Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

AP ^ | 7/27/6 | DUNCAN MANSFIELD

[SmithL]

JOHNSON CITY, Tenn. (AP) - A decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist was dismissed from the U.S. Army under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, though he says he never admitted being gay and his accuser was never identified.

Bleu Copas, 30, told The Associated Press he is gay, but said he was "outed" by a stream of anonymous e-mails to his superiors in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C.

"I knew the policy going in," Copas said in an interview on the campus of East Tennessee State University, where he is pursuing a master's degree in counseling and working as a student adviser. "I knew it was going to be difficult."

An eight-month Army investigation culminated in Copas' honorable discharge on Jan. 30 _ less than four years after he enlisted, he said, out of a post-Sept. 11 sense of duty to his country.

Copas now carries the discharge papers, which mention his awards and citations, so he can document his military service for prospective employers. But the papers also give the reason for his dismissal.

He plans to appeal to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, established in 1993, prohibits the military from inquiring about the sex lives of service members, but requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.

The policy is becoming "a very effective weapon of vengeance in the armed forces" said Steve Ralls, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a Washington-based watchdog organization that counseled Copas and is working to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Copas said he was never open about his sexuality in the military and suspects his accuser was someone he mistakenly befriended and apparently slighted.

More than 11,000 service members have been dismissed under the policy, including 726 last year _ an 11 percent jump from 2004 and the first increase since 2001.

That's less than a half-percent of the more than 2 million soldiers, sailors and Marines dismissed for all reasons since 1993, according to the General Accountability Office.

But the GAO also noted that nearly 800 dismissed gay or lesbian service members had critical abilities, including 300 with important language skills. Fifty-five were proficient in Arabic, including Copas, a graduate of the Defense Language Institute in California.

Discharging and replacing them has cost the Pentagon nearly $369 million, according to the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Lt. Col. James Zellmer, Copas' commanding officer in the 313th military intelligence battalion, told the AP that "the evidence clearly indicated that Sgt. Copas had engaged in homosexual acts."

While investigators were never able to determine who the accuser was, "in the end, the nature and the volume of the evidence and Sgt. Copas's own sworn statement led me to discharge him," Zellmer said.

Military investigators wrote that Copas "engaged in at least three homosexual relationships, and is dealing with at least two jealous lovers, either of whom could be the anonymous source providing this information."

Shortly after Copas was appointed to the 82nd Airborne's highly visible All-American Chorus last May, the first e-mail came to the chorus director.

"The director brought everyone into the hallway and told us about this e-mail they had just received and blatantly asked, 'Which one of you are gay?'" Copas said.

Copas later complained to the director and his platoon sergeant, saying the questions violated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

"They said they would watch it in the future," Copas said. "And they said, even specifically then, 'Well, you are not gay are you?' And I said, 'no.'"

The accuser, who signed his e-mails "John Smith" or "ftbraggman," pressed Copas' superiors to take action against him or "I will inform your entire battalion of the information that I gave you."

On Dec. 2, investigators formally interviewed Copas and asked if he understood the military's policy on homosexuals, if he had any close acquaintances who were gay, and if he was involved in community theater. He answered affirmatively.

But Copas declined to answer when they asked, "Have you ever engaged in homosexual activity or conduct?" He refused to answer 19 of 47 questions before he asked for a lawyer and the interrogation stopped.

Copas said he accepted the honorable discharge to end the ordeal, to avoid lying about his sexuality and risking a perjury charge, and to keep friends from being targeted.

"It is unfair. It is unjust," he said. "Even with the policy we have, it should never have happened."

[FloridianBushFan]

Actually you are wrong. I along with many others in here have served my country in the military. Never in the time I was in did I or any of the people around me have problems with any one coming onto us or doing any kind of homosexual acts and we lived in tight quarters and delt with everyday military life with no problems that delt with sexuality. I am sure that out of 2500 to 5000 people on the ship there were some who were gay.

[jjm2111]

I'm going take your word for it. I get tested all the time for HIV in the reserves and assumed that it was an admin sep. type "offense".

[dfwgator]

Good order and discipline? Obviously you've never had to direct a Broadway Musical..........and neither have I.........

WRONG!! Watch me! It's so simple! Give me the playback! Watch me f@ggots! ...

