I don't know what will get you discharged. If it's found out that you once dated someone of the same sex - will you get discharged? If you get a letter from your significant other who is of the same sex, does that violate don't ask don't tell? If the rules are the same as for heterosexual people, then why do we even need "don't ask don't tell" None of this makes much sense to me, I'm sorry, but I really do suspect they can discharge you if there is any admission you have made - online, to friends, or whatever, that you are gay. If it's know you are gay, they will be able to dismiss you.
Why would anybody want to enlist then? There are plenty of reasons to join the armed forces, not the least of which might be a desire to serve our country and defend our nation. I don't think heterosexual people join the military because the people in the military like them, so the idea that gays shouldn't want to enlist because they aren't welcome makes no sense.
Do you have a source for this, or at least some information about why you believe it to be true? I haven't seen anything to indicate that this was the case, and the few sources I've read/heard seem to indicate that the Justice Department defended the policy on its merits. For example:
If you go around telling everyone how you sucked some dudes crank you might have a problem. The keyword is public. A letter is private so I don't see how that would be a problem. I dunno. Did I say we did or....? I am just saying Obama could waive a magic wand and "stop loss" the DADT discharges but he is choosing not to. They have to have bigtime proof to even start any process. Hearsay isn't going to cut it. They west point guy who got discharged has said they told him to STFU and he can get back in. The military does not care as much as you seem to think they do.
It was a cert petition opposition they didn't get into the merits other than to say that that the decision below should stand on the basis of present law.
I don't think that's really my or your choice to make. Perhaps they have a love for the army and/or serving their country. Perhaps it's a family tradition. Perhaps it's a good paying job for someone without a job otherwise. Or an opportunity at an education. There are all sorts of reasons people may join the military - it's not up to you or me to decide whether someone else has a good reason for it.
Certainly - and I have no idea why he's chosen not to go that route. But the slower type route they publicly have stated they are taking would put it in the military's hands to smoothly transition it. Perhaps they think there are some negative consequences of going the more direct route - I'm not really sure.
Nothing is in the military's hands. How does congress doing it differ from the president doing it in terms of it being smoother? The only thing that would be smoother is the possibly political capital. Explain smooth transition to me. You have used that twice now.
The minute you eliminate the policy, you're going to have a number of people being able to come out and say they are gay. And you'll have new recruits coming in who are openly gay. Is the military prepared for this? Will there be a culture shock? Potential for abuse or hate-crimes? If you have a small force in Iraq, and there's a staunchly anti-gay member on the team that suddenly finds out one of the people in his group is gay, are there potential consequences? Is leadership properly trained to handle any incidents that come up? Are there counselors in place if needed? Etc. The policy change will have ramifications on the culture of the military in the midst of two wars - you want that to culture transition to take place as smoothly as possible.
How does this change if congress repeals the law? It seems to me the best way to make smooth transition is to first stop the discharges then repeal. But frankly either way, one day it will be there the next day it possibly won't There is not a middle ground. So Obama not doing anything does nothing to help.
Could you please be more specific? Which brief? Do you have a quote, or maybe the section and paragraph, or both? Also, is there any reason you're being so vague? You're making a claim that has no evidence behind it other than your words. If you're going to make the claim it would be nice if you took the time to explain why you believe it to be true. Thanks.
I don't mean to distinguish between Congress vs Executive Order. My distinction is timeframe. Once you stop discharges, you'll have the immediate effect of gay soldiers who were keeping it hidden coming out. If the military isn't ready for that, you have a problem. So the first step is to address any issues within the military (as I described in the previous post). Once you're ready (or ready as can be) on that side, then you change the rule, either through Congress or Exec order. It's like when women were first allowed into the military. You didn't just suddenly enlist them - you had to build facilities and ensure the military leadership was in place to address new issues that could/would up that weren't there before, etc. Obviously, there's no physical prep necessary here, but you still have to do the psych prep. And it's even more important given that we have active wars going on, and the last thing you want is a problem on the battlefield. If any incidents occurred, you would probably get a backlash against "gays in the military" with all the opponents arguing that this was why they didn't want it.
I wouldn't call it "easily findable", as it took 10-15 minutes of me ignoring my daughter and searching on the internet before I found something that you might be referring to. Of course, you made the claim, so the appropriate thing to do would be to provide the source yourself. Were you ignoring my request for a quote or the location within the brief on purpose? The one I'm looking at is long and full of legalese. That makes it difficult to locate the section you refer to. This is one link I found: http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2008/0responses/2008-0824.resp.html Is that the brief you refer to? Would you be so kind as to indicate where in that brief it states that "don't ask, don't tell" is going to be revamped/discarded? (I spent as much time as I have scanning through it, but I only found what appeared to be arguments why the Supreme Court should not review the case that had nothing to do with it being moot due to a potential change to the policy. In fact, I saw that the brief does claim that the court of appeals decision was correct.) [rquoter]Petitioner contends (Pet. i, 5-6) that this Court should grant a writ of certiorari to determine whether 10 U.S.C. 654 violates his substantive due process, equal protection, and free speech rights. The decision of the court of appeals is correct and does not conflict with any decision of this Court. Moreover, petitioner did not properly preserve several of his contentions, making this case an unsuitable vehicle for addressing them. Further review is therefore not warranted.[/rquoter] Also, I found this blog entry interesting: Obama Administration Opposes Supreme Court Review of Military Case. I didn't have time to read it fully, but I didn't see any reference to your claim in that analysis either. Thanks again for any information you can provide.
So you want to wait around and make change the law but not put in place because you need time to put shrinks in place? What about the people that are kicked out when you are busy making it smooth? This plan does not sound well thought out. It sounds like excuses for inaction.