Comments on: Obama, DADT, and Political Tactics

By: D. M. Manes

D. M. Manes — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:27:44 +0000

Witch hunt? Probably not any more than there already is. Readmitting? That’s an interesting question. I think the issue to be resolved first would be the appeals process for the type of discharge. The military has several different levels of discharge, from honorable to dishonorable. It is possible that gay soldiers voluntarily left and were discharged honorably, but want to go back; it is also possible that they were found to have violated the UCMJ and were discharged dishonorably. Appealing it is apparently difficult to appeal the discharge, and if it is undeniable that the soldier violated what was then in the UCMJ, I doubt that it could be overturned just because the code was later changed. But I am no expert in military law. I want to look into this more.

Another possibility would be a legislative amnesty program that would automatically throw out all the negative discharges processed under the old UCMJ.

By: Wil S

Wil S — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:01:26 +0000

If there is a year long wait ( and that is a very big chance given the nature of politics), do you think it could encourage a witch hunt of sorts to get rid of gay and lesbian soldiers? What would it really accomplish? Also, do you think it would be a possibility to offer positions back to individuals who were kicked out under the old policy (when it is repealed)? As crazy as it may seem their ARE those who wish to continue their service if at all possible.

By: Michael Kraemer

Michael Kraemer — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:28:25 +0000

I think you are on point; this move should not take a long and a prolonged debate that will infuriate everyone. That being said, what if there is an argument for the one year wait? On its face it sounds like a simple procedure, but I can think of a host of legal problems that may arise.

Playing a devils advocate here, could a negligence claim arise from a straight solider abused by a gay solider he was forced to shower with? While I think this argument can clearly cut both directions, this seems like a consideration that must be legally explored. Shouldn’t the military be responsible in crafting an integration that would not see massive lawsuits – protecting taxpayers and victims alike.

Politically, your argument has substance. Because I am hesitant to jump to a conclusion, I would be interested in learning more by hearing the potential problems with gay integration: paper tigers or legal nightmare?