Box Turtle Bulletin

443

That’s the number of service members who were discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 2009 according to a press release from Servicemembers United. That’s a record low, and an indicator that commanders “continue to ignore this law that is clearly outdated and which impairs their unit readiness,” according to Servicemembers United Executive Director Alex Nicholson.

“But this new number still means that 443 lives were unnecessarily turned upside down in 2009, 443 careers were unfairly terminated, and military units unexpectedly lost a valuable asset 443 times last year as two wars raged,” Nicholson said.

What’s worse, it turns out that these figures, along with all the other figures that have been released historically, represent a significant undercount. Servicemembers United has learned that the Defense Manpower Data Center’s statistics doesn’t include discharges from the Reserves and National Guard. Said Nicholson, “It is indeed surprising to learn now that the annual discharge numbers have been underreported. Policy makers, the media, and the American public rely on these numbers to make decisions and judgments about the costs of this policy”

DADT Protesters Released, Trial Date Set

The six protesters against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” who handcuffed themselves to the White House fence yesterday were released from jail. All six were charged with the misdemeanor of refusing to obey a policy order. Army Lt. Dan Choi and veteran Capt. Jim Pietrangelo pleaded not guilty before D.C. Superior Court Judge Richard Ringell. He combined the latest cases with the earlier cases for Choi  and Pietrangelo, and set a new trial date of July 14.

The other four — Navy Petty Officers Larry Whitt and Autumn Sandeen, Air Force Cadet Mara Boyd, and Marine Corps Corporal Evelyn Thomas — accepted a post-and-forfeit offer of a $100 fine in exchange for ending the case. Choi and Pietrangelo were also offered the same deal but declined.

All six protesters are under court order to stay away from the streets surrounding the White House. For the four who accepted the post-and-forfeit offer, the order is in effect only until they pay the fine, which is due within a month. For Choi and Pietrangelo, it appears that the court order will remain in effect until their trial date. The attorney for Choi and Pietrangelo argued that the order violates their First Amendment Rights, but the court ruled against their objections.

In related news, a spokesman for the US Parks Police admitted that the service “screwed up” when they turned away reporters during the protest. The spokesman called the incident “embarrassing” and blamed it on a “rookie amateur error.” He denied that the Secret Service or the White House had anything to do with the push to move reporters out of view of the protest.

Obama’s “repeal DADT this year” pledge now seems disingenuous

Some members of the gay community may wonder why it is that Get Equality and other activists are not content to rely on President Obama’s pledge – as announced in the State of the Union Address – to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by the end of the year. Some may question the wisdom of aggressively challenging the administration instead of allowing the military review process to dictate the timing.

The answer may be that these activists rightly recognize that this President has little to no intention of ending DADT this year, and probably never has.

On January 27, 2010, President Obama addressed the

Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. [emphasis added]

Four days later, on February 1, the White House met with national gay leaders. And the promise had lost a lot of it’s renewal in that short time. (The Advocate)

Yet just days after the January 27 speech, White House officials convened a meeting on February 1 with LGBT advocates in which they said the policy would not be included in the president’s recommendations for this year’s Department of Defense authorization bill, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the meeting.

“It was a definitive shut-down from [Jim] Messina,” said a source, who was present at the meeting and agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity, referring to the White House deputy chief of staff. “He said it would not be going into the president’s Defense authorization budget proposal.” The news was a blow to activists since the Defense funding bill is the best legislative vehicle for including a measure to overturn the policy. “It almost seemed like the bar on the hurdle got raised two or three times higher,” said the source.

Strategically, including the change in the military defense budget is the safest and easiest way for the law to change. Once incorporated by committee, it would require every Republican Senator plus one third of the Democratic Senators to remove it from the bill, a rather unlikely scenario.

The President is a powerful ally and when it comes reelection time it can be a tremendous help if he thinks you are in line with his wishes. If the President want the change it in the budget, it will go into the budget.

From all evidence, he does not.

But more frustrating than the knowledge that this president has played us for the fool, is the knowledge that some national gay groups were complicit in the deceit. If this report is true, the Human Rights Campaign lied about the administration’s intentions in order to give the President cover – and they appear to be continuing to do so.

Rushing to refute the Advocate’s story was Robert Raben, a paid strategist for the Human Rights Campaign.

Raben said Messina relayed that advisers were still discussing different options with the president. He added that the main area of focus for the meeting was the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that would be taking place the next day with Defense secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs chair Admiral Mike Mullen.

And then he promptly changed the subject.

“It’s even more wrenching in the immigration context,” he said. “The president gave that a line the State of the Union too. It’s April 22, where’s the bill?”

Other sources are saying that the administration was less “shutting down” than it was “vague” and “non-committal” in the meeting. But whether dismissive or vague, it clearly was a different message than the one announced by the President in his public speech four days earlier. And, from my perspective, it has stayed so ever since.

It is rapidly becoming my impression that this President has no intention on repealing DADT, or at least not if it requires even the slightest expenditure of political capital. In fact, while his public position is supportive, his administration is fighting tooth and toenail to keep the ban on open service in place. I think that Obama sees the potential difficulties in dealing with some annoyed military personnel as having greater importance than the promise that “you should be treated no different than anyone else.”

And it is rapidly becoming my impression that those who represent themselves as our community’s leadership in Washington, DC, and so enjoying being part of the party in power that they are placing their own access and the agenda of the Democratic Party ahead of the reasons we entrust them with our voice and support their organizations.

But while President Barack Obama said many things in his State of the Union Address that appear calculated in hindsight and suggest either a lack of integrity or a lack of commitment, the words he spoke just a few paragraphs after his pledge to end DADT ring ever more true:

No wonder there’s so much cynicism out there.

No wonder there’s so much disappointment.

BREAKING: Six Vets Chain Themselves to White House Fence

In a repeat of last month’s protest against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:, six veterans have chained themselves to the White House fence.

In a protest that is currently ongoing according to The Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld’s Twitter feed, Lt. Daniel Choi and five others have handcuffed themselves to the White House fence. The protesters consist of three men and three women, including Lt. Choi, who reportedly is calling on the President to include the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military in the Defense Authorization Bill.

Joe Sudbury identifies another protester as Autumn Sandeen, a transgender blogger with Pam’s House Blend who is a retired twenty-year navy veteran. Another protester has been identified as  Capt. Jim Pietrangelo, who was discharged under DADT in 2004. Pietrangelo also handcuffed himself to the White House fence last month alongside Choi.

The protest was organized by GetEQUAL, which also organized a protest at a fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer last night. The protest target was President Barack Obama, whose address was interrupted by hecklers demanding action on DADT’s repeal.

Update: GetEqual identifies the six as Capt. Jim Pietrangelo II, Petty Officer Larry Whitt, Petty Officer Autumn Sandeen, Cadet Mara Boyd, and Airman Victor Price.

Update 2: All six protesters have now been place under arrest.

DADT opponents heckle Obama at CA fundraiser

President Obama was in Los Angeles yesterday to raise funds for Senator Barbara Boxer’s reelection campaign. Opponents of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell took the opportunity to draw attention to that issue. (USA Today)

“Repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell!” yelled several protesters at a Los Angeles fundraiser for the Democratic Party and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., referring to the Pentagon’s policy on gay servicemembers.

As the president said he agreed with the request — “we are going to do that; hey, hold on a second, hold on a second” — the protesters began echoing an Obama campaign chant: “Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we can!”

“Here we go,” Obama replied. “All right — guys, guys, all right. I agree, I agree.”

A little later, Obama pleaded for political solidarity on gay rights and other issues.

“When you’ve got an ally like Barbara Boxer and you’ve got an ally like me who are standing for the same thing, then you don’t know exactly why you’ve got to holler, because we already hear you, all right?,” Obama said to applause.

