Obama Sets Sights on 'Don’t Ask'

[unhappycamper]

Obama Sets Sights on 'Don’t Ask'
March 04, 2009
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The White House says President Barack Obama has begun consulting his top defense advisers on how to lift a ban on homosexuals openly serving in the military.

The administration will not say how soon that might happen or whether experts will be commissioned to study the issue in-depth, as some Democrats have suggested.

The move enables Obama to say he is making good on his campaign promise to reverse the law, but does not lock him into doing so anytime soon. The carefully calculated statement, released this week by White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, is vague enough to prevent the hot-button issue from consuming Obama's foreign policy agenda, which is dominated by ending the Iraq war and salvaging operations in Afghanistan.

"The president supports changing `Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" Vietor said in the e-mailed statement. That is the compromise solution for the emotional subject that ended hot debate after the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, proposed in the early 1990s to let openly gay men and lesbians serve.

"As part of a long-standing pledge," Obama has begun consulting closely with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, the highest-ranking uniformed American as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "so that this change is done in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security," Vietor said.


Rest of article at: http://www.military.com/news/article/March-2009/obama-sets-sites-on-dont-ask.html

[cboy4]

1. I don't understand this whole concept of trying to figure out the

best way how to lift the ban.

What am I missing?

You just lift it and you stop kicking out teh gays who have been serving and who will be serving.

Simple.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. The "Best Way" often means "Legally Sound"

A badly crafted repeal could keep DADT on the books for years as various political homophobes drag it through the court system.

--d!

[cboy4]

4. This is not intended to be sarcastic, but can you explain

what legally sound would be>

I mean, what would be so challenging and difficult?

[Dogmudgeon]

6. All law in the USA is "adversarial"

In other words, all law can be argued, and that includes actions to repeal or change laws.

The challenge is to write the law so that it can only be argued on the basis of justice, not on the basis of being written ambiguously or confusingly. That's one of the reasons why legal language has become so odd and stilted; it's been refined for hundreds of years, and all that jargon has meanings that are not just agreed upon, but are set in legal precedent.

If the "legal instrument" used to repeal DADT was written poorly, every single weakness could be used to spawn a new legal action. This would mean years, perhaps decades, of litigation. We hear of "technicalities" as things that criminals use to get out of prison, but those are rare. The common use of technicalities is to slow down the implementation or enforcement of a non-criminal law.

A trained lawyer (which I am not) could probably explain it in much better detail -- someone like frequent Olbermann guests Jonathan Turley or John Dean. Dean was hired by Nixon to find technicalities in the law to keep him out of prison, and Turley trains young attorneys.

This may all seem remarkably petty and complicated, but I assure you, this is exactly how the process works. Every jot and tittle must be in place or the opponents will effectively stop the law. With an unemotional issue, there is usually a little more wiggle room. But with an emotional and religiously-charged issue, the law must be letter-perfect, or there will be a great deal of litigating.

HTH (Hope This Helps)

--d!

[cboy4]

7. Very good. Thank you for taking the time to write and explain.

It makes sense to a degree.

I was going to say that it doesn't make complete sense, since there isn't any case law that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that allowing gay people to serve in the military is harmful to the mission...

Other than soldiers saying, I don't want a bunch of homos around me because I don't like them, what proof is there?

But I supposed without a federal employment non-discrimination act, people can be fired and discriminated against for being gay.

I'm prolly rambling, but I guess I want the law to be as letter-perfect as possible.

I just hope it doesn't take forever, because it seems to me a team of smart lawyers can draft a statute fairly exponentially.

Thanks! Yes, it helps. :)

[bluestateguy]

3. He's trying to avoid a Clintonian fiasco like in 1993

And also to see to it that it will be next to impossible for a future President Bobby Jindal down the road to repeal it.

[cboy4]

5. I understand that an executive order cannon make DADT

go away, so it takes an act of congress.

But it's an open and shut proposition.

There's no more Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Are you saying there could be a compromise?

And if so, how is that eliminating DADT, and thus maintaining Obama's campaign promise?

[Berry Cool]

8. You do realize what you've just done, don't you?

You've suggested that there is actually a single person in the entire United States who is seriously concerned about the possibility of a President Bobby Jindal. :rofl:

But seriously, this is a great point to make. More power to him in his efforts.

[Crowman1979]

9. Let LGBTs openly serve so we can get rid of all the fundies in the military.