Don't Ask, Don't Tell declared unconstittuional

[Amicus]

From what I read somewhere, the President and the Justice Department have 60 days to appeal the Judge Phillips' ruling. The mid-term election is 50-odd days away. It will be interesting to see what path the Obama administration takes.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Amicus

From what I read somewhere, the President and the Justice Department have 60 days to appeal the Judge Phillips' ruling. The mid-term election is 50-odd days away. It will be interesting to see what path the Obama administration takes.

Odds are they will request a temporary injunction, appeal, and then continue down their slower path of repealing it after the "report" in December. Yes, I'm so excited they're doing it this way /sarcasm , but it does require Congress to repeal unfortunately.

And then a change in the UCMJ, anyone know how that gets amended?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Odds are they will request a temporary injunction, appeal, and then continue down their slower path of repealing it after the "report" in December. Yes, I'm so excited they're doing it this way /sarcasm , but it does require Congress to repeal unfortunately.

And then a change in the UCMJ, anyone know how that gets amended?

UCMJ is amended by Congress. Though IIRC, DADT isn't a separate article. Those are processed as general article cases. I could be wrong though.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

UCMJ is amended by Congress. Though IIRC, DADT isn't a separate article. Those are processed as general article cases. I could be wrong though.

DADT is a law but didn't amend the UCMJ. It just said that you couldn't seek out whether or not someone was gay and that as long as the person didn't "admit" to it they could be gay in the military.

The UCMJ currently states that homosexual conduct (not like on the front lines but AT ALL) is grounds for separation. (The policy is in pdf form here) And it puts into practice this US Code:
10 USC 654

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

So, currently, revoking DADT doesn't solve the problem that being gay in the military will get you discharged.

[sdtennisgal]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

DADT is a law but didn't amend the UCMJ. It just said that you couldn't seek out whether or not someone was gay and that as long as the person didn't "admit" to it they could be gay in the military.

The UCMJ currently states that homosexual conduct (not like on the front lines but AT ALL) is grounds for separation. (The policy is in pdf form here) And it puts into practice this US Code:
10 USC 654


So, currently, revoking DADT doesn't solve the problem that being gay in the military will get you discharged.

Drolefille: Just to clarify...DADT is not part of the "punative articles" of the UCMJ (i.e., the specific criminal laws that a service member can face a courts martial for violating, for instance Article 92 - disobeying a lawful order, Article 120 - Rape, etc.). A soldier can't be criminally charged for "being gay," but they can be ADMINISTRATIVELY separated under the provisions you quoted, which is like being "fired for cause." Most administrative separations in the military are for things like poor performance, losing a security clearance, drug and alcohol rehab failure, failure to pass physical fitness tests, etc.

It should be pointed out that a service member can face charges under the UCMJ for homosexual conduct, such as rape, carnal knowledge, indecent exposure, prostitution, etc. In my opinon, this is even MORE of a reason to repeal DADT, since there are mechanisms in place to prosecute service members of any sexual persuasion for inappropriate conduct.

One last thing: There was a recent change (largely unnoticed by the media) concerning what can be used to trigger an investigation into sexual orientation status. It was mainly a list of what CAN'T be used: Information that comes up in a security clearance investigation and anonymous "informants" chief among them, as these were two of the main reasons these investigations would be started in the past.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by sdtennisgal

Drolefille: Just to clarify...DADT is not part of the "punative articles" of the UCMJ (i.e., the specific criminal laws that a service member can face a courts martial for violating, for instance Article 92 - disobeying a lawful order, Article 120 - Rape, etc.). A soldier can't be criminally charged for "being gay," but they can be ADMINISTRATIVELY separated under the provisions you quoted, which is like being "fired for cause." Most administrative separations in the military are for things like poor performance, losing a security clearance, drug and alcohol rehab failure, failure to pass physical fitness tests, etc.

It should be pointed out that a service member can face charges under the UCMJ for homosexual conduct, such as rape, carnal knowledge, indecent exposure, prostitution, etc. In my opinon, this is even MORE of a reason to repeal DADT, since there are mechanisms in place to prosecute service members of any sexual persuasion for inappropriate conduct.

One last thing: There was a recent change (largely unnoticed by the media) concerning what can be used to trigger an investigation into sexual orientation status. It was mainly a list of what CAN'T be used: Information that comes up in a security clearance investigation and anonymous "informants" chief among them, as these were two of the main reasons these investigations would be started in the past.

However until the homosexual conduct = separation policy is changed, repealing DADT only makes it easier to discharge gay people from the military.

That doesn't mean that Congress wouldn't do both at the same time, I think it's very possible that whatever is passed will revoke DADT and amend the USC. The UCMJ will then be amended by whoever actually does that part to put the new USC into effect.

I worked in government bureaucracy long enough to figure out the hurdles

I just think it's important to point out that while DADT was not a good thing, it was put into place as kind of a half-ass way to let gays serve without making it "OK" and condoning the icky gay people.

ETA: And I am actually familiar with the newer restrictions on investigation, however it's still asking gay servicemen and women to live a lie. You can't have a picture of a partner hanging around and you can't talk about what you're going to do on leave, or why you don't have a boyfriend/girlfriend.