The problem is, of course, that the President does not appear to hear our community already. And his response at the fundraiser suggests that he is unaware – or unconcerned – about the growing discontent that our community feels from having our issues delayed or dismissed.

We are annoyed that this administration seems incapable of providing a clear, consistent answer about how and when DADT will be overturned. Instead, we hear promises offset by stalling, the Presidents say one thing only to have the Department of Justice say exactly the opposite. We have military leaders contradicting each other in front of Congress and the White House sits silently while our allies in the House and Senate beg him to lend his voice to the cause.

All of this adds to a creeping supposition that this President has little to no intention on capitalizing on a Democrat control of the legislature to fulfill his promises. It feels more and more likely that November will come without action and Republican successes will be used as an excuse to continued institutionalized discrimination for another decade.

President Obama said at one point that the hecklers should go holler at the people who disagree with them. I’m not sure they weren’t doing just that.

President Obama rebutted by his own Justice Department on DADT

The Log Cabin Republicans are the plaintiffs on one of the few active cases opposing the legality of the Military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. And they have developed approaches that other plaintiffs more sympathetic to the President might not have employed.

One method was to try and establish that the Justice Department’s arguments were in direct contradiction with positions articulated by the President. This two-pronged approach either leaves the DOJ without much defense for an obviously discriminatory law, or embarrasses and pressures a President who is increasingly seen as having campaigned on promises that he has little interest in keeping.

And yesterday they were successful.

Log Cabin had been attempting to get the DOJ to answer yes or no questions so as to be on the record about whether the policy was bad for national defense. Obviously, if the Justice department admits that the policy is counter-productive, then there is little basis to defend it. So the DOJ fought having to answer.

But finally, after a direct order from the judge, they have stated their opinion. And their Response to Request for Admissions admits that the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice is basing their defense on arguments that completely contradict statements made by President Obama both in meetings with the gay community and in his State of the Union address.

They try to quibble that the Executive and Legislative Branches are in disagreement. They state that they are compelled to defend the law even if the Executive wishes it repealed.

And that may be correct. But they are not compelled to take specific factual conclusions that are contradictory to those espoused by the Executive Branch and yet that is exactly what they are doing.

The President of the United States, who formulates the policy of the Executive Branch, has stated, including in his State of the Union Address on January 27, 2010, that 10 U.S.C. § 654, the statute enacting “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (“DADT”), should be repealed. The President has further said that DADT does not contribute to, and indeed weakens our national security, and he has stated that “[w]e cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford – for our military’s integrity – to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie.”

But nonetheless, their answers are:

3. Admit that DAD’T does not contribute to our national security.

Response: Deny.

4. Admit that DADT weakens our national security.

Response: Deny.

5. Admit that discharging members pursuant to DADT weakens our national security.

Response: Deny.

As a matter of legal fact, the Obama Adminstration’s Department of Defense has stated that the President was not speaking the truth. As Dan Woods, a partner at White & Case, Log Cabin’s law firm put it

Using President Obama’s exact words, Log Cabin’s lawyers then asked the government to admit that what the President said was true. Justice Department lawyers objected, Log Cabin filed and won a motion to compel the government to answer the questions, the government appealed, and the court rejected the appeal. Consequently, on Monday, April 12, 2010, the government finally had to answer the questions and, when the Justice Department lawyers answered, they denied the truth of what the President had said.

This puts the President in a difficult position. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. His Department of Justice speaks for him. It makes legal arguments that are consistent with the principles and factual conclusions of his administration.

Which is it, Mr. President?

Troop concerns appear to be practical rather than homophobic

The AP is reporting that a meeting was organized to get foot soldier responses to proposed reversal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

Picked at random and assembled in the Pentagon auditorium, about 350 rank-and-file troops asked the leaders of a new working group whether bunking arrangements would change and if the spouses of gay personnel would be given military family benefits, among other issues.

Although no official response was provided and the press was not invited, the reports seem to suggest that the concerns were practical in nature rather than the “I’ll quit first” attitudes that some had predicted.

