Box Turtle Bulletin

Congressmen request data on DADT discharges

Timothy Kincaid

December 22nd, 2009

Today ninety-six Congressmen, 22% of the House, requested that the Pentagon provide documentation on discharged gay servicemen. (press release)

Today, ninety-six members of Congress sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting all 2009 “don’t ask, don’t tell” discharge data in an effort to ready their arguments for the impending 2010 debate on the gay ban. The letter was authored by Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), a member of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee and was signed by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), lead sponsor of the bill to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Members are requesting up-to-date information on the number of service members discharged in 2009 under the Obama Administration as well as information about their job specialties, years of service and branch in which they served.

It seems that this Congressional caucus will not be allowing discharges to be conducted without scrutiny or notice. (letter)

To increase transparency on the effects the DADT policy is having on our military and by extension our national defense, we request that the Office of the Secretary of Defense provide data on the current number of DADT discharges since January 1, 2009 to the present, no later than January 15, 2010. In addition, we request monthly reports thereafter to Congress detailing the number of enlisted service members and officers discharged under the policy including their job specialty (MOS), time in the service and branch of the military.

This is an effort to pressure the White House and the military to begin the process of fulfilling the President’s campaign promise to reverse this discriminatory policy. Clearly, if the President chooses not to take the lead on this issue, a sizable number of delegates in his own party are willing to embarrass him.

Majority of military personnel do not support DADT

Timothy Kincaid

November 10th, 2009

Researchers from the RAND Corporation and the University of Florida have released a new study that finds that support for the anti-gay Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell policy continues to slip among military personnel.

Here is an abstract of the study, as published online by the journal Armed Forces and Society.

U.S. policy banning openly gay and lesbian personnel from serving in its military rests on the belief that heterosexual discomfort with lesbian and gay service members in an integrated environment would degrade unit cohesion and readiness. To inform this policy, data from a 2006 survey of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are analyzed in this study. Views of these war veterans are consistent with prior surveys of military personnel showing declining support for the policy: from about 75 percent in 1993 to 40 percent in this survey. Among the demographic and military experience variables analyzed, comfort level with lesbian and gay people was the strongest correlate of attitudes toward the ban. War veterans indicated that the strongest argument against the ban is that sexual orientation is unrelated to job performance and that the strongest argument in favor of the ban is a projected negative impact on unit cohesion. However, analyses of these war veterans’ ratings of unit cohesion and readiness revealed that knowing a gay or lesbian unit member is not uniquely associated with cohesion or readiness; instead, the quality of leaders, the quality of equipment, and the quality of training are the critical factors associated with unit cohesion and readiness.

As of 2006, attitudes were:

The study found that just 40 percent of the military members surveyed expressed support for the policy, while 28 percent opposed it and 33 percent were neutral—less support than seen in previous surveys.

About 20 percent of those polled said they were aware of a gay or lesbian member in their unit, and about half of those said their presence was well known. In addition, three-quarters of those surveyed said they felt comfortable or very comfortable in the presence of gays or lesbians, according to the study.

The survey sample included personnel from all service branches and from a mix of ranks and occupations. It was designed to reflect the views of soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of whom were still on active duty.

Which further supports my rhetorical question, if active service personnel don’t support this failed policy, than who (other than Elaine Donnelly and the Administration) does?

Thanks, Doc

Timothy Kincaid

November 10th, 2009

You have a new ally for your health, physically and mentally. It’s your doctor.

From the A/P

The nation’s largest doctors’ group has agreed to join efforts to repeal the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.

The American Medical Association also voted to declare that gay marriage bans contribute to health disparities for gay couples and their children.

They base their decision on the difficulties caused to both doctors and patients by these illogical policies and laws.

Already, I can hear anti-gay activists thinking:

Those wacky activist doctors trying to legislate from the, um, surgery room. What do they know about health, anyway? Vote, I say, let “the people” vote on what causes health disparities just like we vote on who gets civil rights.

Army Secretary: Repealling DADT Would Not Cause Major Turmoil

Jim Burroway

October 26th, 2009

Army Secretary John McHugh sees part of his job as finding problems and getting out in front of them. “Good news,” he told the Army Times, “will take care of itself. The challenge is to get out in front of the things that are not so good.”

And there is much that is not so good. Two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mean that the army is heavily stressed. It’s a difficult task to fight one asymetrical war, let along two. There are differing opinions on troop deployments, strategies, and how many troops are actually needed. But of all the things that he is clearly worried about, repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell really isn’t a big deal:

When asked specifically if lifting the gay ban would seriously disrupt the military, as predicted by those who oppose repeal, McHugh said there is no reason to think major turmoil would ensue.

“Anytime you have a broad-based policy change, there are challenges to that,” he said. “The Army has a big history of taking on similar issues, [with] predictions of doom and gloom that did not play out,” he said.

He does however raise this disturbing possibility:

It’s possible, for example, that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units but barred from others, McHugh said, stressing that he was not aware of any such plans but only discussing how the issue might play out.

“I don’t want to prejudge the situation,” he said. “I am saying if he did that, it would be my job to explain it when the appropriate time comes.”

Officer Responsible For Anti-Gay Harassment To Retire Early

Jim Burroway

October 22nd, 2009

The Navy announced yesterday that the chief petty officer responsible for sexually provocative hazings of junior sailors in Bahrain will be forced to retire in January, two years earlier than planned. He will also receive a letter of censure from the Secretary of the Navy, which the Virginia Pilot describes as “the harshest administrative action that can be taken against a sailor.”

Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, opted to cancel Toussaint’s final years of service. Roughead “found that the incidents were not in keeping with Navy values and standards and violated the Navy’s longstanding prohibition against hazing,” according to Smith. “Our sailors are to be treated with dignity and respect in a healthy and positive working environment.”

One victim, former Petty Officer 3rd Class Joseph Rocha, said he was subjected to repeated slurs about his sexuality after he refused to have sex with female prostitutes.

Petty Officer 1st Class Shaun Hogan submitted detailed notes about Toussaint’s abuse during more than two years under his command. Hogan told the Navy lawyer who originally handled the case that Toussaint routinely made inappropriate comments about and inquiries into sailors’ sex lives, and threatened to revoke sailors’ dog-handling credentials if they crossed him.

Hogan also described Toussaint’s directing the filming of training videos that required some sailors to act out lesbian love scenes, others to simulate gay male sex and one to have rubber balls thrown at his crotch, all in a guise of running the dogs – trained to sniff out explosives – through various “real life” scenarios.

With this move, Toussaint avoids a court martial. Joseph Rocha reacts:

“A lot of us are disappointed in that Toussaint won’t see his day at a military court martial,” Rocha said. “But overall, I commend the CNO and the Secretary of the Navy for a wanting to look further into this, to see how widespread the corruption was.”

An unnamed commanding officer originally decided to handle the situation by issuing Toussaint a nonpunitive letter of reprimand. Rocha, who is gay went on to officer training, but left the Navy with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder over the harassment. Later, he met a reporter with Youth Radio and told his story. Youth Radio broadcast a powerful series of investigative reports into the incidents, many of which were picked up on National Public Radio.

NY Assemblyman Calls for DADT State Moratorium

Timothy Kincaid

October 14th, 2009

Who is NY State Assemblyman Greg Ball?

Assemblyman Greg Ball (R, C, I – Patterson) is serving his second term in the New York State Assembly, where he serves as ranking member of the influential committee on Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions.
…
A former Vice President of Exceed International Development Corporation, Ball holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from the United States Air Force Academy, is currently completing his Masters Thesis of Liberal Studies in International Affairs at Georgetown University and received an honorable discharge in 2005 at the rank of Captain after service as an active duty officer in the United States Air Force.

In case you missed it, Ball is a vet and he’s a Republican. And it is from that perspective that Ball has “called upon the New York State Army National Guard to put a moratorium on the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy affecting the military.”

I don’t know if the State of New York can unilaterally determine policy for the State National Guard – though one would certainly think that the founding fathers would have thought so. But, nevertheless, I like what he has to say:

“As an Academy grad and former Air Force Captain, I was honored to serve with the best and brightest of America. What folks need to realize is that some of the brightest and best in uniform are also homosexual. These folks serve honorably everyday, but are asked, forced really, to live a lie, and that reality in and of itself is a self inflicted security risk created by DADT. To kick brave men and women out of the military, patriotic folks willing to fight and die for our country, because of their sexual orientation, in an era when we need every serviceman and woman we can get, is foolish. The military is strong and resilient and can handle this change,” said Ball.

(hat tip Good As You)

Lieberman may be Point Man on DADT

Timothy Kincaid

October 13th, 2009

Per the Advocate

“On ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ this administration is talking directly to the Hill — we are in direct discussions with Senator Lieberman,” John Berry, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, told The Advocate following the president’s remarks.

A spokesman for Senator Lieberman confirmed that the senator had been speaking to the White House about the bill. “Senator Lieberman has had discussions with representatives of the Administration and others on the best way to reverse this policy, which he has opposed since it was first proposed in 1993,” said Marshall Wittmann, Lieberman’s press secretary. Wittmann gave no further information on the senator’s plans regarding the legislation.

This is encouraging to hear. Lieberman is considered to be moderate and serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Political Capital Watch

Jim Burroway

October 12th, 2009

Kerry Eleveld has detected some behind-the-scenes movement:

On ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ this administration is talking directly to the Hill — we are in direct discussions with Senator Lieberman,” John Berry, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, told The Advocate.

A spokesman for Senator Lieberman confirmed that the senator had been speaking to the White House about the bill. “Senator Lieberman has had discussions with representatives of the Administration and others on the best way to reverse this policy, which he has opposed since it was first proposed in 1993,” said Marshall Wittmann, Lieberman’s press secretary. Wittmann gave no further information on the senator’s plans regarding the legislation.

A bill to repeal DADT was introduced in the House last march by Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), before she was tapped to be the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Securiy. The lead sponsor is now Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), with 177 cosponsors. There is no companion bill in the Senate.  Last Saturday, President Barack Obama reiterated his commitment to repealing DADT, but offered no timetable. That led to speculation that the President was unwilling to spend any political capital on the effort.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Hold Your Breath

Jim Burroway

October 12th, 2009

This is David Morgan characterizing CBS News Chief Political Correspondent John Dickerson’s description of the administration’s prioritization of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

John Dickerson says the message from the administration is: Don’t hold your breath.

The indication from the White House is they want to show the president is still committed to this, but that it’s further down on the list of priorities,” Dickerson told “Early Show” anchor Harry Smith. “He’s got a lot in front of him, and the big question is how much political capital he’ll put behind this. Will he pressure Congress? Will he pressure the Pentagon?

“There’s just no indication right now that he’s going to spend his political capital in that way.”

This didn’t come from a White House Staffer, named or unnamed. It’s Morgan’s summation of Dickerson’s observations, which is consistent with what we’ve seen so far. No political capital.

Thank You, Elaine Donnelly

Timothy Kincaid

October 7th, 2009

CNN’s Anderson Cooper hosted a debate between Dan Choi, West Point graduate and Iraq vet and an Arabic language specialist, and Elaine Donnelly, a woman who has never served a day in her life yet who argues on behalf of her “Center for Military Readiness” against gay people (and women in general) serving in the military.

Elaine’s performance was consistent with previous efforts at warning of the great scary, ooky, spooky, gay folks being in “forced intimacy” with good ol’ homophobes. Which makes me say, “Please God, please. All I want for Christmas is for Elaine Donnelly to stay the voice and face of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The “Unbigoted” Argument in Favor of the Military ban on Gay Men

Timothy Kincaid

October 5th, 2009

It seems that nearly every month provides ever more support for ending the strange Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and allowing gay and lesbian military personnel to serve their country openly. And I do, at times, rhetorically wonder, “Is there anyone left who supports this discrimination?”

