'Don't Ask' repeal likely part of 2011 defense budget bill

[Newsjock]

Source: Washington Blade

The effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will likely come next year as an amendment to the Defense Department spending bill, rather than through a standalone bill, according to gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

Frank said in an interview with the Blade that repealing the 1993 law barring gays from serving openly in the military would happen as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.

“The House will take up and the Senate will take up ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal,” he said. “That will again, like hate crimes, even more so, will have to be done, I believe, in the context of the defense authorization. You can’t do the standalone bill. It belongs in the defense authorization.”

Frank said lawmakers would seek to amend the defense measure to include a provision repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Such a move would mimic the way Congress recently enacted the hate crimes measure.

Read more: http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_i...

[Aramchek]

1. There's another Domino ready to fall.

[earcandle]

2. Shouldn't it be in the Defense Bill? After all, they are the prejudice party that needs to give it

up, yes? 

[dnricci]

3. I love this

By adding it to a defense budget bill it eliminates the filibuster and the need for 60 votes, you just need a majority. I am pretty sure a budget bill is different from a regular bill, I may be wrong, but I believe it only needs a majority and cannot be fillabustered, but I may be wrong.

[FrenchieCat]

4. This would appear to be a bill targeted to be passed via reconciliation.....

and not only that, but what GOP member is going to vote AGAINST a defense bill?

[SKKY]

5. That's bringing the weak sauce...

...repeal it, and do it now. How many outstanding service members will be forced out by then. I can foresee a rush to get some of them out before then.

[comtec]

6. Didn't Obama ask that the military stop enforcing DADT?

if not, why the fuck not?!

A comedian in the UK has asked WTF?
Why would you NOT want gay's in the military - being silly abot itof course - pointing out that guy'll fight HARDER to protect their beloved souldiers "NOOOOOOO, Not Johnny... He's got an ass like a peach!!!!"

They also make merciless fun of us over health care "Wait.;.. you DON'T want the government to make sure you get that heart transplant?!?!"

They really see us as children (with big guns) and I'm strating to agree, the more I live here and shee waht's going on back home =[

[boppers]

7. The US is not a military dictatorship.

Obama doesn't get to issue decrees that substantially change law, and policy.

[comtec]

8. I thought he could suggest that they not be so agressive?

anywya, I've always thought it was a total bullshit law.
a compromise that seemed to make seince in the 90's (I was young and stupid) but certianly has no place now in the 21st century.

[boppers]

10. I agree it's bullshit, but it's also law.

Asking our military to bypass law, and color outside the lines, is not optimal.

Do you punish those who continue to follow procedure? How does one enforce a "suggestion"?

On a practical level, it's not really as "secret" as it used to be, this is more of a matter of codifying how the services have changed, and making sure that people don't "get fired" for talking about being GLBTQ, as well as making sure that the people around them don't "get fired" for not reporting that they were told by someone that they were GLBTQ.

[Toucano]

13. The armed forces were integrated by Executive Order by Harry Truman.

Public Schools were integrated by Executive Order under Dwight Eisenhower.

The President has this authority to order generals to stop enforcing the policy as a matter of national security.

[TheWraith]

15. NO, HE DOES NOT.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to explain this. Don't Ask Don't Tell is statute law. That means it was passed by Congress as a bill. Segregation was NOT passed by Congress as a law, it was simply a standing policy of the military. Obama can't legally order the military to ignore Don't Ask Don't Tell any more than Bush could legally order the military to help torture people.

[Toucano]

18. YES HE DOES!

I. The Laws of the United States.
Federal law recognizes that the President and Congress share authority to govern the
military. In fact, by law currently in effect, Congress has already granted the President
authority with respect to military promotions, retirements, and separations in a time of
national emergency. This authority includes the power to suspend laws such as 10 U.S.C.
§ 654. Under 10 U.S.C. § 12305 (“Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws
Relating to Promotion, Retirement, and Separation”), Congress grants the President
authority to suspend any provision of law relating to the separation of any member of the
armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the
United States, during any period of national emergency in which members of a reserve
component are serving involuntarily on active duty. The statute states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members
of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to
active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title,
the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion,
retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces
who the President determines is essential to the national security of the
United States.

This law is colloquially referred to as “stop-loss” authority, and it has been used to
suspend the voluntary separation of members of the military who have reached the end of
their enlistment obligation or have qualified for retirement. The law, however, gives the
President authority to suspend “any provision of law” relating to separation of members
of the armed forces, including involuntary separations under 10 U.S.C. § 654.

...

The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy itself, as codified by Congress, also grants authority to
the Department of Defense to determine the procedures under which investigations,
separation proceedings, and other personnel actions under the authority of 10 U.S.C. §
654 will be carried out. Section 654(b) states: "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 regulation." Under this section, the Secretary of Defense has
discretion to determine the specific manner in which “don’t ask, don’t tell” will be
implemented. Furthermore, the statute does not direct the military to make any particular
findings of prohibited conduct or statements; it only states that members shall be
separated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary if such findings are made. The
Secretary has broad authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those
findings may be made.

http://www.palmcenter.org/node/1286

[TheWraith]

20. The President cannot un-write laws.

I'm sorry, but it's that simple. Obama ordering the military not to follow a specific law would no more be legal than Bush approving illegal torture.

[Toucano]

21. He doesn't have to "un-write" anything.

Did you read my post above?

