Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell

[Redress]

Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

CNN-3:16 pm-A federal judge ordered that the U.S. military stop enforcing the don't ask, don't tell policy on Tuesday.

Judge Virginia Phillips ordered the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"."

So the next question is whether the DoJ can get a stay on this I would think. DADT's days are numbered, and this is just another step in the process.

 

[OscarB63]

In my experience, most of those booted under DADT had other issues that made them unfit for service, TPTB just used DADT as an expedient method of getting them out.

DADT was a reasonable stopgap measure to allow gays to serve. much like the "colored units" of days gone by. But, IMHO, DADT has outlived its usefulness and society is ready to accept gays serving openly.

 

[Boo Radley]

In my experience, most of those booted under DADT had other issues that made them unfit for service, TPTB just used DADT as an expedient method of getting them out.

DADT was a reasonable stopgap measure to allow gays to serve. much like the "colored units" of days gone by. But, IMHO, DADT has outlived its usefulness and society is ready to accept gays serving openly.

Don't know about the first, but I'm with you on the second paragraph.

 

[Redress]

In my experience, most of those booted under DADT had other issues that made them unfit for service, TPTB just used DADT as an expedient method of getting them out.

DADT was a reasonable stopgap measure to allow gays to serve. much like the "colored units" of days gone by. But, IMHO, DADT has outlived its usefulness and society is ready to accept gays serving openly.

Based on what I have read, one of the issues with DADT is that it's enforcement has varied widely across different commands. It has definitely been used to discharge gays with stellar records and no issues with the military, but not always. It has been used by people who want out of the service as a easy way out(just tell some one in the chain of command "I am gay" and get a free and easy discharge), but again, not always, and this has been mostly stopped. I can dig up some documentation on this if you wish.

 

[jamesrage]

If the judge has no authority then what good is the ruling? Its like a judge in Spain trying to try Bush for war crimes, if the judge has no authority then it is meaningless.

 

[The_Patriot]

If the judge has no authority then what good is the ruling? Its like a judge in Spain trying to try Bush for war crimes, if the judge has no authority then it is meaningless.

Federal judges have jurisdiction over military policies. This is all part of the civilian oversight of the military. Also, federal judges have jurisdiction over any department's, civilian or military, polices/regulations/laws. Congress sets the regulations for the military and the DADT regulation was put into place by Congress under the UCMJ.

 

[OscarB63]

It has definitely been used to discharge gays with stellar records and no issues with the military, but not always.

I just don't get that. As a former unit commander I think it is incredibly stupid and short sighted to get rid of a stellar soldier simply because they are gay. If I had my way, any commander who pulled that crap would be court martialed for stupidity.

 

[Redress]

I just don't get that. As a former unit commander I think it is incredibly stupid and short sighted to get rid of a stellar soldier simply because they are gay. If I had my way, any commander who pulled that crap would be court martialed for stupidity.

Oh, you are absolutely right, and like I said, it varied from unit to unit. At least at one time, training on DADT was less than ideal, and since the discharges are handled at the command level, some would turn a blind eye to technical violations of DADT, while some would overzealously enforce it.

 

[OscarB63]

Oh, you are absolutely right, and like I said, it varied from unit to unit. At least at one time, training on DADT was less than ideal, and since the discharges are handled at the command level, some would turn a blind eye to technical violations of DADT, while some would overzealously enforce it.

I would hazard a guess that commanders who overzealously enforced DADT were probably hiding some self doubt about their own sexuality or were the typical "old school" hardline bigots who hate any and everyone who is the least bit "different".

 

[Orion]

Didn't the senate rule to uphold DADT within the past couple of months? How is this ruling relevant?

 

[Redress]

Didn't the senate rule to uphold DADT within the past couple of months? How is this ruling relevant?

The Senate did not add an amendment to the defense appropriations bill to remove DADT. 57 voted for it, with at least 2 against due to procedural issues, and an unknown number of others wanting to wait till the DoD report is completed by the end of the year.

 

[molten_dragon]

It's about time. Good for the judge.

 

[Redress]

If the judge has no authority then what good is the ruling? Its like a judge in Spain trying to try Bush for war crimes, if the judge has no authority then it is meaningless.

The judge absolutely has authority over us code law, which is what DADT is.

 

[WI Crippler]

The judge has absolutely has authority over us code law, which is what DADT is.

Reading the article, how does a district court judge have authority over the military that operates outside of that jurisdiction? Where is RightinNYC?

 

[The_Patriot]

Reading the article, how does a district court judge have authority over the military that operates outside of that jurisdiction? Where is RightinNYC?

There aren't any military bases in California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming? By military bases I am also referring to federal armories that belong to the reserve components of the federal military in addition to the normal military bases. The judge's court is in the 9th US Circuit Court.

 

[Redress]

Reading the article, how does a district court judge have authority over the military that operates outside of that jurisdiction? Where is RightinNYC?

I would like his opinion too...damn real life keeping him busy....

DADT is a US code, or federal law. Federal judges do have jurisdiction over federal law.