Of course there is. Conservative movie reviewer James Bowman is one such person and he has written an article for the Weekly Standard entitled Don’t Change ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in which he argues against allowing gay people – or, rather, gay men – from serving their country.

Bowman’s secondary headline is “There are sound reasons–unbigoted ones–for our policy on gays in the military”, and I don’t think he intended this to be read as irony.

Indeed, Bowman is quite concerned about bigotry; or, rather, the perception of bigotry. Much of his article is not about the military at all but rather about the unfair tragedy that those who oppose equality for gay people are perceived as being bigoted. He, of course, never questions whether their motivations lie in animus but instead decries the unfairness of others who identify the motivation.

That is a reoccurring theme among anti-gay activists. Although those who fight for equality can at times be too quick to ascribe bigotry and homophobia to their opponents, that is not to suggest that bigotry is never at play. Yet the dismissal of bigotry – even as description for the most obviously hateful – has been a favorite tactic of late.

And anti-gay activists – frankly, many of whom are driven by desires that can only be described as bigoted in nature – have been rather successful in twisting the discussion away from whether their arguments have merit and instead towards whether an inspection of their motivations is “name-calling”. And it is that derailing of communication which is one reason why we seldom employ the term here at Box Turtle Bulletin.

In a strange twist, it appears that – like many other words that have become taboo in our culture – the word “bigot” can only now be used by those whom the word describes. And they are not content with removing “bigotry” and “homophobia” from the lexicon. Recently I was informed by a devoted anti-gay activist that even the term “anti-gay” is a slur.

But I still believe that one can look at an argument and see it for what it is. If the basis is logical, we can say so; but if the basis is in animus and stereotype and unfounded assumptions and is nothing but a shallow justification for a desire to discriminate, we can also be clear about the nature of that argument.

So let’s look at Bowman’s “unbigoted” argument:

Yet if reason were to be readmitted to the debate, we might find something in the history of military honor to justify the principle now enshrined in the law decreeing that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service.” We know that soldiering–I mean not training or support or peacekeeping or any of the myriad other things soldiers do, but facing enemy bullets–is inextricably bound up with ideas of masculinity. We also know that most heterosexual males’ ideas of masculinity are inextricably bound up with what we now call sexual orientation. In other words, “being a man” typically does mean for soldiers both being brave, stoic, etc.–and being heterosexual. Another way to put this is to say that honor, which is by the testimony of soldiers throughout the ages of the essence of military service, includes the honor of being known for heterosexuality, and that, for most heterosexual males, shame attends a reputation as much for homosexuality as for weakness or cowardice.

In other words, being in the military means being a man. And being a man means feeling contempt towards gay men.

Oh, but he’s not done with his unbigotry. Bowman speaks of the notion of a Band of Brothers and the way in which military service creates a brotherhood and engenders a deep love for one’s fellow serviceman.

And he makes the argument that gay servicemen would destroy this bond. And to do it he creates a strange assertion – one he oddly attributes to Brokeback Mountain: “the homosexual relationship is simply friendship carried to a higher power”.

Those who are not homosexuals have always resisted any simple equivalence between sexual love and friendship, not out of bigotry but at least partly because to grant it would be an abdication of their own right to love. Characteristically, the robust heterosexual, if told that close friendship with another man is only a degree away from homosexual relations with him, will back off the friendship. He knows, or believes, what it seems the homosexual cannot know or believe, or doesn’t want to know or believe, namely that the two sorts of love are different in kind and not just in degree.

This is a most peculiar argument. It says that because gay relationships are just really strong friendships and not equivalent to “erotic love between men and women”, therefore robust heterosexuals can’t be friends of gay men. They would fear that it’s just too gay.

So in summary, Bowman’s “unbigoted” argument is based on the following:

1. “Being a man” means experiencing contempt for gay men.
2. Robust heterosexuals fear any relationship that might be too close – just a matter of degree – to a homosexual relationship.