Attendees of the Tuesday session said that one female Marine stated that bunking with a lesbian would be the same as being told to share a room with a man. A soldier said he didn’t want to wade into the political debate and that he would follow orders.

Another service member asked if a gay service member who gets married — now forbidden under law — would receive military family benefits.

At one point, a moderator asked how many troops believed they have served with a gay person. About half the people in the audience raised their hands.

Army Secretary Won’t Personally Pursue DADT Investigations

As we’ve reported, the Defense Department is in the midst of a wide-ranging study on how it would implement the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” One would hope that part of that study would include talking to LGBT servicemembers who are currently serving, but of course that brings up a hitch: hearing from LGBT service menbers would violate the “don’t tell” part of DADT, while seeking them out would presumably violate “don’t ask.” But the New York Times is reporting that this won’t deter Army secretary John M. McHugh. He will simply ignore DADT while taking with active-duty service members:

But Mr. McHugh, who spoke at a breakfast with Pentagon reporters, said it made no sense to pursue discharges of service members as he speaks with them about the change in policy. Mr. Obama, Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen have all asked commanders to assess opinion within the military about the change in law.

Mr. McHugh said it would be “counterproductive” to “take disciplinary action against someone who spoke with me openly and honestly.” He said the Pentagon was still trying to devise a way to more formally poll large numbers of service members about their views on changing the law.

Did Gen. Sheehan Really “Climb Down” From Blaming Gay Soldiers for the Srebrenica Massacre?

That’s what some European news outlets are reporting. That “climb down” comes in the wake of outrage over Gen. John Sheehan’s testimony in support of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the Senate Armed Services Committee in which he blamed the presence of gay Dutch soldiers for the 1995 massacre of more than 8000 Muslim men and boys. Sheehan claimed that this is what the Dutch chief-of-staff General Henk van den Breemen of the Royal Dutch Marine Corps had told him.

Members of the Dutch military swiftly and vigorously challenged Sheehan’s remarks. The Dutch defense minister, Eimert van Middelkoop, called Shehan’s comments were, “scandalous and unbefitting a soldier,” and the Prime Minister denounced him as “irresponsible.”

Sheehan has climbed down somewhat from his accusation in a letter sent yesterday to the now retired Gen. van den Breemen, in which Sheehan wrote that “the failure on the ground in Srebrenica was in now way the fault of the individual soldiers.” A copy of the letter which has been provided to BTB and other outlets reads:

Gereral Henk van den Breemen
Royal Dutch Marine Corps (Ret.)
[personal address redacted]
Netherlands
29 March 2010

Dear Henk,

Thank you for our much appreciated conversations of the past week. During the mid-1990s, you and I discussed a broad range of issues and policies that reflected the social, political and financial pressures under which NATO Alliance members struggled. I am sorry that my recent public recollection of those discussions of 15 years ago inaccurately reflected your thinking on some specific social issues in the military. It is also regrettable that I allowed you to be pulled into a public debate. As a fellow Marine, I have the deepest respect for you personally and professionally. NATO and the Netherlands were well served by your leadership.

To be clear, the failure on the ground in Srebrenica was in no way the fault of the individual soldiers. The corporals and sergeants executed their orders based on the priorities of the political authorities. Unfortunately, the rules of engagement were developed by a political system with conflicting priorities and an ambivalent understanding of how to use the military. As we know, the consequences of those compromises were devastating.

I wish you the very best during this Easter season.

John J.Sheehan
General U.S.Marine Corps (Ret.)

This is a climbdown from Sheehan’s placing blame on individual gay soldiers in Srebrenica, but it is not a complete disavowal of Sheehan’s position. In this letter, he now shifts his blame to “a political system with conflicting priorities and an ambivalent understanding of how to use the military.” This echoes accusations hurled by opponents to DADT that allowing soldiers to serve with honesty and integrity — two core values of all branches of the armed services — somehow represents a political meddling in the conduct of military affairs. (I would also hasten to add that civilian control of the military is also a core value insisted upon by our founding fathers and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.) So while media outlets and DADT repeal advocates may celebrate over this climb-down, I have a feeling that Sheehan’s position hasn’t changed one bit.

