White House says 'don't ask' policy under review

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

The White House insisted Thursday that officials are working to overturn a policy that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, pushing back against Pentagon assessments that such efforts were low priorities and Democratic activists' complaint of slow progress.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters that President Barack Obama is committed to reversing the Clinton-era policy of "don't ask, don't tell," which blocks gays' service if they disclose their sexual orientation.

Congress would have to take action to change the policy. Recent polls indicate the ban and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy are losing support.

"Try as one may, a president can't simply whisk away standing law of the United States of America," Gibbs said. "But if you're going to change the policy, if it is the law of the land, you have to do it through an act of Congress."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090521/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_military_gays_1

[Muttocracy]

1. I don't like her but I give Ana Marie Cox credit for pushing on this day after day. nt

[RamboLiberal]

9. I think Rachel Maddow has helped as well

Especially having two gay servicemen with incredible experience and education who are being kicked out after admitting they are gay on her show.

Lt. Dan Choi who is a West Point graduate and an Arabic translator - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x309004

Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach with 18 years as a pilot. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x314461

[Muttocracy]

12. I meant I happened to watch both WH press briefings with Gibbs where she asked ?s

[RamboLiberal]

15. Well except for excerpts I rarely get to see the briefings

Sorry - wasn't even aware she's part of the WH press pool.

[Muttocracy]

21. Sometimes I run C-Span clips in the background while I'm doing busywork. nt

[waiting for hope]

29. I didn't see Choi (thanks for the link) but I

did see Fehrenbach on her show and I cried... the bewilderment and pain over what had been done was so telling in his eyes. 18 years - people are lucky today to get 5 years in a company .. he has spent almost half his life at this.

[Zhade]

2. Sure it is. Talk is cheap, and Obama's broken more than one promise already.

Believe it when I see it, and not a second earlier.

[stewartcolbert08]

60. I hate to say this

But I agree completely, I dont understand what the big controversy is! Its wrong! So do away with it! Its not that complicated! I dont mean to grand stand but its total bullshit! This should have been done away with along time ago! They need to end it and get it over with already before any more lives are ruined by it!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

3. Bullshit........

Total bullshit.

It does NOT have to go through Congress.

Witness the timeline of President Truman's ending of racial segregation in the armed forces, note especially Clark Clifford's memo to Truman in November of 1947, and then look at how Truman finally did it.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

Congress is another way, but it is not a "have to" situation. Not in the slightest....

[The Hope Mobile]

4. Oooh! Awesome smackdown!

I hope it is but I hear you loud and clear!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

5. Tangerine is old,

and she knows her history shit. (I also knew Clark Clifford, but he was really old when I met him - I was just a kid.)

[The Hope Mobile]

8. Oldie but Goodie! nt

[gcomeau]

14. Ahem.

Before crying bullshit, perhaps you should keep in mind a teeny tiny detail.

Truman could end military segregation by executive order BECAUSE CONGRESS HADN'T PASSED A LAW SPECIFICALLY REQUIRING SEGREGATING THE MILITARY. It was standing policy, not law.

That is not the situation Obama faces since Congress went and made DADT a matter of Federal law in '93. Or are you suggesting that Obama has the authority to just sign an executive order canceling any law he doesn't like?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

16. Remember what W did with habeas corpus?

Do you? Does that sound familiar?

[gcomeau]

19. Are we now using W's conduct as the example...

... of what appropriate presidential conduct is? Are we? Does that sound like something you want to do?

Answer the question. Are you or are you not saying that the president has the actual authority to simply decree any law he doesn't like to be null and void?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

22. Wow.........

You're getting all that froth on your mouth.

Calm down, and, by the way, that "Answer the question" is rude.

Now, consider decaf and some time spent with Miss Manners ...................

[gcomeau]

26. Ignoring questions would also fall in the "rude" category I believe.

But I'll take your continued refusal to answer as your acknowledgment that you had no idea what you were talking about in your initial "Total Bullshit" declaration and have no leg to stand on.

Good day.

[Igel]

28. Yes, apparently.

It's one thing to insist on principle when principle can be used to smack your enemy over the head. It's entirely another when principle gets in your own way and is an impediment to what you want.

In a national ruled by men, it's appropriate. Franklin said we had a democracy, if we could keep it; another said that the Constitution was written for a virtuous people. Given the recent housing debacle, it's a question if we are. Sometimes hypocrisy suffices for maintaining a semblace of public virtue, and that's enough. (And, yes, I think it's sad when hypocrisy starts to look like a virtue.)

[No Elephants]

41. Please see Reply #39. The hypocrisy in this matter is that of the WH.

[No Elephants]

40. Please see Reply #39.

[emsimon33]

30. Yes, wasn't Don't Ask Don't Tell by executive order of Clinton--no Congress involved?

Does sound like BS.

[No Elephants]

42. No. Clinton and Morris cooked it up and then got Powell involved. However, triangulating Clinton

got Congress to pass it. So it is a statute. For the rest of the story, though, please see Reply #39.

[emsimon33]

47. Thank you so much for the clarification.

[snowdays]

33. The WH is roboted to make that false claim each time-as are many here

on DU. Its very Rovian--changing the topic.

[Scooter24]

34. I see you are not familiar with the US Code.

Please, allow me:

US Code: Title 10 G 654

10 USC § 654 Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

...

(b) Policy.— 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 regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—

(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the
interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000654----000-.html

---------
For homosexuals to serve openly in the military, Congress needs to pass a law specifically repealing 10 USC § 654 from the US Code. President Obama does not have the statutory authority to make that change without a bill.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

36. Well, for homosexuals to serve openly

in the United States military, President Obama simply has to sign an Executive Order suspending the implementation of 10 USC § 654.

Of course, if Congress doesn't like that hypothetical Executive Order, it may amend or rewrite the law that's been preempted, or it may write a whole new law.

If the President doesn't like the new iteration, he can veto it., and a 2/3 majority will be required to override that Presidential veto.

Executive Orders are very interesting things .................

[No Elephants]

43. Please see Reply #39.

[No Elephants]

39. Only Congress can eliminate DADT bc, thanks to Clinton, Congress is the branch that

enacted it. Obama cannot repeal a statute. However, Obama can suspend any and all DADT discharges until Congress acts, with absolutely no co-equal branch issues bc there is a specific statute that empowers the POTUS to suspend discharges whenever s/he thinks national security so reqauires. With troops in Iraq, a surge in Afghanistan, the terrorist situation worldwide, etc., such a determination would be eminently reasonable.

I am sorry Obama is not acting and even sorrier that he is lying about his power to act; and I emailed whitehouse.gov to that effect about two weeks ago, citing the statute, namely 10 USC 12305.


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/12305.html

[emsimon33]

48. This is very helpful. Thank you for the posting.

My sense was that Obama had the power but I was fuzzy on the particulars.

[No Elephants]

52. You're welcome.

[IndianaGreen]

6. The Pentagon said this very week that they weren't even talking about DADT

In response to Robert Gibbs' bullshit statement, the law also says that torture is a crime, but I don't see Obama prosecuting the torturers.

You can't pick and choose which laws you are going to follow.

[The Hope Mobile]

10. I saw that too and I agree with your second statement as well!

White house contacts!

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: [phone]
TTY/TDD

[Tangerine LaBamba]

13. The Pentagon

has no decision-making power in these matters.

[The Hope Mobile]

25. I meant to reply to the one below that also said "they" have said they're not looking into it.

You obviously know better than I do. My point was only that I think DADT needs to be reviewed and that I had heard that it wouldn't be somewhere this week.

I also agree about the torture issue.

[Muttocracy]

23. Gibbs said to Cox's questions that the DoD had revised their statement

[No Elephants]

44. The law does not say only that torture is a crime. It says torturers must be prosecuted. That

would be the United Nations Convention Against Torture, to which the United States became party in 1988.

[DebbieCDC]

7. Then how come DOD said just this week there is NO review of DADT ongoing?

Lies and more doubletalk.

One term president.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

11. DOD has no say in the matter -

actually, they have as much say as anyone will give them, but they have absolutely NO decision-making power...............

[IndianaGreen]

17. But DOD would be the ones to implement the policy

and if they have no one working on implementing the policy, it means they don't expect any changes.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

20. That's when they salute

their Commander-in-Chief smartly and set about implementing his order.................

[Muttocracy]

24. Gibbs said the DoD updated their statement later. nt

[snowdays]

32. yeah, the WH is in full damage control on this one.