In other words, Bowman’s “unbigoted” argument is based on the assumption that heterosexual men – those who are robust and take pride in being a man – rightly fear and hold contempt for gay men.

And those are Bowman’s “sound reasons–unbigoted ones–for our policy on gays in the military”.

Obama Chooses Inaction on DADT

Timothy Kincaid

October 4th, 2009

Yesterday we told you of letters sent from the Senate Majority Leader to the President asking for his input on the repeal of the anti-gay military policy, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. At that time I pondered,

When others have appealed to the President to be proactive, he has dismissed his involvement saying that this is an issue for Congress. It will be interesting to see his response now that Congress has officially invited his input.

We now know the President’s answer: It’s too soon, maybe some other time, not now. (A/P)

President Barack Obama will focus “at the right time” on how to overturn the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military, his national security adviser said Sunday.

Jones said Obama “has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. And he has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I’m sure the president will take it on.”

I sincerly hope that Congress will do what is right, fair, in the best interest of the military, and the will of the people and continue their plan of action to throw out the ban, despite delays and dismissals of this sort from our community’s “fierce advocate”.

Senate Asks Obama for Guidance on DADT

Timothy Kincaid

October 2nd, 2009

During his election campaign, President Obama committed to ending the military’s ban on openly gay servicemen. Since election, however, he has be reticent to champion this effort, at times appearing to favor inaction.

However, it is becoming rapidly apparent that if Obama is not embarrassed by the continuation of the policy, he’s about the only one who isn’t. Following closely on the heels of an opinion essay in the magazine of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Senate leadership seems to have finally decided that the time is right to begin the process.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D – Nevada) has now officially invited the President to weigh in on changing the policy. (A/P)

the Nevada Democrat is asking President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to share their views and recommendations on the controversial policy.

In Sept. 24 letters to Obama and Gates, Reid also asked for a review of the cases of two U.S. officers who were discharged from the military because of their sexuality.

“At a time when we are fighting two wars, I do not believe we can afford to discharge any qualified individual who is willing to serve our country,” Reid wrote in identical letters to Obama and Gates that were obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

When others have appealed to the President to be proactive, he has dismissed his involvement saying that this is an issue for Congress. It will be interesting to see his response now that Congress has officially invited his input.

Joint Chiefs Magazine: End DADT

Timothy Kincaid

October 1st, 2009

The Joint Force Quarterly is he Joint Chiefs chairman’s “flagship joint military and security studies journal.” It is full of informative articles such as “Measure, Manage, Win: The Case for Operational Energy Metrics” and “Radar versus Stealth: Passive Radar and the Future of U.S. Military Power.”

But the Quarter Four 2009 issue also prints the winning essays of the Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition. Various military educators associated with the National Defense University judge essays presented and this year’s winner is Col. Om Prakash, USAF, National War College, for his article The Efficacy of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (pdf).

Col. Prakash is not much impressed with the current policy. The Navy Times synopsizes his essay as follows:

“It is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather, it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban,” Prakash argues.

He bases that conclusion on several factors:

• The loss of some 12,500 personnel due to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law since its implementation in 1994, and resulting financial impact and loss of skills.

• His conclusion that open service by gays would not degrade social cohesion.

• Polls of the general public that increasingly show acceptance of the concept.

• The difficulties commanders face in enforcing the ban.

• The fact that, by some estimates, about 65,000 gays now serve in the U.S. military.

The Times also notes

On Capitol Hill, a bill in the House, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., calls for outright repeal. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has promised to hold the committee’s first hearing on the issue in 16 years sometime this fall.

So we all have more comedy to look forward to from Elaine Donnelly.

New Investigations Into Navy Abuse

Timothy Kincaid

September 24th, 2009

Youth Radio, which first reported the story of the abuse of Petty Officer 3rd Class Joseph Rocha (who was expelled from the Navy) at the hands of Master-at-Arms Michael Toussaint (who was promoted), has a follow-up on the results of their report.