Top Marine Afraid of the Gays

During an exclusive interview with Military.com, Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway criticized efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” saying that doing so would require additional resources to build single-person rooms for Marines in order to segregate gay and lesbian servicemembers.

In audio posted at Military.com’s web site, Conway said:

If perception is reality, we just think that our corps would not want to see it changed. If it is changed, it is going to require some leadership engaging to make sure that our orders are carried out. It’s going to require some resources because right now we billet by twos. We’re the only service that billets by twos. We like that. We want to continue doing that. But I would not ask our Marines to live with someone that is homosexual if we can possibly avoid it, and to me that means we’ve got to build BEQ’s that have single rooms.

Q: Why not? Why wouldn’t you live, let them live with someone that is homosexual?

Well, I think that, one, that I would in this case want to preserve the right of a marine to think she or she wouldn’t want to do that, okay? And again that’s the overwhelming people, number of people that say that they wouldn’t like to do so. We have chosen to do that as a Marine Corps because   we think that it is good for unit cohesion. If we believe it’s is going to be adverse to unit cohesion then why wouldn’t we join every other service’s standard and say that under the previous regulations it was conducive, under the current regulations it’s got the potential to cause friction. And so we’re going to demand the same standards as everybody else.

Imagine the power of allowing openly gay people to serve in the toughest units of our armed forces. If long time career professionals like Gen. Conway are afraid of us, imagine the kind of terror gays and lesbians will strike in the hearts of our enemies!

Lt. Choi: “I Am Somebody and I Deserve Full Equality”

In case you missed him on Rachel Maddow’s show:

On Lt. Daniel Choi’s decision to chain himself to the White House fence last week:

When the President responds to activists and says ‘I will repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year, I will work with Congress and I need your help; keep pressuring leaders like me,” as an Army officer I hear a directive, an order, a command. And so I’m going to do everything that I can to make sure that he knows the ball is still in his court and we need to see action.

Gates and Mullen to DADT-supporting 3-Star General: “Vote with your feet”

Meet Lieutenant General Benjamin R Mixon, the Commanding General of United States Army Pacific. But be careful around General Mixon, he just might find your “conduct” to not be “acceptable”.

On May March 8 he wrote a letter to the editor of Stars and Stripes:

The recent commentaries on the adverse effects of repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy were insightful.

It is often stated that most servicemembers are in favor of repealing the policy. I do not believe that is accurate. I suspect many servicemembers, their families, veterans and citizens are wondering what to do to stop this ill-advised repeal of a policy that has achieved a balance between a citizen’s desire to serve and acceptable conduct.

Now is the time to write your elected officials and chain of command and express your views. If those of us who are in favor of retaining the current policy do not speak up, there is no chance to retain the current policy.

But Mixon may wish to consider whether his superiors consider him to have acceptable conduct. Trying to do an end run around the Commander in Chief and the Joint Chiefs of Staff may not be the wisest of actions.

The Secretary of Defense was not amused. And he let Mixon know what he can do if he isn’t pleased with the process set up to review the policy (ABC).

Everybody participating in the review will have the chance to voice their approval concerns, ideas, their suggestions within this process, but there is an appropriate way to do that. Publicly voicing or politically advocating political positions and actions through the news media is just not appropriate for the men and women in uniform, particularly officers in command positions. Especially when it’s in direct opposition to the policy objectives of the President of the United States, their Commander in Chief. ”

Mullen reiterated today that disagreements should also be expressed within the chain of command. But ultimately, “In the end, if there is either policy direction that someone in uniform disagrees with — and I’ve said this before — the answer — and you feel so strongly about it — you know, the answer is not advocacy; it is in fact to vote with your feet. And that’s what all of us in a position of leadership, I think, have to conform to.”