Your comparison to Bush's torturing people is not appropriate.

Obama can end DADT legally because the statute gives him the authority.

It is clear as day and it is exactly that simple.

[TheWraith]

27. No, it's not.

The President cannot ignore laws by executive order. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that. Just because you think it's so, because you feel the need to blame Obama, doesn't make it accurate.

[Toucano]

28. "Yes, he can!"

It is not ignoring the law. It is in the law.

Congress gave the President the authority, just like with the stop-loss orders under the Bush administration. Only this time, it would be used to keep people in the service who want to be there, rather than keeping people in who did not want to be there.

The President, no matter who it is, has 100% authority over military discharges and retirements under the law.

Just because you refuse to read anything that criticizes Obama, doesn't mean he walks on water.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. Yet segregated units continued for the next 6 years

as these Executive Orders establish little or no penalties for non-compliance and the next President can repeal or ignore a predecessor's Order. Legislation via Congress brings about the full force of punitive measures to enforce the law.

Similarly with school integration. It was a toothless means to an end, which ultimately lead to the passage of various Civil Rights laws to add the enforcement provisions.

It is false to say that "Public Schools were integrated by Executive Order under Dwight Eisenhower". ONE school in Little Rock, Arkansas was targeted for the use of the Arkansas National Guard to uphold Brown vs. Board under that narrow EO, all done in the midst of a media circus. That Eisenhower made the attempt to do something in the interim to enforce Brown v. Board was commendable, but he was also limited while he attempted to help craft more durable Civil Rights legislation with the requisite enforcement provisions.

Do you really think that the rest of the public schools in the U.S. were suddenly integrated because of that Executive Order?

[Toucano]

19. You're right.

Not a good example on my part since that order was not counteracting statue law.

It was my effort to find an example of an executive order the presidents authority over the military and I didn't think it through.

You are now free to crucify me.

<tail between legs>

[Thothmes]

29. Except that the Armed Services were not segratgated

by virture of any Federal Law. They were segregated because of Service custom and Service regulation. As CinC. President Truman could order these service rules to be changed. Had the Services been segregated by act of Congress, Truman could not have integrated the services by executive order
Ike didnt integrate the public school system because he wanted to. Read "Brown vs. the Board of Education" Ike was carrying out a Supreme Court Decision.

[SKKY]

11. No, he did not. It is still enforced as I type.

[Number23]

9. This whole article is gold. Thanks for posting. Good to see Congress acting on this.

1st Money Quote: "David Stacy, HRC’s senior public policy advocate, noted that Congress enacted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 1993 as part of a defense authorization bill, so repealing the law via the same vehicle would mirror the process."

2nd: "“So I say,” Frank said, “the schedule is the federal domestic partner benefits anytime in the next few months, ENDA out of the House in December or in February with the Senate voting in the spring, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ part of the military authorization, which means into the summer."

[Vidar]

12. Why not tack it on to whatever act Obama is pondering which provides additional troops

for Afghanistan instead of waiting for 2011?

[TheWraith]

16. It's not "waiting for 2011."

The FY 2011 funding for the Defense Department gets passed next summer.

And there won't be a bill for Afghanistan.

[placton]

14. Karnak predicts:

it will be stripped out, and we (real Dems) will be told to keep our powder dry until after the '12 elections - and '16 ........

[kpete]

22. DADT (Repeal) Likely To Be Part of Defense Bill

Source: Advocate

DADT Likely To Be Part of Defense Bill
By Kerry Eleveld

Repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” will likely be included as part of next year’s Department of Defense authorization bill in both chambers of Congress, Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) said Wednesday.

“Military issues are always done as part of the overall authorization bill,” Frank said, insisting that this has been the strategy for overturning the policy all along. “'Don’t ask, don’t tell' was always going to be part of the military authorization.”

Frank said he has been in direct communication with the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office, and other Congressional leaders about the strategy for ending the 1993 ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Though some moderate Democrats have recently expressed concern about repealing the policy during a midterm election year, Frank said resolve at the White House has never wavered. “The Administration is totally committed to this and has been from the beginning,” he said.

Read more: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/11/11/DADT... /

[derby378]

23. Taking their time, aren't they...?

Last I heard, torture was supposed to be "banned," and I hear there's still torture going on down at Guantanamo Bay.

[joeybee12]

24. "Has been the strategy all along?"

Sorry Barney, nice try, but we Dems aren't that stupid.

[CTyankee]

26. My guess is that the WH had this issue focus grouped and found out that

support for repeal of DADT would be politically feasible. Now they're having Frank run the ball to see how that goes over. I think they figure that when they do it, there will be a small ruckus kicked up by the very unpopular Far Right Loons and some old, fat generals but generally the public will be just fine with it. The ruckus won't last long because most people don't care (I wish they did, on OUR side, but I am realistic). When everyone realizes that the world will not come to a screeching halt, it'll be done...

[imdjh]

25. That's fine. I gave them up to the 2012 election to do it.

[24601]

30. So if DADT is repealed, it allows CELIBATE gays to serve openly

unless you also repeal the UCMJ Punitive Article 125 prohibiting sodomy:

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 125—Sodomy
By Rod Powers, About.com
.Filed In:US Military
Text.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)

(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.

(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.

Explanation.

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

[Unvanguard]

31. The sooner, the better, but I'll take what I can get. n/t

[David Zephyr]

32. Kicking this back up.

for those who missed it.