Since Youth Radio began reporting the story, Rear Admiral David Mercer has ordered a review of the outcomes of the investigation at the Bahrain Kennel. He’s in charge of naval installations in Europe, Africa and Southwest Asia.

A Navy spokesman issued this statement:

“The incidents that occurred within the Military Working Dog Division at Naval Support Activity Bahrain do not reflect who we are as a navy. They are considered an anomaly based on sailors who were inproperly led.”

And yesterday, we learned yet another higher level review of the investigation has been ordered, this time by the Chief of Naval Operations, the Navy’s highest ranking officer and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The deadline for that report is October sixth.

Congressman Calls for Explanation of Navy Abuse

Timothy Kincaid

September 22nd, 2009

Earlier this month we told you of Petty Officer 3rd Class Joseph Rocha who was abused and harassed by his officers because he didn’t visit prostitutes and thus must be gay.

At one point, the documents show, Rocha was hog-tied, fed dog food and tossed into a dog kennel full of feces. Commanders also openly questioned his sexuality and forced him to simulate oral sex on other men.

When Rocha finally did come out, he was tossed out of the military as being unfit and his tormentor was promoted.

While this sort of behavior might fit right in with the attitudes of some of the upper brass in the Pentagon, those who answer to the American people are a bit more inclined to find it abhorrent. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pennsylvania, a former Navy rear admiral and the highest ranking officer ever to serve in Congress, wrote to Navy Secretary Raymond Mabus to inquire about the circumstances.

And it turns out that once the spotlight is shining on particularly egregious behavior, the Navy isn’t quite as proud of its bullies and bigots. (SunNews)

“The incidents that occurred within the Military Working Dog Division at Naval Support Activity Bahrain do not reflect who we are as a Navy,” said Cmdr. Cappy Surette, a Navy spokesman. “The Navy is now looking into the handling of this situation more carefully.”

And indeed care should be taken. Sestak is being specific.

Sestak also is requesting information regarding Chief Petty Officer Michael Toussaint, who was responsible for the unit and was later promoted to senior chief.

“It would astound me if he was promoted if these allegations are true,” Sestak said in an interview. “What kind of a command climate is that?”

Rocha’s circumstances are certainly not unique. But his is but one more story that is reaching the American public and illustrating that gay people are not the problem with the military and its culture.

I suspect that Sestak will get the cooperation he has requested. He is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Military Response to Hazing and Abuse: Promote the Perpetrator and Kick Out the Victim

Timothy Kincaid

September 3rd, 2009

One of the most egregious injustices of Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell is that it invites bullies and bigots to wreak havoc on the lives of gay servicemen without allowing any recourse.

We learned last week of how Air Force Lt. Col Victor Fehrenbach’s 18 year career was destroyed by the false accusation of a mentally damaged citizen. Now we learn that Petty Officer 3rd Class Joseph Rocha was put through hell only to be thrown out like the trash and his tormentor rewarded as a result of investigations. (Stars and Stripes)

According to documents released by Youth Radio this week, Navy investigators found dozens of hazing incidents over a two-year span at the Military Working Dog unit in Naval Support Activity-Bahrain. At one point, the documents show, Rocha was hog-tied, fed dog food and tossed into a dog kennel full of feces. Commanders also openly questioned his sexuality and forced him to simulate oral sex on other men.

Following the investigation, Rocha sought treatment for PTSD and later admitted he is gay, the news outlet reported. Shortly thereafter, he was discharged under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which prohibits homosexual troops from serving openly in the ranks.

However, the commander in charge of the unit at the time of the hazing did not lose his job, and was recently promoted to senior chief, documents show.

This is unconscionable. And if the Commander in Chief has any sense of outrage that a voting block which supported him in huge numbers and whom he courted is so mistreated, this will not be swept under the rug.

President Obama may not be able singlehandedly reverse DADT. But he certainly can see to it that rewards for bigots and bullies are revoked and that punishment is meted out. And failure to act only feeds fuel to the growing suspicion that his promises were hollow and his concern about our community is insincere.

I hope he proves such suspicions false.

None of the alleged abusers was punished, according to the report.

Air Force Pilot Outed By False Criminal Accusation

Jim Burroway

August 24th, 2009

Air Force Lt. Col Victor Fehrenbach has made the rounds on radio and television ever since he came forward with the news that the Air Force was trying to discharge him under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He even scored a meeting at the White House during the much-derided LGBT Cocktail Party to mark the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion in June. What hasn’t been told was how Lt. Col Fehrenbach got caught in the DADT crosshairs to begin with:

Fehrenbach confronted a crisis in a very different setting. A Boise police detective sat across a conference table questioning him about an alleged crime.

Fehrenbach, stationed at Mountain Home Air Force Base, was in a Catch-22. To clear himself of the claim he’d raped a man, Fehrenbach could tell police his side of the story. But admitting he’d had consensual sex could get him kicked out of the Air Force he loved after 18 years.

Fehrenbach asked Detective Mark Vucinich whether his employer had a right to see his statement. Yes, replied Vucinich.

Fehrenbach then told the detective he had sex with Cameron Shaner on May 12, 2008. He’d met Shaner, 30, on a gay Web site and invited him to his southeast Boise home.

Police and Air Foce investigations found no evidence that Lt. Col. Fehrenbach committed any crime. But Shaner, a discharged Army Veteran with a 100 percent service-connected disability for post-traumatic stress disorder and skeletal injuries, pressed the Air Force to begin discharge proceedings against Fehrenbach — all because of a false allegation:

Because of the criminal allegation, Victor confirmed the fact he was gay,” said Emily Hecht, a lawyer for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund. “That’s all the Air Force needed. Had his accuser been a woman, he’d have gone back to work with no further issue.”

The unique circumstances behind Fehrenbach’s case has caught the attention of Defense Secretary Bill Robert Gates and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, who has the final call on whether Fehrenbach will be dismissed. He is currently still on active duty at Mountain Home Air Force Base near Boise, Idaho.

Gays In the Military: UK Armed Forces Lead By Example

Jim Burroway

July 27th, 2009

This month’s cover of Soldier magazine, an official British Army publication, shows Trooper James Wharton with his Iraq medal, with the word “Pride” highlighted. This is the first time in the magazine’s history that an openly gay service member has been featured on the cover. While the debate over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” continues to rage in the U.S., the British are showing us how it’s done:

Restricted guidance signed by the chiefs of staff and sent to commanding officers gave answers to a long list of possible queries such as: “How should I protect young people in the Service from predatory homosexuals?” (the response: “It would be wrong to assume homosexuals were predatory”) and, “Will homosexuals be able to bring their partners [to mess functions]?” (the response: “It will be for the Mess President to exercise discretion”).

“The thought of two men dancing at a mess function was more than some people could cope with,” explained one officer. “They thought they would get raped in their beds.”

But the predictions proved wrong and the military entered its brave new world with surprising ease. A confidential review two years later across all three services found that most officers and junior ranks, particularly among the younger ones, had accepted the lifting of the ban without much comment. It was only amongst the older Senior Non-Commissioned and Warrant Officers that it had met significant resistance.

According to The Independent, senior US officers are quietly holding talks with their British counterparts to learn some valuable lessons in preparation for the day when gays and lesbians can serve openly in the US military.

Sen. Reid Supports Overturning DADT

Timothy Kincaid

July 14th, 2009

NY Times

“We’re having trouble getting people into the military,” [Senate Manority Leader Harry] Reid told reporters when questioned about whether he could support an 18-month moratorium on enforcing a prohibition on gays in the armed forces. “And I think that we shouldn’t turn down anybody that’s willing to fight for our country, certainly based on sexual orientation.”

Mr. Reid said he would go the proposal, being considered by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, one better and support a permanent repeal of the ban.