Reports are now coming in that Choi and Pietrangelo have been arrested. --------- The Advocate reports that one person has already been arrested, but not Choi or former Army infantryman James Pietrangelo, who were both ousted from the military because of DADT and have both chained themselves to the fence. Kerry Eleveld appears to be on the scene. Other reports are coming from:
President Obama and the Pentagon’s top leaders should be applauded for standing up for gay Americans serving in the military, but there is no excuse for leaving the crippling “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban in place one more day. Read More.
Retired Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell has just joined the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs and another past chairman in calling for repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." Powell, by the way, did more than almost anyone else in 1993 to make certain that LGB people could not serve openly in the military.
Honestly, I never thought I'd live to see this day.
The strong pro-gay stances of Powell, current Chairman Mike Mullen and retired Chairman John Shalikashvili give me hope. Listening to Mullen unequivocally state his opposition to the ban -- and watching him do it in front of a Senate committee -- was soul stirring. Mullen stood up for all the gay soldiers he had served with, and he stood up for integrity. (What a concept!)
And yet, my hope only goes so far. Unjust discharges continue under DADT. Under the plan announced yesterday by Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, complete repeal of the policy cannot occur for at least a year, and possibly not for several years.
Gates also plans to take another 45 days to figure out how to modify enforcement of DADT to make it more "fair." While this kind of tinkering will help out some troops, it will do little to end the injustices of DDADT. Honorable men and women will continue to be discharged under a policy that is on the way out, and their only crime will have been to be discovered to be gay at the wrong time.
Delaying repeal may well be good politics. It may even be the only way to gain the buy-in from the military and the country that is needed to eliminate DADT. But delaying repeal even a single day is immoral.
New from CNN, Obama talks about when and how he wants to get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
One tiny comment: Watching the Obama Administration navigate LGBT issues is a bit like being a 1960s-era Soviet watcher. You peer at every clue, no matter how small, and you're never quite sure exactly what's going on. This clip reads very positive for LGBT people, but once again Obama is short on specifics.
Retired Army General John M. Shalikashvili, who chaired the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997,writes in the Washington Post today that the DADT ban on lesbians and gays weakens the military.
The officers who oppose lifting the ban argued in The Post that there is "no compelling national security reason" to let openly gay troops serve. They also say, however, that "losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers" -- those they believe might bolt -- are unaffordable. Under current policy, we have lost more than 13,000 of those people, such as the Arabic language speaker featured in the new film "Ask Not." In addition, researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles have found that nearly 4,000 people leave voluntarily each year because of the ban, and that more than 40,000 recruits might join if the ban is ended.
James Pietrangelo II, the former Army infantryman and lawyer whose "don't ask, don't tell" case was declined by the Supreme Court yesterday, is furious with President Obama. I'm beginning to wonder if Pietrangelo is right.
"He's a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar," Pietrangelo said (of Obama) in an interview with TIME shortly after the high court declined to hear his appeal. "This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."
Yesterday I bought into a Washington Post report that claimed SLDN approved of the decision. My mistake. SLDN isn't quite as happy as it might have first seemed, although they're playing the political angle.
What bothers me the most is the arguments the Obama Administration used in this case. Time reports:
"Applying the strong deference traditionally afforded to the Legislative and Executive Branches in the area of military affairs, the court of appeals properly upheld the statute," argued Elena Kagan, who as Solicitor General represents the Administration before the Supreme Court. The bar on gays serving openly is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion," her 12-page filing added.
How the heck does Obama work to overturn DADT when his administration just said that it's rational? What kind of "fierce advocacy" is this????
As news comes that now even conservatives overwhelmingly support repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the Supreme Court refuses to take a case challenging the constitutionality of the ban. This may actually be a good move, although it's a tad early to tell.
The court was siding with the Obama Administration, which "had urged the justices not to hear the appeal against the policy, even though Obama is on record as opposing it."
The Washington Post reports that Servicemembers Legal Defense Network supports this move. SLDN allegedly is arguing that a separate case now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is a better test of DADT. That case concerns former Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt.
(N)o one believes that the White House has any intention of doing anything, regardless of any timetable.
That is, I think, the conundrum HRC is facing. If the White House has decided to distance itself from the gay community (and that's certainly what the community believes), and HRC is seen as in cahoots with that White House, the community will naturally assume that HRC signed off on the White House's effort to put gay rights on the back burner indefinitely. .... People may generally love Obama. But gay people are pissed. And growing more so by the day. The overall impression in the gay community is that we've been, or are about to be, had by this administration; that someone in Obama-land (rhymes with Rahm) is telling the President that we're political pariahs who must be shunned at all costs. You don't get brownie points for being seen with those kind of friends.
The LGBT blogosphere is in an uproar. Several sources are reporting that the stunning lack of action on the "don't ask, don't tell" military ban can be traced to a deal the Human Rights Campaign allegedly made with our allies in Congress.
As I understand these reports, the HRC "deal" sounds more like a political strategy then any kind of quid pro quo deal. The situation, as Jason Bellini reports on The Daily Beast, is that HRC asked key senators and House members to first tackle the supposedly easier-to-pass bills on hate crimes and employment non-discrimination before moving to repeal DADT.
This approach, if true, may be why the Obama Administration seems to be so uninterested in taking any action on DADT. The Administration, the theory goes, has been convinced by HRC that the LGBT community is OK with waiting.
"This story is not only an outright lie, it is recklessly irresponsible. HRC never made such a deal and continues to work with congress and the administration on a full range of equality issues including a swift end to the military's shameful ban on gay servicemembers." -- Brad Luna, Spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign
I have no personal knowledge of what HRC may or may not have done. I have worked with HRC President Joe Solmonese and have always known him to be a honorable man. What Bellini and others report looks, on first glance, to be a classic political strategy, so it doesn't surprise me that HRC might do something like this.
If there is any truth to this, it is also a huge, honking mistake.
If anyone from HRC or any other LGBT leader has done this, they have provided Democrats with an excuse for inaction. This is particularly galling because Obama may be able to suspend enforcement of DADT with an executive order.
Full repeal requires an act of Congress, but a stop-loss order would end the on-going tragedy of DADT. Lt. Dan Choi and hundreds of others members of the service are being forced out of the military by an administration that claims to support them.
If this is true, HRC will have also destroyed its credibility with the LGBT community. Its leaders will have shown that they are completely out of touch with their base.
Mike Signorile interviews Solmonese and Aaron Belkin of the Palm Center.
I admire both Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin. They do an amazing job, but there is something about their comments to Roll Call that bother me. Their comments also ring warning bells about our lobbyists in DC like the Human Rights Campaign and for other national organizations like SLDN.
Frank says they can't bring up a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" because:
“We haven’t done the preliminary work, the preparatory work. It would be a mistake to bring it up without a lot of lobbying and a lot of conversation.”
Baldwin says:
“We don’t even know the votes in committee, let alone the votes on the floor.
Um, why not? Yes, I know we're in the middle of an economic crisis, and I'm willing to give Frank a pass, given that his chairmanship puts him at the center of every issue involving financial institutions. But why hasn't anyone else done this work? You don't have to be a member of Congress to count votes. You don't have to be a member of Congress to lobby. Where IS everybody?
Roll Call: Two of the three openly gay members of Congress -- Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin -- now say they don't expect to even attempt to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" until 2010. The newspaper quotes Baldwin:
“We don’t even know the votes in committee, let alone the votes on the floor."
Andrew Sullivangets the award for the line of the day. In describing the Obama Administration's stunning lack of action on rolling back "don't ask, don't tell," Sullivan notes that it amounts to "the fierce urgency of whenever." Sullivan also writes:
I wonder how Obama would have felt if Truman had followed the same path of cowardice and convenience in 1948, when racial integration was far more contentious in the military than gay integration is today.
Meanwhile, Marc Ambinder reports on the Obamites alleged plan for inching the nation towards equality. Ambinder includes the bombshell that Obama doesn't intend to even attempt repealing DADT until after the 2010 elections.
I pleaded for immediate action on DADT in a recent column. My next column talks about the real consequences of taking a "whenever" attitude. Here's a preview: The consequences have nothing to do with politics.
In my latest column, I write about "Standing Up to Obama" on DADT.
I threw reasonable out the window the day I heard about Amy Brian. The Iraq veteran was forced out of the Kansas Army National Guard because... Read more.
U.S. News & World report saysthe Obama Administration is putting repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell on hold. Not cool at all. When will Iraq veterans like Amy Brian get justice?
Duty, honor & country don't matter -- at least not to the Kansas National Guard or to the rest of the U.S. military. All that matters is sexual orientation. Just ask Amy Brianwho lost her calling and her benefits for no other reason than for who she is.
The word is that President Obama wants to slow down the process of tackling, and we hope, overturning the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I used to think that a slow down was a good idea, as long as we eventually saw action.
After reading this story, I realized that I've been a fool. The nation desperately needs qualified soldiers. And people like Brian, who served with honor and skill in Iraq and at home, need justice.
PHOTO: This is part of a larger photo of Amy Brian published by the Topeka Capital-Journal. More photos are available at the link.
Philadelphia Gay News Publisher Mark Segal finally got his interview with Barack Obama. The Democratic nominee says he won't pull a George W. Bush and sneak a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" into a signing statement. Obama also talks strategy for repealing the Orwellian named Defense of Marriage Act.
I think Obama's strategy is right. It's scary. I want him to jump up and down and scream that he'll ram equality down the throats of anyone who disagrees with him. That kind of response would certainly be emotionally satisfying, but it wouldn't bring about a lasting victory for us.
By the way, Segal also asked for an interview with John McCain, but (here's a shock) McCain declined.
"Don't ask, don't tell" is not a policy that reflects true American values. Like "separate but equal," it is at best a transitional compromise with bigotry. Perhaps, for a time, it was a necessary evil. But by failing now to condemn that policy, the GOP presidential candidates have shamed themselves, their party and their nation.
Stone is a professor of law at the University of Chicago and the author of War and Liberty: An American Dilemma: 1790 to the Present.
In This Moment is the personal blog of writer Diane Silver with occasional appearances by the amazing Nancy Jane Moore. And, yes Virginia, the concepts of hope and politics do go together.
[updated]
