Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail
AP ^ | 7/27/6 | DUNCAN MANSFIELD

Posted on 07/27/2006 7:39:00 AM PDT by 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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: army; dontaskdonttell; homosexualagenda; military
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-303 next last
To: TheSuaveOne; RaceBannon

= ain't =, most Solders and Marines do not believe that your Ilk contribute to unit cohesiveness. Most Solderers and Marines think that you should be Chaplin's Assistants and therefore a liability to the unit.


181 posted on 07/27/2006 2:42:24 PM PDT by Little Bill (A 37%'r, a Red Spot on a Blue State, rats are evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

Then let's be sure to go after those husbands and wives who have oral and anal sex.


182 posted on 07/27/2006 2:51:48 PM PDT by Mazda3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: whatisthetruth

Recruit? You're absolutely right. A gay guy could get me to become gay just by recruiting. /sarcasm off


183 posted on 07/27/2006 2:53:54 PM PDT by Mazda3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Mazda3Fan

Opportunistic sex for straights from gays is not new. Get a clue!!!


184 posted on 07/27/2006 2:58:08 PM PDT by whatisthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Mazda3Fan
Then let's be sure to go after those husbands and wives who have oral and anal sex.

First, unless they are doing it public, the military has no way of knowing. If they are doing it in public, then there are other sections of the UCMJ that become operative. Second, assuming they are not doing it in public, there are no witnesses and no case. Even if a spouse decides to turn state’s evidence and accuse the other, there is no independent corroboration and, thus, no case. To my knowledge, there has never been a case brought against a military member purely for private, consensual sexual intercourse with a spouse.
185 posted on 07/27/2006 3:02:30 PM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: whatisthetruth

Get a clue about what? That gays are recruiting straights? Give me a break.


186 posted on 07/27/2006 3:04:17 PM PDT by Mazda3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

So why the concern about gays? Gays in the military are serving their country.


187 posted on 07/27/2006 3:05:42 PM PDT by Mazda3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: whatisthetruth

Then they aren't straight, are they?


188 posted on 07/27/2006 3:06:31 PM PDT by Mazda3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

"First, unless they are doing it public, the military has no way of knowing." Then lets just keep the gay sex a secret and everything is hunky dory.


189 posted on 07/27/2006 3:07:22 PM PDT by Mazda3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Mazda3Fan
So why the concern about gays? Gays in the military are serving their country.

You need to read the rest of the posts on this thread. Perhaps you missed the part about blood borne pathogens... or the part about violating the UCMJ and their oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the US... or the part about being subject to blackmail... or the part about lacking the discipline to follow standing orders and regulations...
190 posted on 07/27/2006 3:09:38 PM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

Blackmail? Blood borne pathogens? You're right, no straight person could ever be subject to that.


191 posted on 07/27/2006 3:13:03 PM PDT by Mazda3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

Also, they did swear an oath and are defending the Constitution of the United States. I'm just saying, let's not worry just about the gays, let's get those straight people who participate in "unnatural" sex as well. Or is this not about the sex acts but about the person just being gay.


192 posted on 07/27/2006 3:15:02 PM PDT by Mazda3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: TheGunny
Excuse you, What are you saying just because I served on a ship. That I nor the millions of other sailors believe in order and discipline. I would you to see you last six months on a ship. People of all military branches serve their country honorably no matter who they are.
193 posted on 07/27/2006 3:20:40 PM PDT by FloridianBushFan (I support National Security. I SUPPORT HR4437 . Katherine Harris for Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Mazda3Fan
Then lets just keep the gay sex a secret and everything is hunky dory.

That is, I believe, known as "staying in the closet." Unfortunately, from a security risk perspective, queers are neither content to confine themselves to a single, or even a few partners, nor able to be discreet about their activities. Consequently, these people are still subject to blackmail.

Furthermore, as a generality, unlike the example you cited earlier with a spouse, few queers have any loyalty to the partner in the activity. If such were the case, then there would be very little problem with queers being "outed," would there?

Finally, there is still the problem of the queer disease risk. Blood borne pathogens are a very real threat in a battlefield environment. There is enough threat from enemy action without adding to it with preventable sources.
194 posted on 07/27/2006 3:21:27 PM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Pox

"For such a small portion of the population, these deviants sure command a disproportionate slice of the news pie."

Fully agreed.

You can be sure: every day on FR will feature posts and reposts of all available gay/homosexual stories in the news.


195 posted on 07/27/2006 3:31:39 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheSuaveOne
Yeah, and just a few years prior to that the military kept the blacks in the kitchen was regular practice too...la

So you are saying that blacks = homos?

196 posted on 07/27/2006 3:33:51 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: FloridianBushFan

Whatever, you posts and pro-gay stance says otherwise. Classic of the KOS and DU seminar posters.

Get a clue - Conservative Republicans by and large do NOT support anything past DADT in the military! And that comes from one who served in various combat arms units.

The vast majority of the few who are in the military or served and push the homosexual agenda were NOT in Combat Arms units.


197 posted on 07/27/2006 3:43:27 PM PDT by Retired Army Special Forces
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Mazda3Fan
Blackmail? Blood borne pathogens? You're right, no straight person could ever be subject to that.

I could drag out the statistics here and show you that the overwhelming number of HIV/AIDS cases in this country are among queers, those who traffic with them as bisexuals, and share drug needles. I could also use these same sources to point out that the same group suffers disproportionately from hepatitis, syphilis, and other STDs.

However, suffice it to say that the blood borne pathogen risk is, for the most part, greatly ameliorated by just barring queers from the armed service. Therefore, the question becomes why should we not do so?
198 posted on 07/27/2006 3:51:03 PM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: FloridianBushFan
People of all military branches serve their country honorably no matter who they are.

Easy there shipmate! I wasnt impugning the level of honor of which you served. Im just saying that discipline to me and my brethren of the Marines is in fact a world apart from that which you prescribe to.
199 posted on 07/27/2006 3:52:32 PM PDT by TheGunny (Re-read 1&2 Corinthians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Mazda3Fan
Also, they did swear an oath and are defending the Constitution of the United States.

You are absolutely correct. So why not pursue them and punish them for violating their oath?

I'm just saying, let's not worry just about the gays, let's get those straight people who participate in "unnatural" sex as well.

Ok with me…

Or is this not about the sex acts but about the person just being gay.

I really do not care who it is violating the UCMJ. If they’re caught, then let the system work. I tired of all the whining that queers are victims because they don’t want to follow the UCMJ.

Military service is a privilege, not a right. If the queers do not want to play by the UCMJ, then they don’t have to join. I they do join and are caught engaging in homosexual activities, they have no right to complain, nor does anyone else on their behalf. It is just that simple.
200 posted on 07/27/2006 4:01:12 PM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-303 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson