Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pentagon Revises Position On Gays In The Military

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-26-07 07:09 PM
Original message
Pentagon Revises Position On Gays In The Military
Edited on Tue Jun-26-07 07:12 PM by babylonsister
IMO, fuck the Pentagon. But I'm not gay, nor do I need a translator. They do, and their assholedness doesn't wash.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/26/pentagon-gays-military/

Pentagon Revises Position On Gays In The Military

Today, the Service Members Legal Defense Network released a Pentagon statement that “includes the first language from Pentagon leaders suggesting that lesbian and gay service personnel should continue to use their skills in support of national security efforts, even after facing dismissal under the law.” The statement reads:

These separated members have the opportunity to continue to serve their nation and national security by putting their abilities to use by way of civilian employment with other Federal agencies, the Department of Defense, or in the private sector, such as with a government contractor.

The Pentagon’s statement recognizing gays marks a positive step forward. In the 1990’s, the military’s policy was that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” claiming the prohibition was necessary for “group cohesion.” In March, backed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Gen. Peter Pace controversially claimed that the “military should not condone immoral acts,” referring to homosexuality.

But the Pentagon still will not call for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Since the policy was instituted in 1993, at least 11,000 servicemembers, hundreds of whom had key speciality skills such as training in Arabic, have been forced out of service. With our currently overstretched armed forces, the military could lure as many as 41,000 recruits if gays could serve openly.

With the State Department facing a derth of Arabic translators, yesterday, Reps. Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Gary Ackerman (D-NY) urged the Department to hire bilingual gays expelled from the military as a result of DADT:

We are writing to urge the Department of State to take a specific step — the hiring of our unfairly dismissed, language-qualified soldiers — so our nation might salvage something positive from the lamentable results of this benighted policy. … under-investment in critical foreign languages presents an urgent and immediate threat to our national security, a threat that cannot be ignored while we train new foreign-language experts.

Read the Pentagon’s statement HERE (.pdf):
http://www.sldn.org/binary-data/SLDN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/4097.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-26-07 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. How do you say, Go Fuck Yourself in Arabic? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-26-07 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. WORD! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-26-07 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. So it's ok for gays to serve openly in the Pentagon
as long as it's not actually in the military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-26-07 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. So as Gen. Pace said....
...they still think gays are immoral, but now they want gay people to work for the US anyway. As long as its not in uniform? Great.

What an asshat!

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cerridwen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-26-07 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. I feel a *draft* of desperation in the document.
Not that they'd ever be stupid enough to implement anything called a draft - but it's sure as hell in the document.

note: above and beyond the draft-like stop-loss and mustering of IRR that is currently happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC