My take on the firing of the gay Arabic translator from the military

[DFW]

I'm biased, let me say this flat out. My job and my safety depend on my being able to speak several
foreign languages. I am station chief for Europe for my employer (don't ask, I won't tell), and I
couldn't do my job without those language skills. I am also happily married and not gay.

So--the question is:

What do we need more, kicking openly gay people out of the military, or people fluent in Arabic in the military?

Well, let's see, just about anybody enlisting in the US armed forces these days speaks and reads Arabic fluently, right?

NO?

OK, well, then half of them, right?

NO?

Oh, you mean like there is only a handful of them, and we need them desperately?

Gotcha. OK, so firing a guy because he's gay is more important than whether or not he possesses
skills the US military desperately needs to help save American lives.

Tell that to the next family to lose their son/father because the plans for the bomb/attack that killed
him weren't translated in time because the guy who would have done the translating was fired for being gay.

That's a little dramatic, but it's also a little conceivable, and that's reason enough to cut this shit out.

[Syrinx]

1. I think that's how most sane, reasonable people think about it

:thumbsup:

[DFW]

5. That's fine as far as it goes, but begs another question:

How many sane, reasonable people are in decision-making positions on the military?

More than we suspect, but less than we'd like (or need), maybe? That's not enough.

[MADem]

2. Which one?

They had a pogrom at the language school in Pacific Grove awhile back....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6824206

[DFW]

3. I was referring to the one cited in the current DU home page

This one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3867237

But it would, of course, apply to any and all cases.

That's like driving a car without tires because you found out Charles Goodyear is gay.

[MADem]

4. Ha--good analogy! nt

[ejpoeta]

6. i find it very ironic that in order for these folks to be able to risk their lives to protect

the freedom of americans, they have to give up any of their own freedoms or rights as americans. it's friggin disgusting. and it's wrong.

[DFW]

7. VERY wrong, as a matter of fact

I wish that merely being counter-productive would be reason
enough to modify or eliminate a detrimental policy.

[nichomachus]

8. The point everyone misses

is that they're not firing this guy for being gay. They're firing him for being honest about himself.

Gay is OK, as long as you lead a deceptive life. Honesty is punished by the US military.

Why does the US military hate honesty?

This would be like saying it's OK to be Jewish as long as you pretend to be Christian. But if you tell us you're a Jew or practice your religion, we'll punish you.

[DFW]

11. Great--the US military uses the formula for success in 15th century Spain.

Vivan los Reyes Católicos.

[JerseygirlCT]

17. True. Another level of wrong. nt

[formercia]

9. On Point.

You're absolutely right.

..but then, this is a Crusade, run by the American Taliban.

[bahrbearian]

10. They should hire him back as a Contractor for 5X the Money.

[lynnertic]

12. This is not the first gay arabic linguist to be fired. Just the first one in this administration. nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. Here's my story:

I posted this in the other thread, but as No. 152, I doubt it will get any attention. This is the cleaned-up version:

Here's the incredible flaw in this system. If you let go of translators for no other reason, than they are gay, you are making us that much more vulnerable, to another category of translator or contacts you do rely on to get you translators. I have researched one potential source, which immediately illustrates the flaws: Through newspaper articles I've been able track down the going-ons of one family. One was a lawyer, who worked in Saudi Arabia, then coming to America, became a lawyer. In the years before the Iraq mess, he represented at least one client who was an arabic translator. Ergo, he understood completely the need for these services. This lawyer first got in trouble when he photographed a client naked, but that's not why he got disbarred. He got disbarred for attempting to sell presidential pardons through a family connection with ties to the George Mitchell law firm. - during the Clinton years. No one understood why he got off so easy. Not even the FBI.

His son was part of a terrible real estate nightmare which will probably end up with the homeowners paying for the mistakes, because the issue is so incredibly complicated, not the least of which is that half of the guilty parties may have connections through the Democratic party. The other, to the GOP. I don't see how it's ever going to be resolved, because both parties have either good campaign donors, or political operatives to protect.

And through marriage, a third person in this family, a campaign donor darling of the Democratic party, was outed by a Republican governor for attempting to muscle him for more public money for a real estate venture.

These people are creating hot spots throughout our country because they feel entitled. They know that the service they can provide can pull them out of potential civil torts -- and it runs through both parties. These are the people this government is selecting, over gay translators.

Frankly, I would want all the gay translators to come out of the closet. That way, they're insulated from blackmail.

Why are we hand-picking sexual orientation as a factor for translators, and not all the other indiscretions that amount to civil torts in a community? What the hell did we do to deserve this? You make our entire country, a lie.

[Time for change]

14. We don't need more translators -- If we torture them enough

we'll get all the information that we need.
:sarcasm:

[DFW]

15. That saves on translators, alright! LOL

Dick Cheney will just interpret the screaming to mean whatever he wants it to mean.

Hey, how do you think we ever found all those WMD anyway, huh?

[nichomachus]

18. Torturing someone will make them able to speak English?

Wow -- I didn't know that.

[Time for change]

19. Did you miss the sarcasm thingy?

[nichomachus]

21. Ooops -- yeah

:blush:

[JerseygirlCT]

16. Dramatic or not, you're absolutely right

Which is why his case makes a particularly stark example.

No person with the willingness and skills to serve should be turned away, least of all because of their sexual orientation. Gay or straight, if they cannot behave according to standards, they need to go. But assuming that a gay person is more likely to be sexually aggressive, or whatever dopey rationalizations bigots use to cover their bigotry is just wrong. Morally, ethically, legally wrong.

[Captain Hilts]

20. Both Prez Obama and the Congress could change this policy quickly, and have chosen not to. nt