The DOJ apparently lied, in court, to get DADT reinstated

The 9th Circuit Appellate Court stayed a ban on enforcing DADT due to new information given to them by DOJ lawyers. One of the new items of information was the following.

The order from Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Judges Kim Wardlaw and Richard Paez notes the additional information provided to the court in the government's most recent filing -- specifically, "the declaration of Major General Steven A. Hummer, Chief of Staff of the Repeal Implementation Team of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the representation that only one servicemember has been discharged under 10 U.S.C. § 654 since the passage of the Repeal Act; the representation that the Secretaries of the Military Departments, Chiefs of the Military Services, and Commanders of the Combatant Commands have recently submitted their written advice regarding the status of their preparation for repeal and ability to satisfy the certification standards set by Congress; and the representation that repeal certification will be presented to the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a matter of weeks, by the end of July or early in August."

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/ninth-circuit.html

end of quote emphasis mine.

But according to a Pentagon spokesman the following is actually true.

The Pentagon confirmed Monday that more service members have been discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell” pending certification of the policy’s repeal, with one individual’s discharge approved as recently as Thursday.

A total of four airmen have been discharged under the policy in the last several weeks, Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez confirmed Monday.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/06/27/Air_Force_Confirms_New_Round_of_Discharges_Under_Dont_Ask_Dont_Tell/

end of quote emphasis mine

Four isn't equal to one. It is three more than one. It is 400% of one. The DOJ has some explaining to do.

conservative religious votes.

Do they really believe this is going to score them points with the fundies?

n/t

:thumbsup:

without interference from the Courts.

they are doing what they are supposed to be doing in our system: serving as an avenue of recourse against injustice and overturning statutes which are, on their face, unconstitutional.

Are you actually advocating that legislative repeal on its own is better than repeal PLUS a definitive 9th circuit ruling upholding Judge Phillip's decision?

Don't you want this law struck down as permanently as possible?

What exactly are your priorities here?

And they are also questioning my motives, which is against DU rules.

If you want to have a discussion regarding the facts, policies, and law then fine - but if you want to get personal and use veiled questions as a form of attack then I'm not going to participate in your game.

what are your priorities?

How is that a difficult question? I didn't state my impression of your motives, I ASKED you what they are.

The courts aren't interfering.

they are doing what they are supposed to be doing in our system: serving as an avenue of recourse against injustice and overturning statutes which are, on their face, unconstitutional.

Are you actually advocating that legislative repeal on its own is better than repeal PLUS a definitive 9th circuit ruling upholding Judge Phillip's decision?

Don't you want this law struck down as permanently as possible?

or conducting any investigations while they are considering the motion to reinstate.

So essentially they just garrotted the discharge side of DADT.

Everybody who actually cares about this issue should be in favor of the 9th circuit upholding Judge Phillips ruling.

A Federal court precedent coupled with legislative repeal makes it much tougher for a future rightwing President and/or congress to try and reinstate the ban.

but in the meantime the DOJ oughtn't be lying to courts.

To lie in the courts I mean. The DOJ under Holder/Obama is no more about "justice" than Bush's DOJ. It is just time to face reality that are justice system is Kafkaesque.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Log Cabin Republicans asked the court Friday to deny the motion, saying "an on-again, off-again status of the District Court's injunction benefits no one and plays havoc with the constitutional rights of American service members."

The plaintiff said while only one service member has been discharged since the congressional vote, three others have been approved for discharge by the secretary of the Air Force but the processing of those actions have been "stopped in their tracks" by the court's order. Granting the stay the government wants would allow it to act on those discharges and also allow it to put recent applicants from gay enlistees in limbo, the group said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203304576449271373218058.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLTopStories

If the quote from the LCR in the linked article is accurate, then the DOJ wasn't lying about the number.

The DOJ seems to be asking for the stay to be lifted reinstated so that the Pentagon can actually discharge the three other servicemembers who have been approved for discharge after requesting it. Of course, the morality and wisdom of doing that (as well as putting applications "from gay enlistees in limbo") is a separate question from whether or not it is a lie.

(edited because I got it mixed up)

And gives an interesting perspective on the usage of the courts; but also why would the DOJ go that far in order to allow 3 servicemembers to be discharged---and ar these servicemembers asking for discharge like so many recent others have?

Claiming there's only been one victim says "We're not doing this anyway, or hardly doing it, so the policy's hardly being enforced anyway."