[mnehring]

Gunny, that was a 'sarcastic' comment, not literal.. but I forgot that you have to post a sarcastic tag on practically everything here lest someone goes off.. I'm just disappointed it was you, I expected more from someone who've I had many a discussion here with for years...

[TheSuaveOne]

"I can't imagine the state of the military if you were to set the policies. To think it is reasonable to have coed facilities for 18 year old hormonaly active people is insane. I have experienced the soldier's lifestyle and I know it would cause major problems."

12 years service in the Air Force tells me if someone can't keep their hands off someone else while serving in the military, there is more reason than that as to why they shouldn't be in the service...la

[Lucky Dog]

Removing someone with this type of training because of their sexual preference is "weakening" our military. Keeping gays out of the military is "weakening" our military.

I'm sorry you missed the logic in that...la

I didn’t miss any of your logic. Your argument isn’t sound. For an argument in logic to be sound, it must be based on true premises as well as valid reasoning. Your posits fail to pass the test.

“Sexual preference” is a meaningless term. No one can know any other person’s “sexual preference” without some action on the other person’s part, i.e., what goes on in your head remains unknown unless you speak or act on it. Therefore, no one can be removed from the military on the basis of “sexual preference,” alone.

If there is an action, then that action is subject to regulation or restriction based upon the law. For example, if a man has a “sexual preference” toward rape, but never acts on it, then he is not subject to any sanction of law. However, the minute he commits rape, i.e, takes action, then he is correctly subject to arrest, trial, and possible incarceration or worse.

Let me get down to the specifics at hand: if a person has a, so-called, “sexual preference” toward members of the same sex, but does nothing, then that person is subject to no adverse actions whatsoever. On the other hand, if that person openly admits (tells) of a same-sex predilection and sexual activities, i.e., actions, then sanctions based upon the law are correctly forthcoming and appropriate.

Now, to address the other portion of your illogical assertion: Removing those military members who are caught violating the UCMJ, is not weakening the military. Rather such action is actually strengthening it.

In the military, the success or failure of everything from a squad level assault to a theater campaign is predicated upon military members executing lawful orders (both standing orders as well as others) promptly and precisely. Anything that interferes with any military member’s ability and the proper discipline required to execute these orders is detrimental and weakens the military. The inability of queers to refrain from engaging in homosexual activities when standing orders (the UCMJ) prohibit such is proof positive that these individuals lack the required military discipline. Therefore, the logic is inescapable: their existence in the military without refraining from engaging in homosexual activities weakens the military.

I trust this exposition has clarified the issue for you.

[Red Badger]

Blazing Saddles if my memory is correct..........

[TheSuaveOne]

"On the other hand, if that person openly admits (tells) of a same-sex predilection and sexual activities, i.e., actions, then sanctions based upon the law are correctly forthcoming and appropriate.
"

Ah yes, because admitting (telling) someone that they are or have had sexual relations of someone of the same sex is a valid reason to remove someone from the military. [/sarcasm]...la

[Retired Army Special Forces]

Er, no. Cloture failed 49-48, which it needed 60 votes for. It needed 67 votes in the Senate. It was nowhere near one vote.

Er no indeed. 49-48 (ONE vote) fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally. So I stand corrected on a technicality.

The fact is, conservatives have been state by state defeating the militant homosexual leftist agenda to legalize so called "gay marriage and are gaining ground in this area - much to the apparent dismay of some here. You seem inclined to be disappointed with Conservative gains in this area.

"And guess what you whiny Left Wing Homosexual radicals? You brought it on yourselves by your own oh-so-friggin-predictiable behavior."

I'm sorry, are you addressing someone at this site?

So, you obviously feeling threatened that this somehow applies to you, I see.... It would appear so - and it's your problem, not mine. Apply it as the shoe fits indeed...


Uh....South Park is a cartoon. It's not a documentary. It's not real - it's fiction.

Really? NEWSFLASH! Thank you for clearing that up, none of us realized that... No doubt metaphors are slightly above the level you are used to.

[Lucky Dog]

Your postulation concerning "gay" theater performers is totally irrelevant.

There is no law requiring these performers to carry out orders that may mean their own deaths or that of others. There is no law that says that they must share gang showers or open bay barracks with "straights" who religiously object to their activities or find their activities disgusting. There is no requirement for "straight" people to render first aid under battlefield conditions to these queers that could result in the infection of the aid render with HIV.

In the military, these constraints exist. That is why your analogy fails miserably.