 

[apdst]

Based on what I have read, one of the issues with DADT is that it's enforcement has varied widely across different commands. It has definitely been used to discharge gays with stellar records and no issues with the military, but not always. It has been used by people who want out of the service as a easy way out(just tell some one in the chain of command "I am gay" and get a free and easy discharge), but again, not always, and this has been mostly stopped. I can dig up some documentation on this if you wish.

We must admit that we don't always get the whole story in those cases. In actuality, the only evidence that gays, disharged under DADT, had exemplary service records are media articles and we all know that they don't always show the whole picture.

Personally, I don't think is going to have the happy ending that the DADT abolitionists think, because as I've pointed out before, DADT is the actual ban on gays. But we'll see.

 

[apdst]

I would like his opinion too...damn real life keeping him busy....

DADT is a US code, or federal law. Federal judges do have jurisdiction over federal law.

But, Federal judges don't have jurisdiction over the UCMJ and DoD regulations.

 

[Redress]

But, Federal judges don't have jurisdiction over the UCMJ and DoD regulations.

DADT is federal statutory law passed by Congress. It is part of the US code. A federal judge has jurisdiction over such law as best I can tell, though I am not finding any actual legal experts commenting on it either way. However, the fact that outside of message boards, no one is questioning the jurisdiction leads me to believe that it is not a real issue.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It wonder have been better if this had passed yesterday on national coming out day :2razz:

 

[roguenuke]

I say this is possibly one step closer to gays being allowed to serve openly. Most likely the full removal of DADT and the code that actually keeps gays from serving in the military will go away within the next year or two, but could possibly take up to 5 (don't really think it will take 5 years, but you never know). I don't really know how long this injunction will last or if the military will even abide by it.

I do see a couple of possibilities. 1) The military completely ignores the injunction and puts out people anyway under DADT. Most likely this case will go further, so once a final decision is reached, then the disposition of those put out after the injunction was ordered would need to be included in the ruling. Otherwise, there is just going to be future court cases concerning those members. 2) The military respects the injunction until the DOJ can get an appeal filed and another judge/court to remove the injunction. Now, it might happen that they can't get the injunction removed during the entire process, but it seems that these cases go back and forth, so it is possible. Any discharges under DADT now and in the near future would be put off until a different verdict is given, if they ever get one.

Overall though, DADT should be gone shortly. (And, by DADT, I am personally referring to the code that keeps military members from serving in the military as a whole, not just the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" part.)

 

[roguenuke]

We must admit that we don't always get the whole story in those cases. In actuality, the only evidence that gays, disharged under DADT, had exemplary service records are media articles and we all know that they don't always show the whole picture.

Personally, I don't think is going to have the happy ending that the DADT abolitionists think, because as I've pointed out before, DADT is the actual ban on gays. But we'll see.

There are some who are certainly being discharged just due to DADT, not their own performance. I have seen it personally.

However, I think that one of the big things it will do is eliminate the fear that gays could be targeted for a witch hunt and discharged just because someone in their upper chain of command is rumored to be against gays. Another big plus is that it does keep people from using the DADT loop hole just to get out of the military without really getting any punishment.

 

[apdst]

DADT is federal statutory law passed by Congress. It is part of the US code. A federal judge has jurisdiction over such law as best I can tell, though I am not finding any actual legal experts commenting on it either way. However, the fact that outside of message boards, no one is questioning the jurisdiction leads me to believe that it is not a real issue.

yes, I agree with that. However, a civilian judge doesn't have authority over the UCMJ and military regulations. i.e sodomy is still a crime under the UCMJ and punishable by courts martial. Also, DADT isn't the actual ban on gays serving in the miltiary. That ban was first instituted by Harry Truman and later reinforced by Reagan.

 

[apdst]

There are some who are certainly being discharged just due to DADT, not their own performance. I have seen it personally.

Possibly, but neither of us have any evidence to support our individual points of view.

However, I think that one of the big things it will do is eliminate the fear that gays could be targeted for a witch hunt and discharged just because someone in their upper chain of command is rumored to be against gays. Another big plus is that it does keep people from using the DADT loop hole just to get out of the military without really getting any punishment.

IMO, the door is being flung wide open for a witch hunt on gays in the miltiary. That's why I've advocated for DADT to remain in place and the ban on gays be lifted. This is all being done bass ackwards. But, again, we'll see.

 

[Redress]

yes, I agree with that. However, a civilian judge doesn't have authority over the UCMJ and military regulations. i.e sodomy is still a crime under the UCMJ and punishable by courts martial. Also, DADT isn't the actual ban on gays serving in the miltiary. That ban was first instituted by Harry Truman and later reinforced by Reagan.

The injunction was for discharges under DADT. I think most if not all(probably all) discharges for being gay are under DADT rules, then this stops, temporarily at least, discharges for people being gay. Sodomy laws are, as always, a red herring, since they would have to be enforced the same for every one, which means just don't do it where others can see and nothing to worry about.