Senate Taking On DADT Next Week

[USArmyParatrooper]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/09/senate-plans-to-tackle-dont-ask-dont-tell-next-week.html

Senate Plans to Tackle Don't Ask, Don't Tell Next Week

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports:



Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to bring to the Senate floor next week the 2011 defense authorization bill that includes a repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, aides said today.



Reid informed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of his decision during a meeting this afternoon.

AS I'VE BEEN SAYING FOR SOME TIME NOW..... (posted July 24)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8807207

Full Congress Likely To Take Up DADT Repeal In September

Advocates for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are expecting a vote on the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill to occur sometimes in September after the August recess. The language that would repeal DADT is embedded in the Defense budget, and voting against the bill has always been seen as politically difficult no matter what the reasons. The bill funds the troops no matter what their sexual orientation is. Currently, the timetable for the bill being brought to the floor of the Senate is being negotiated between the Senate majority and minority leadership.

According to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, “What we’re hoping to do before August is to have an agreement which will pave the way for it being brought up right after the recess.” The next time that negotiations regarding what is in the bill can come up will be during reconciliation, and that will happen when the two chambers negotiate over differences in the bill.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and the SLDN are urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring the bill to the floor after Congress returns to work after Labor Day. “Yes, it would have been better if we were on the Senate floor this month, but the calendar was just too crowded,” Sarvis is on record as saying.

“This is the bill that provides for the pay and benefits and equipment for all service members, straight and gay. This bill and these core benefits for our should not be caught up in post election games and posturing,” he has also said.

The biggest concern so far has been that those opposed to repealing DADT might try to get the language struck from the bill either through another amendment or by filibustering the Defense bill. Both are problematic. In order to get a new amendment added to the bill on the floor of the Senate, it will take sixty votes to get it put into the bill. As for filibustering the whole bill, that could be even more problematic politically. It is unlikely that the Republicans will want to look like they are willing to vote against the troops in the middle of a war and right before the election. So far, no amendments have been planned to end the DADT repeal, but Levin predicts that there will be.

Sarvis is confident that the repeal will go through. He stated “The Senate votes are likely to be close, but, in the end, I think, repeal proponents will prevail.” The votes on the amendments are likely to be close or not happen at all. The filibuster on this is likely to be the usual kabuki dance of having just the moderate Republicans vote in favor of ending debate and then having most of the Republicans vote for the bill.

The biggest problem is avoiding the lame duck session after the election. Republicans have vowed to grind Congress to a halt during that time.

Carl Levin Makes It Clear That The Troops Do Not Have Veto Power Over DADT Repeal

Senator Carl Levin, the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has stated that he understands the frustration that many in the LGBT Community feel regarding the slow process of repealing DADT. Senator Levin spoke to reporters at a breakfast held by the Christian Science Monitor. Regarding the phrasing of the survey, that he has not read, he “can understand the resentment in the gay community.” He stated “the military is not a democracy.”

The Michigan Senator predicted that there would not be a filibuster because those who oppose the repeal of DADT are unlikely to oppose funding the troops. According to Levin “It’s a very good idea to get the attitude of the troops on things,” but that the troops needed to understand that this is not about them having the veto power over the repeal of DADT.

“A lot depends about how the survey is worded … make sure they understand military leadership made a decision. asking these questions as a way to help us implement this effectively,” Levin stated. Levin does feel that the Pentagon should have asked whether or not it was alright to discriminate against lesbians and gays.

Levin stated that Congress was not asked about the wording of the survey. In response to a question regarding whether or not the survey results would be released to the public, Levin stated “They will probably leak but they won’t be leaked at my suggestion.”

[Radical Activist]

1. Awesome.

Good news! And thanks for clearing up some things.

[USArmyParatrooper]

3. Clearing things up? I wish. Many people cover their eyes and ears.

[USArmyParatrooper]

2. TAKE NOTE: Positive news involving DADT deserves UN-recs

This is why I don't take much of the anti-Obama rhetoric seriously.

[zipplewrath]

4. I have yet to see any subject

either supportive or in opposition to the president that won't receive some unrecs. There seems to be an unrec crowd for every subject and every point of view.

[USArmyParatrooper]

5. But unreccing the Senate taking on DADT next week?

Which corner are they in?

[zipplewrath]

7. Their own

Everyone here has their own preferences.

[USArmyParatrooper]

8. You mean there are members of Democratic Underground who don't want DADT repealed?

Why, oh why wouldn't they support that?

[zipplewrath]

10. They don't support THIS process

There are many people that don't believe this will result in the proper outcomes. I have to admit, I am concerned they won't "repeal it right". There are alot of issues to address and they are showing ALOT of deference to the military bigots.

And no, I wasn't the one to unrec it. I generally forget about the tool altogether. I don't even notice the "count".

[USArmyParatrooper]

15. It's going to vote in the Senate. That is THE process for repeal

If you're concerned about the survey they did the same thing when they integrated blacks.

And believe me I know first hand the military has surveys on top of surveys for just about everything. I would be surprised if they did not conduct one. I do think it's important for them to gauge troop reactions - and not for the reasons you might thing. As has *always* been stated from the beginning, the survey is not to determine IF DADT is repealed.

Being in the military it's important for the military to know what to expect once it's repealed. This might shock you but it's very alpha-male dominated and measures will likely need to be taken to mitigate the bigots causing problems.

[zipplewrath]

17. I have several concerns

I am concerned they are going to try to "segregate" people.
I am concerned they are going to try to force people to "declare" when they enlist.
I am concerned they are going to have certain services and job descriptions that are sequestered.
I am concerned they are going to not grant "immunity" to existing members who have one way or another been lying on various forms like the SF-86 for the last 16+ years.
I am concerned they will continue expulsions right through the end of the year.

And I've seen nothing in the proposed bill that will prevent any of that.

[USArmyParatrooper]

18. Your concerns are duely noted, but they're rediculous

BTW, the SF-86 contains zero questions about your sexual orientation.

[zipplewrath]

20. "Familial like relationship"

It asks if you have a familial like relationship with anyone. It also asks about fiscal entanglements. And there are several questions about where you live and have lived. And there are loads of people who have been interviewed for their clearances that have been asked questions which could get them in trouble.

And the commandant of the Marine Corps has already spoken of the need for segregated facilities.

[USArmyParatrooper]

22. I've filled out dozens of SF-86's

I don't even remember seeing the word "familial" in it. It asks everywhere you've lived, worked, went to school, people who know you, foreign contacts, etc. Absolutely nothing you answer even remotely pertains your sexuality.

In FACT, nobody goes and interviews any of your contacts unless you pick an MOS requiring a Top Secret Security clearance. You're "concerned" about that coming back to bite them when DADT is repealed? SUCH a valid concern considering gays are serving in Top Secret positions NOW - after they've already been through the investigation.

[zipplewrath]

23. 17C

17C. Cohabitant
If applicable, complete the following about your cohabitant.

[USArmyParatrooper]

25. OK, let's blow away the smokescreen for a second.

Gays are serving NOW after filling out the SF-86

But you claim that same SF-86 will threaten them after DADT is repealed because........ ?

[zipplewrath]

26. Because they are lying now

And if and when that is exposed after it is repealed, they will still have lied on those forms (and others I'm sure). Without immunity for those acts, they can still be prosecuted for those acts. And THOSE acts won't be with an honorable discharge.

[USArmyParatrooper]

27. So lying won't get them in trouble now, but it will then? BTW, what's an example of a lie?

http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf

Here's the information they ask on your cohabitants.

LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE - DOB - PLACE OF BIRTH, SOCIAL, OTHER NAMES USED, and questions regarding their citizenship.

NOTHING that even remotely pertains to the nature of their relationship. So tell me, what's an example of a lie? Are you ready to admit your concern is really a "concern"?

[zipplewrath]

29. It is getting them "in trouble" now

They are being drummed out NOW. They are still getting expelled. They just haven't all been "caught". Even if DADT is repealed, a large number of them won't immediately self identify. But people will still find out, as they do now. And there will still be people in the military that want to drive these people out. And they will be in a position to use these forms to do so.