[Retired Army Special Forces]

What works for largely Socialist countries that the DUmmycRATS love and want to emulate, does not mean it works for or is even good for America.

Screw them, we have our own culture.

[Lucky Dog]

Ah yes, because admitting (telling) someone that they are or have had sexual relations of someone of the same sex is a valid reason to remove someone from the military. [/sarcasm]...la

Your sarcasm is misplaced unless you are supporting the don't ask, don't tell policy initiated in the Clinton administration. Is that your point?

[icdorn]

Redbadger said... "If you're in a foxhole and taking rounds, you don't give a damn what the guy next to you does with his gun as long as he can shoot straight with his rifle........."

You sound like someone who has never spent time in a fox hole. There is a lot more to it then "firing straight", the issue is with all the down time in between the firing. When trying to maintain discipline, the last thing they need are troups who are having or trying to have sex with each other on the battlefield. Especially considering the WAY homosexuals have sex and the lack of hygene (not showering for weeks etc..) out there, there are a host of health problems that could arise outside of HIV/stds. They also don't allow women who can "shoot straight" (sometimes better then men) on the frontlines either for the same reason, they don't want them having sex on the battlefield. It is already bad enough on the Naval ships as it is, women getting pregnant etc..

[Drew68]

Military: "Get him out of here, we have no use for gays in the military"

It's not the military's fault. They're only following the Law of the Land as written by Congress. If they let one admitted gay man stay in, they'll have to let all of them stay in. They can't do this unless Congress re-writes the law. In the military, if you admit to being gay, you are done --for the most part part. If you admit to being gay only to get out of your contract, the military *will* investigate.

I predict that DADT will eventually fall by the wayside. The military is a reflection of society as a whole and as attitudes towards gays change, the military will follow suit. With more and more civilian companies targeting gays for employment, the military is going to eventually ask congress why they are forced to discharge perfectly competent soldiers for being gay.

The truth is that many of today's young people who enlist simply don't care about someone's sexuality. Call it "liberal public school indoctrination" or whatever you want, it doesn't change this increasingly prevalent attitude. Today's Privates and 2nd Lieutenants will be tomorrow's Staff Sergeants and Colonels and they are going to take these, ahem, "progressive" attitudes with them as they move up the chain.

[TheSuaveOne]

No, I don't agree with the policy, but then again, I don't agree with the preceeding policy either...la

[mnehring]

I think you hit reply to the wrong person.. pinging redbadger.

[icdorn]

Redbadger said... "If you're in a foxhole and taking rounds, you don't give a damn what the guy next to you does with his gun as long as he can shoot straight with his rifle........."

You sound like someone who has never spent time in a fox hole. There is a lot more to it then "firing straight", the issue is with all the down time in between the firing. When trying to maintain discipline, the last thing they need are troups who are having or trying to have sex with each other on the battlefield. Especially considering the WAY homosexuals have sex and the lack of hygene (not showering for weeks etc..) out there, there are a host of health problems that could arise outside of HIV/stds. They also don't allow women who can "shoot straight" (sometimes better then men) on the frontlines either for the same reason, they don't want them having sex on the battlefield. It is already bad enough on the Naval ships as it is, women getting pregnant etc..

(sorry for the repost people, I accidently replied to the wrong person previously)

[icdorn]

ya i did, sorry man

[Lucky Dog]

No, I don't agree with the policy, but then again, I don't agree with the preceeding policy either...la

Then you had best come with some logic and facts to support your position or concede that you were wrong.

[Retired Army Special Forces]

And if you come up "hot" for HIV, you are not required to say anything about how you got it. I mean how much more does the friggin gay activist community want? Answer: to totally control America, is what they want. Kind of like Hezbolla vs Israel. You could have got it banging a Thai whore or could have got it being a total queer - whatever. You can refuse to talk about it and there is nothing anyone can do about it and you cannot be discharged for HIV alone.

Now if you say, "yep, I'm a pole smoker sir", then you are out on your ass under applicable laws. You cannot prevent stupid weak people from being stupid and weak, that is why this nation is infested with friggin Liberals. Stupid and weak people that they are.

Just the way it is. Everyone just follow DADT to the "T" and there is no problem. Problem is, its just not good enough for the fu@king Left Wing. Hey, at least I'm not advocating getting rid of DADT even though it is the legacy of those Clinton a$$holes.