Asking to be allowed to fire three more who would otherwise be protected is just plain vicious and is one more indication of the homophobia of this admnistration.

If they want to stay in the service and are being forced out, I agree that is unconscionable. But if they asked to be discharged while they still could be, that's another story.

Whether or not somebody should be allowed to use the discriminatory practices of the military against itself in order to get out of a voluntary commitment is certainly a moral question worth discussing. It sounds like a bad idea to me, but I wouldn't call it vicious.

I guess you missed the fact that President Obama signed the Repeal of DADT Act,
and that he will sign the 'certification' which is one of the stipulations in the bill within a couple of weeks.

Donnie McClurkin, Michael Kirbyjohn, Rick Warren, the unprotested use of Obama's image and voice to promote Prop h8, the defense of DOMA, the ongoing legal defense of DADT as here we see, the disparagement of LGBT couples who, according to Obama, lack "God in the mix," etc.. Signing the legislation while not fighting for the cause just isn't that impressive.

has the blood of gay teenagers on their hands.

Plain and simple.

as his name was brought up by the poster to whom I was responding.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

can discharge the three other servicemembers.

The DOJ is asking for the stay to remain in place so that the Pentagon and President Obama can finish implementing the Repeal of DADT Act that the Congress passed and which President Obama signed December 2010.


p.s. You last paragraph is backwards, it is the LogCabinRepublicans that are asking the 9th Circuit Court to 'lift' the stay, DOJ wants it to remain in place for the moment.

I certainly hope they can, since that part of the original ruling still seems to be in effect:

Despite the delay in dismantling the controversial policy, the ruling bars the federal government from investigating, penalizing or discharging anyone pursuant to "don't ask, don't tell."

p.s. thanks for pointing out the error in my previous post

The Court first declared DADT unconstitutional.
The DOJ requested a stay and received it.
Then the Log Cabin Republicans requested for the stay to be lifted.
Then the Court lifted the stay.
Then the DOJ requested for the stay to be put back in place.
Now the Court has put the stay back in place with 'NEW' language - the new language/ruling bars the federal government from investigating, penalizing or discharging anyone pursuant to "don't ask, don't tell."

That 'new' language in the ruling wasn't in there before.

Now no one will be discharged, and the Pentagon can continue with their process to finalize the implementation of the Repeal of DADT Act.

has no anti discrimination language in it anymore, so a future Repub Prez hellbent on reinstating the ban, or otherwise harming LGBT soldiers, could attempt to do so with an executive order as CIC?

And that a court decision finding DADT unconstitutional could help block that future Prez from going down that road?

There is a reason that Aubrey Sarvis of SLDN (who it's safe to say knows a bit more about this than you) is not happy that the administration, at this late date, is still seeking to overturn the stay.

http://www.sldn.org/news/archives/breaking-sldn-responds-to-reports-of-doj-intent-to-appeal-dadt-ruling/

edit: to add link

don't you think that I've seen you say that before? :)

Btw, Do you realize that once the Pentagon finishes the implementation of the Repeal of DADT Act and all the certifications have been signed and the waiting period is over - then the DOJ can request the 9th Circuit to lift the stay?
And then both ends will be tied up nicely into a bow.

For all we know the 9th circuit will at that point declare the case moot.

Which leaves us at that point with no Federal Appeals court ruling on the merits to fortify our argument down the road.

I'm not willing to take that chance with future LGBT soldiers' lives on the line.

how can the certification process and implementation of the repeal stipulated in the Repeal of DADT Act continue, when there wouldn't be a DADT to repeal?

If it is a choice between how the Log Cabin Republicans or how Obama believes DADT should be permanently ended - my money is on President Obama.

Which field of law have you specialized in and practice?

DADT is unenforceable, but still repealable. And the administration could still certify the repeal and make the legislative part of this official.

Loving invalidated anti miscegenation laws, but many remained on the books for years until individual states reversed them.

Ditto with Lawrence.

For explaining that.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

a year (They knew this was coming so it is really more like 5 years) to do something as simple as send out an order to stop recrimination, and stop discharge as of now.

How in the world can they do something complicated like fight an overseas war and win or defend their own homeland if it were attacked.

How long would it take them to implement rules to deal with, say, an invasion of an foreign based armed drug cartel.

Like there isn't already such an invasion(s) going on in the SW US and the military hasn't responded yet.