And if they force new recruits to self identify, so they can exercise their segregation policies, then there will people who will choose to not self identify (heck they probably haven't told their parents). THEY can then be charged with falsifying documents.

[USArmyParatrooper]

31. Do you have a link to this?

What "lie" are they being expelled for now? Did they lie about their cohabitant's middle name?

Even IF that were true - if they've already passed their screening for a TS clearance, why would the repeal of DADT put them at risk?

[zipplewrath]

33. They lied about having a cohabitant

They get expelled under DADT, and that satisfies the bigots in the military. When DADT is removed, the bigots could still go after them for lying on their forms and in interviews, unless immunity is granted for this information.

[USArmyParatrooper]

34. Again, link?

And if they've already passed their TS clearance how could they go after them?

[zipplewrath]

35. Because they lied on the form

If they can establish that they lied on the form, they will be open to being held liable for those lies. If they were any good at their lies, it isn't surprising that they passed their clearance. You'd be an idiot to lie on the form in a manner that could be discovered that easily. People haven't been getting charged under DADT because of their clearance investigations.

[USArmyParatrooper]

36. Again, link?

And I'm going to keep posting "again, link?" until you quit pretending not to see it.

The more you explain, the less sense you make. How does a person "lie better" on an SF-86? Under 'cohabitants' does one person type "none" better than another?

How do you propose the military is going to find something that the FBI did not find while conducting a multi-thousand dollar investigation?

[zipplewrath]

37. Here's the process

I'm not sure what link you are looking for.

A person fills out a form under the current environment. In order to cover up their status, they don't acknowledge that they are cohabitating with a particular person. They leave the status as "roommate". They don't particularly know their neighbors, they may be renting or in a condo with alot of transient Tennant's. When the investigator shows up, no one particularly knows them, and it stays consistent with the "roommate" claim. "Yeah, two guys live there, I don't see them together all that often....".

The other contacts listed all know the score and they just use the "roommate" description. Roommates, amongst young, single enlisted men aren't all that uncommon, even less so for young single females. The prepared applicant even has another list of contacts ready to provide to the investigator during their interview. The best people are those with whom the applicant has also kept their status secret. They have nothing to lie about.

They keep their financial separate. Some even keep it a secret from their own families. The end result is that the investigators never find anything to pursue.

Now, DADT is over, people become more relaxed, a couple of years go by, and Captain Bigot hears from someone that Corporal Happy is gay and living with Mr. Cute. He's surprised. He's know the guy since he was a private and never thought he was gay. Even had some conversations about women, not to mention derogatory jokes about gay men. How could the captain not know? He hates gay men and this guy wasn't suppose to be in the military if he was gay. How'd he get away with it? He must have lied!

Wait, the guy had to fill out all the same forms I did, how did he hide Mr. Cute? Hasn't he been living with Mr. Cute all this time? THAT'S his boyfriend? How did that get missed? When I got my clearances they talked to all kinds of people I knew. NONE of them knew that he and Mr. Cute were a couple? The Captain talks to the Major who ALSO doesn't like gays in the military. He explains the situation and how the good Corporal must have lied somewhere along the line. That's a violation of the UCMJ.

After Truman forced integration of the forces, it wasn't all smooth sailing for the African American enlisted men and officers. There were problems and the military justice system was used. Women have experienced similar problems over the years, both at the academies, and at in the general service. There is no real reason to believe that homosexuals won't experience the same thing when or if DADT is overturned. Some protections to ensure that they aren't harassed after it is terminated is appropriate.

[USArmyParatrooper]

38. Do you have a link showing gays being discharged for lying on their SF86?

What you're describing would be nearly impossible.

They would have to have been "cohabitating" with their gay lover at the time they filled out their SF86, which the vast majority of the time was when they initially joined and would likely be outside the state. They would have to lie about not having a cohabitant even though the form doesn't ask the nature of the relationship. Their commander would have to be able to •prove• they were lovers at the time it was filled out. He would also have to care enough and even think about persueing that angle - and then the legal system would have to pan out in his favor. And all of this while having to deal with the political backdrop of trying to sidestep congressional law.

