Army chief: I won’t discharge gay personnel

[RamboLiberal]

Source: MSNBC/Reuters

WASHINGTON - The Army secretary said on Wednesday he would not discharge gay personnel who admitted their sexual orientation to him, despite the "don't ask, don't tell" stance that remains official military policy.

"What the secretary (of defense) has placed a moratorium on is going forward on discharges," Army Secretary John McHugh told defense reporters.

The statement seemed to indicate that some Pentagon leaders had already shifted their stance, at least regarding private admissions by gay troops, although Congress has not yet formally repealed the law banning declared homosexuals.

-----

McHugh, a former Republican lawmaker nominated by Obama, suggested Defense Secretary Robert Gates backed turning a blind eye to such admissions during talks with troops about their feelings on ending the ban.

"It is not so stated but I think a reasonable assumption" that he need not pursue discharges, McHugh said.


Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36118600/ns/us_news-military/

[zelta gaisma]

1. good on him

[EFerrari]

2. So, what does this barrage of mixed messages mean, finally?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8060898

[MineralMan]

3. I think it means that DADT is basically dead.

It hasn't been formalized, yet, but soon will be.

[goclark]

17. That is what I pray that it means

How many soldiers have been discharged since the announcement a while ago?

[Renew Deal]

4. It's not mixed messages, at least based on the link you posted.

There are better examples of "mixed messages."

The article you posted says: "Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that the Obama administration is committed to overturning the law, but the Justice Department regularly defends statutes that are currently law, regardless of the president's support for the laws. Said Schmaler in a statement: “In this case the Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. The Department does not pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one Administration’s policy preferences.”"

There's nothing mixed about that.

[EFerrari]

5. Oh geeze. I guess I have to keep that in mind when I go out on Sunday

to find the eggs that the Easter Bunny leaves in our garden.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. You do understand that the Justice Department is not the military?

Don't you?

Different organizations. Different goals. Different jobs.

[high density]

8. So you don't want the Justice department to follow laws?

Time for the law to change, not the Justice department.

[mike_c]

7. this is NOT the same as a repeal of DADT, however....

It might be tempting to think implementing a better policy on top of DADT solves the problem, but unless DADT is repealed, the next conservative to win the presidency will simply demand a return to prior policy, and use the law as cover.

[4lbs]

9. Which is why it's important to pressure CONGRESS to repeal DADT.

President Obama can't repeal it. Only a legislative act can overturn it.

[impik]

10. All that needed now is official repeal, because DADT is dead

[Vidar]

11. Good for him.

[SpartanDem]

12. This is certainly good news

[rkennedy_68]

13. good for the general

[Change Happens]

14. Bingo, done! I love it......nt

[dickthegrouch]

15. Aaaaarrrrgh - I hate "Admit"

It perpetuates the hatred and the notion that homosexuality is somehow wrong.

We disclose, reveal, acknowledge.... never "admit" our orientation.

Please complain to the newspaper and the Army Secretary about their choice of words.

[Solly Mack]

16. K&R

I'm familiar with the actual public affairs guidance paper put out on March 25 (from the initial 45 day review asked for by Gates) and it is hopeful. There's a list of standards that can no longer be used for discharging soldiers - standards that maintain the soldier's privacy - even if it comes out in a work-related, course of events capacity. Short version being - it does make it harder to discharge under DADT as it does raise the bar. This is not to say that discharges won't continue to happen - the paper makes it plain that such is still the law....but there is reason to think the higher bar will discourage the effort. Which is what McHugh is speaking to...there is room for "reasonable assumption" with that higher bar.

We'll see.