It appears that much of the anger towards Mixon was not based on his opinion, but rather was due to his efforts to subvert the process that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were establishing. Mixon may also have been contradicting a direct order (Stars and Stripes)

But Gates and Mullen suggested Thursday that Mixon’s offense had been speaking out about the policy after commanders were specifically ordered not to do so.

Mullen said the Army had given officers “very specific direction” in written form following Gates’ announcement of his intent to seek the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law.

And the Army was quick to distance itself from Mixon and his political activism.

The bottom line is that Lt. Gen. Mixon’s comments do not reflect the Army’s thinking on this issue. He was expressing his personal opinion. The Army clearly supports what the Secretary of Defense is trying to do with his assessment of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. So it is inappropriate for a commander to advocate in such a public way on something that is clearly a policy issue. We have a forum, and that is the Secretary’s ongoing comprehensive review.

Most observers are viewing the Admiral’s words as an invitation for Mixon to submit his resignation. Personally, I would not be surprised to see him decide to pursue a career in political advocacy. He will be considered a martyr and hero by those who believe that “fighting the homosexual agenda” is more important than military cohesion or following the chain of command.

New DADT Policies Announced

We now know more about the new separation policy changes being implemented under “Don’t Task, Don’t Tell.” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen disclosed the changes in a news conference this morning. Some of the changes include:

• Raising the level of the officer who is authorized to initiate an inquiry to a general or flag officer in the servicemember’s chain of command.
• Requires a “reliable person” to provide evidence under oath. Prior policy didn’t require statements to be made under oath.
• Excludes as evidence certain types of confidential information, including lawyer-client privilege, communications with clergy, psychotherapists, medical professionals, or professionals providing assistance for domestic or physical abuse.

The change are effective immediately and are to be applied to all open and future cases.

When asked about efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” however, Gates urged a go-slow approach. “I do not recommend a change in the law before we have completed the study. … Doing it hasitly is very risky.”

Majority of Californians support marriage equality

For the first time, the PPIC Statewide Survey reports that a majority of Californians support same-sex marriage. 2,002 Californians were surveyed and there is a +/- 2% margin of error.

Participants were asked

“do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to be legally married?”

50% favor
45% oppose
5% I don’t know

Various demographics supported marriage equality:

64% Democrats
55% Independents
28% Republicans
55% whites
43% Latinos

This polling suggests a 6% increase in support within the past year, which is quite significant. The survey does not report what contributed to this change in thinking and it is difficult to identify what may have happened since last March that could have led to the change.

However, if I were to guess, I think it is possible that there were two counter-acting public responses to the anti-8 rallies, marches, and protests. It may be that these public demonstrations caused some voters to realize for the first time that the gay community was upset and angry about being denied equality and caused them to consider that anti-gay votes are discriminatory. There may also have been some backlash from some voters who felt that the gay community was behaving lawlessly.

Over the past year the public image of angry marches may have diminished and those upset by it may have become calmer, while the concept of inequality and unfairness raised by the marches may have germinated and resulted in increased support, yielding a net increase. This is, of course, only speculation.

Additionally, the PPIC confirmed that Californians strongly favor allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military. A total of 75% (and a majority in every demographic) agreed.

Defense Chief Expected To Address DADT Changes

Word has it that Defense Secretary Robert Gates will announce sometime this week new enforcement policies for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The changes in policies are expected to limit the number of discharges associated with third-party outings like the case Sgt. Jene Newsome, who was outed by Rapid City police last week. Other reports have it that Secretary Gates will describe elements of the department’s strategy for implementing a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Update: Associated Press now says that Gates will announce new policy changes on Thursday:

Guidelines to be announced Thursday call for testimony from third parties to be given under oath. The discharge of enlisted personnel must be approved by officers who hold a rank equivalent to a one-star general or above, according to military and defense officials familiar with the plan. They spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement.

The goal is to ensure that the law is applied fairly and consistently across the military and that flimsy testimony from third parties is eliminated, the officials said. The plan is considered a stopgap measure until Congress decides whether to repeal the 1993 law.