[jberryhill]

27. Probably because it is not up to the DoD to make policy /nt

[snowdays]

35. says it was the Pentagon that made that statement................

The WH must have quickly spanked him.............



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090521/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_military_gays_1

................On Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the military has no plans to repeal the policy and that the White House had not asked for the 1993 policy to be scrapped.

Two days later, Gibbs said Morrell had backed off that position; Morrell released a statement hours later doing just that.

"President Obama has been clear in his direction to Secretary (Robert) Gates and (Joint Chiefs) Chairman (Mike) Mullen that he is committed to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. He has also been clear that he is committed to do it in a way that is least disruptive to our troops, especially given that they have been simultaneously waging two wars for six years now," Morrell said.

"Although this will require changes to the law, the secretary and chairman are working to address the challenges associated with implementation of the president's commitment," he said........................

[DURHAM D]

18. This just pisses me off - "Clinton -era policy of don't ask, don't tell"

Did Gibbs actually say that?

If so he should have commented on BushI and prior eras when the military just allowed fragging, killing and beating of suspected homosexuals - no questions asked, no punishment, nothing. It was good policy - it kept the military cleared of all suspected deviants.

Yep - lets go back to that policy because it was so much better than DADT.

[No Elephants]

45. Clinton could have simply abolished discrimination against gays, as Truman did with

racial discrimination. Instead, Clinton chose to triangulate, with the help of Dick Morris and Colon Powell, then ship it to Congress to enact into law so that he would not have to take the entire hit for it.

The choice never had to be between the old way and DADT. It could have been between the old way and the decent way. However, while Truman knew that the buck stopped on his desk, Clinton devoted himself to passing the buck whenever he could and triangulating the rest of the time.

[DURHAM D]

49. Horse pucky. n/t

[Zhade]

50. Your response doesn't alter the truth of what the other poster said. He's right.

You're not.

[DURHAM D]

51. Crap is still crap.

Clinton haters just make shit up - just like their heros - the MSM and Republicans.

[No Elephants]

53. The posts speak for themselves, so I deleted the original reply.

[No Elephants]

54. Thanks (not "he" though).

[Wednesdays]

31. K&R

:kick:

[Bluebear]

37. I'm reviewing my plans to win the Powerball too.

[stewartcolbert08]

61. LMAO

I like that! "reviewing" LOL

[Bandit]

38. President Barack Obama is committed to reversing the Clinton-era policy of "don't ask, don't tell,"

Reversing means going back to what was before..Don't Ask Don't Tell was a huge leap forward for the gay community and I doubt very much they want it "reversed". I would think the goal is not to "reverse" the policy but to eliminate it and just say NO to any and all discrimination PERIOD.

[No Elephants]

46. I don't know if Obama ever used the term "reverse" with respect to DADT. and if he did, he made a

poor word choice. I do believe that he intends to go for full equality in the military for all people. However, "committed" is a poor word choice, too, unless "committed" means "I am going to claim my hands are tied until Congress acts, even though I know doggone well that I can take action on my own." Please see Reply #39.

Barney Frank said that Congress will take this up in 2010, and I assume that means after mid-term elections. I also read that the delay has the "tacit" acquiesence of gays rights activists, which, frankly, made me stop donating to them.

[24601]

55. If it were just a policy, a president could change it.

But it's a law, so it takes legislation.

You might as well say we are reviewing the policies of free speech & religion. You can't change those by an executive order either.

[No Elephants]

57. Please see Reply # 39. And free speech and religion, being in the Constitution are not at all

comparable to policies that apply to the military, as to which the CIC has a LOT of power.

[Divine Discontent]

56. He is simply putting it on Congress to deal with, not Obama 2012 campaign

they can say Congress passed it this way. I would much rather the Commander-In-Chief take the lead here and say it is ended in his military, immediately - and WHY.

[No Elephants]

58. Yes, especially since there are real people and real careers being affected while Obama and Congress

take their sweet time on this. Further, Obama is being deceptive. He can do something about those discharges.

[Divine Discontent]

59. true. Let's hope this will fall within a month... it might. Since SOS Clinton just announced with

the diplomats getting full equal benefits regardless of sexuality - that may be saying the other is coming down, too!