the bounds. (The only way that he *couldn’t* be expelled is if his commanding officers chose to ignore the law (DADT), so it was a moot point anyway.)

In essence, your claim of consistent application here is defending all *laws* regardless of quality or intent (including DADT if you’re going to be consistent). Personally, I think that that’s wrong. And while the military culture may be “their’s to do or die; their’s not to question why”, Choi has already been condemned by this culture you’re supporting (assuming that they apply your claimed standard), so I don’t see why everyone would want to jump aboard the “but military rules are paramount” train. I, for one, don’t think so; justice is paramount and laws do not always coincide with justice. A military uniform shouldn’t provide an exemption from that standard.

Except for the fact that I never equated the morality of opposing DADT (Choi’s position) and supporting DADT (Mixon’s position).

Yes you did equate them. You said “In fact, I would say that those who praised Choi’s recent actions have very little ground to turn around and condemn Mixon.” Choi’s action was to oppose DADT and Mixon’s action was to support DADT – you in essence said “Those who praised the opposition to DADT have little ground to turn around and condemn the support of DADT”.

We made no mistake, you did draw a moral equivalency, you said “In fact, I would say that those who praised Choi’s recent actions have very little ground to turn around and condemn Mixon.”
That’s wrong. Promoting equality is right and just, promoting discrimination is wrong and unjust – case closed.

Except for the fact that I never equated the morality of opposing DADT (Choi’s position) and supporting DADT (Mixon’s position). Instead I pointed out that the recent actions of both men in support of their respective and opposing views were wrong because of the fact that both are still IN the military. Since I oppose DADT myself it would be easy for me to condemn just Mixon because of his comments, but it’s the fact that he made them in the manner he did while in the military in addition to their content that I find objectionable. As for Choi, I doubt I’d have much of a problem with his recent actions if they were done as a civilian and not by a servicemember. I’d question their effectiveness for repealing DADT, but that’s about it. Yet Choi did otherwise and that’s what I find to be objectionable and wrong.

We made no mistake, you did draw a moral equivalency, you said “In fact, I would say that those who praised Choi’s recent actions have very little ground to turn around and condemn Mixon.”

That’s wrong. Promoting equality is right and just, promoting discrimination is wrong and unjust – case closed.

I would never have made a good soldier. I have a mind of my own, and I can’t keep quiet when I see something wrong. I’m not afraid to say things that contradict superiors, especially when they’re wrong. I have no problem with either Lt Choi or Lt.Gen. Mixon expressing their own opinions, in or out of uniform. They have a constitutional right to do so. The fact that they are in the military, to me, is irrelevant. They are Human Beings first, Americans second, and soldiers third.

With this kind of gross misunderstanding of military service, I would agree with you: you wouldn’t have made a good soldier regardless of whether there was a ban in place or not concerning gays. Military life is NOT the same as civilian life and both Choi and Mixon freely volunteered to serve, which includes legitimate restrictions on their public activities.

Is there a some non Active Duty status for people who are pending discharge whereby they would no longer be required to uphold the Uniformed Code of Military Justice?

None that I’m aware of with the possible exception of the Individual Ready Reserve. I really don’t know about that one.

Actually it is that simple. I praised Choi because he’s doing what’s right, he’s speaking out about injustice.

If that’s all you want to limit this to, than fine as should have clear from my comments. Yet when you examine this in detail, Choi’s recent actions while IN the service are not praiseworthy.

I condemn Mixon because he’s defending bigotry.

That’s fine and I would agree with such condemnation. I would add again to this, however, that Mixon’s criticism is inappropriate ALSO because he is IN the military and has not followed military protocol in expressing his views on the matter.

They may be on opposite sides of the issue, but that does not make their actions equivalent.

This is where your comments fall flat. I never drew a moral equivalency between opposition to DADT and support of DADT. You made the mistake of believing otherwise. Instead I limited this to what is appropriate behavior for servicemembers, something both Choi and Mixon opened themselves up to legitimate criticism about through their own actions. The fact that I believe Choi is right about his opposition to DADT does not that he is justified in any action he sees fit in taking in expressing such – especially while IN the service.