Sorry, I see this as nothing more than a ridiculous attempt to poopoo progress by the Obama administration.

Edit: And oh yeah, I have NEVER seen or heard about anyone being discharged for lying about mundane information. Only hiding charges or medical problems, i.e. "fraudulent enlistment"

[zipplewrath]

39. Our experiences are different.

I've filled out innumerable SF-86's. I've lost track of the number. I don't even have all the old copies, although I tried desperately to hang on to them all, in case inconsistencies came up. They have changed alot in the last 25 years.

You are seeing what you want to see. I had these concerns prior to the election of Obama.

And I know personally several people who lost clearances for false information on SF-86. It does happen. And it usually involves what you consider "mundane". It isn't considered mundane when it is covering up something that would get your clearance denied.

I will agree that the investigation is going to have a bit of a hurdle to climb to prove that the cohabitation was anything but a roommate situation at the time. Unfortunately, there will just enough people to be able to leverage to try to establish that fact.

As I say, these kinds of things went on with both African Americans and women when they were being integrated into the forces. I see no reason why we should presume we will see the same thing here. Investigations and expulsion increased after DADT was made law, despite the fact that it was suppose to "allow" people to serve.

[USArmyParatrooper]

40. Don't confuse what I said..

I said I've never seen anyone booted out for mundane omissions, but certainly they can be denied a clearance.

I do agree that the repeal is going to be messy at first, but I don't think there's anything anyone can do about that. I don't take issue with people having concerns about the reactions from such a dramatic, emotionally charged policy change. I do take issue with people who (in my opinion) only want to see progress negatively.

[zipplewrath]

41. I'm concerned about the "mess"

They are showing their hand, with comments about segregated facilities and the like. "Witch hunts" are not out of the relm of possibility, and if you read the paper work that comes with a clearance application, you are legally liable for false statements. Truth is, I suspect many will not "out" themselves because of fears of the impact on their careers.

[USArmyParatrooper]

43. As am I.

Fortunatey the decision will be up to each individual to whom, how or even if they decide to come out. And that's what this is all about, letting them have that choice as grown men and women. The mess will be there, but I believe it will wane over time. Future homophopes will be left with the choice of not joining or accepting they're joining an equal and open military. The same goes for reenlistments.

[zipplewrath]

44. In the long term

In the short term it could be as ugly as DADT. It was suppose to make things better too, but it didn't.

[USArmyParatrooper]

30. Deleted message

Name Removed because of too much pure awesomeness.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Because it would be a victory for gays and, more importantly, Democrats.

And they can't have any of that.

[BlueCheese]

6. This post doesn't necessarily fall into either of those categories.

[zipplewrath]

9. Alot of categories

"There seems to be an unrec crowd for every subject and every point of view."

That's ALOT of categories.

[BlueCheese]

14. Sorry.

I meant that it doesn't have anything to do with Obama, necessarily.

Anyway, the point of my comment was pretty unimportant in any case. I agree with your broader point.

[EFerrari]

42. Don't take it personally. I've seen stories about saving children

in disaster areas unrec'd, no kidding. There are trolls that unrec anything with a pulse.

[USArmyParatrooper]

45. Don't worry, I don't. I don't even care about recs. I was making a broader point about motives.

[ruggerson]

12. I think it's going to be repealed

and I greatly appreciate those who pushed for it this year, in both the House and the Senate, instead of waiting until 2011 or the lame duck session - when it probably would not have happened.

And the biggest thanks go to the SLDN and the courageous lesbian and gay troops who have had to deal with this for almost two decades.

[USArmyParatrooper]

13. "for almost two decades." Much longer than that.

Don't forget, prior to DADT we still had gays serving in our military having to hide.

[ruggerson]

16. I was referring specifically to DADT

which started as a forced compromise and quickly became a nightmare.

[HughMoran]

19. Good - K&R

I hope they repeal it.

[David__77]

21. We need red meat now!!!! Bloody red meat.

We can turn this around.

[Scurrilous]

24. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Number23]

28. Your posts are great. Thanks for posting them

[Scurrilous]

32. ...

:thumbsup: