Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) to Reintroduce Legislation Calling for Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 11:17 AM
Original message
Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) to Reintroduce Legislation Calling for Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Originally introduced during the 109th Congress, a bill calling for the repeal of the U.S. Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is to be reintroduced by Congressman Marty Meehan (D-MA). Meehan (seen third from left in the 2005 photo below) will reintroduce the legislation at a press conference this morning. When first introduced, the bill was supported by more than 120 members of Congress but the reversal failed.

In November, Meehan announced he would reintroduce the bill, saying "We will have hearings, and then we can have an honest dialogue with members of Congress. I believe, and have always believed, that once people see the facts, it will become clear that this is a policy that actually hurts national security and hurts the military."



At this morning's press conference, according to the Servicemen's Legal Defense Network, Meehan will be joined by C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), as well as by BG Evelyn “Pat” Foote, USA (Ret.), a member of SLDN’s honorary board, and SLDN client and Former Marine Sergeant Brian Fricke, an openly gay veteran of the war in Iraq.

Also, According to SLDN, "Another participant will be an Iraq war veteran from Texas who lost his right leg in combat and will be coming out of the closet publicly at the press conference in his support for the repeal of the law."

More:
http://www.towleroad.com/2007/02/rep_marty_meeha.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. Mitt Romney told Stephenapoulos last Sunday that DADT "has served us well."
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. I'm confused as to why it's the military's business what your sexual orientation is.
Edited on Thu Feb-22-07 11:23 AM by Ninja Jordan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Do you mean you're confused why "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needs to be repealed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. In a way, yes.
Edited on Thu Feb-22-07 11:31 AM by Ninja Jordan
Doesn't DADT simply tell the military: "hey, it's none of your business what your recruit's sexual orientations is"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. More people have been expelled under DADT than under the old rules.
In theory, it sounds a lot like "live and let live," but in practice it doesn't work out that way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Are there objective records showing this?
Can someone really be dishonorably discharged for "being gay"? If the military is precluded from inquiring into recruits' sexual orientation, then how would one determine such a status?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Yes. The Google is your friend.
Edited on Thu Feb-22-07 11:48 AM by IanDB1
Lazy bastard.


DADT discharges up, group says
by Roger Brigham
Bay Area Reporter
August 17, 2006

For the first time since the September 11 terrorist attacks, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" discharges from the U.S. military rose in 2005.

Data gathered by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network from Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and Department of Defense sources shows 742 DADT discharges in 2005, up from 668 discharges in 2004.

"The time has come for the Pentagon to call on Congress to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" said SLDN Executive Director C. Dixon Osburn. "The law deprives our nation of thousands of skilled men and women who could be instrumental in fighting the war on terror. Our national security suffers because of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"

After President Bill Clinton initiated DADT, discharges under the policy rose six out of seven years, climbing from 617 in 1994 to a record 1,273 in 2001. In 2002 there was a dramatic drop to 906 – the fewest number of DADT discharges in six years – and the number of discharges continued to drop modestly in 2003 (787 discharges) and 2004 (668).

The largest rise in discharges occurred in the Army – 386 in 2005, up from 325 the previous year.

More:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/press/DADTDischargesUpGroupSays.html



See also:

From The Log Cabin Republickers
Issue: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Don't Work

Don't Ask, Don't Tell does not work and should be repealed. The United States military needs the best, most qualified people serving and defending our freedom, and there is no justifiable reason to prevent gay and lesbian Americans from serving openly and honestly in the Armed Forces.

<snip>

B.) The "witch hunts," improper investigations, and harassment under Don't Ask, Don't Tell is potentially leading to the discharge of heterosexual service members and undermining unit cohesion and morale. In 2002, those aged 18-25 made up only 35% of the Air Force but accounted for 83% of Don't Ask, Don't Tell discharges and this trend has continued into 2005. Investigations, like the one at the Defense Language Institute in California, can divide units and decrease morale.

C.) DADT is hurting the military's ability to recruit individuals because it makes the U.S. Armed Forces seem outdated and archaic. At some high schools and colleges, recruiters are being protested or rejected by students and administrators because of DADT.

D.) Tens of thousands of qualified service members are being kept out or kicked out of the military even with serious recruiting problems in the army. Instead of getting the most qualified recruits, the Army is lowering standards for new recruits to make up for the shortage. 10% of new army recruits do not have a high school diploma and 2% of new recruits scored in the lowest acceptable range on the standardized screening test. This also comes a time when the Pentagon is asking Congress to raise the age of enlistees to 42. Moreover, because of the troop shortage, some recruiters are cutting corners to get more people enlisting, adding up to a 480 recruiting standards violations so far.

<snip>

4. DADT costs tens of millions of dollars each year to enforce.
The GAO put the cost of the policy during the last ten years at $191 million. However, as the report noted, some additional costs could not be estimated. Other estimates put the price tag at $35 million a year. A blue ribbon panel of experts estimates the cost of DADT, so far, to be more that $363 million. The money used to enforce this policy could buy over 24,000 armored Humvees or other much needed equipment.

More:
http://online.logcabin.org/issues/logcabin/gays_in_the_military_overview.html


Also:

Don't ask, don't tell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Thanks for the info.
The ad hominems aren't necessary, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I didn't mean it. I was just giving you a hard time.
Edited on Thu Feb-22-07 04:48 PM by IanDB1
You thin-skinned bastard.

:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Well, suppose The Commander-in-Chief's Plan For Victory...
requires you to "Take that hill and FUCK those people."

I mean, a gay man might have trouble following orders to rape women, when the strategic plan calls for it.

What?

They're not allowed to do that?

Oh.

Well, objection withdrawn then.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Lost me there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Point is, there's no good reason why gay people can't or shouldn't serve. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
11. GOOD!!! It was a no good policy from the getgo.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC