Posted on 06/21/2004 2:03:44 AM PDT by Finally_done
SAN FRANCISCO - Even with concerns growing about military troop strength, 770 people were discharged for homosexuality last year under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, a new study shows.
The figure, however, is significantly lower than the record 1,227 discharges in 2001 — just before the invasions of Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news - web sites). Since "don't ask, don't tell" was adopted in 1994, nearly 10,000 military personnel have been discharged — including linguists, nuclear warfare experts and other key specialists.
The statistics, obtained from the Defense Manpower Data Center and analyzed by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, offers a detailed profile of those discharged, including job specialty, rank and years spent in the service.
"The justification for the policy is that allowing gays and lesbians to serve would undermine military readiness," said Aaron Belkin, author of the study, which will be released Monday. "For the first time, we can see how it has impacted every corner of the military and goes to the heart of the military readiness argument."
The policy is "don't ask, don't tell, don't investigate."
The only way to get kicked out is to tell.
I know a lot of people in the Navy and Marine Corps. The word I get on this topic is that the tellers are almost always lying through their teeth. One favorite strategery of the faux-rump-ranger crowd is to loudly announce that they are gay after getting Uncle Sugar to pay for some very expensive and lucrative training...and then using their veteran's preference to get a cushy civil service job with the Department of the Navy.
All the more reason to end this stupid policy allowing people to get high-priced training on Uncle Sam's dime and then play the taxpayers for a sucker.
End the policy and make them serve out their commitment.
No Dane, because one is accidental and one is an intentional misguided policy.
You're projecting the disingenuousness you're famous for.
You're projecting the disingenuousness you're famous for.
Actually the disingenuous is on your part, you stated that the policy would lead to a disaster, I brought up the equally valid point that a car accident could bring up the same disasterous scenario.
The point being that we can't predict the future on one politically charged statment such as yours.
Go back to the old policy, where they would be charged with fraudulent enlistment, court-martialed, convicted, and sent to Leavenworth for 5-10 years. You didn't have anyone falsely claiming to be gay back then.
Homosexual conduct is not compatible with service in the American military, period. The experience of the United Kingdom is irrelevant. (BTW, it is likely to be false; the lack of public trouble could simply be the product of a strategically-placed D-Notice. Thank God for the First Amendment.)
The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is pretty stupid. The previous policy of "don't enlist" should be restored.
Yes, but we don't have to facilitate that worst case scenario either.
Oh boy--I don't even WANT to know.
Well if you don't want to facilitate that worst case scenario. Lets ban all cars also.
Two words:
Moral character.
Homosexual activists and their friends are willing to destroy the morale of the troops by pushing their agenda and social reengineering over the troops' actual goals.
I agree, absolutely.
By the way, there was an excellent reason homosexuality and infidelity were court-marshall offenses in the old military- security.
A person in either of those situations is a high risk for blackmail.
There you go with that disingenuousness. Famous.
Banning all cars would be quite inconvenient wouldn't it? It's silly to even point out how any benefits would be completely mitigated by immobilizing all of society and the military. And it still wouldn't guarantee people wouldn't die in other freak accidents.
Now quit being stupid please.
Well you were the one who said quite emphatically that a discharge would lead to disasterous situation, with no proof, just a statement.
Just following your lead.
Chuckle, chuckle. I recall an incident in 1963 when a sailor known to me was boarded and the day his papers arrived at the office he was picked up by his girlfriend in her convertible...and headed back to college and matrimony. He had deliberately gone to a gay bar in Virginia Beach on a night he knew we were going to be dragging the line.
Let's face it folks - men have a right not to be propositioned (or worse) by other men in the bathroom.
It's time for Department of Defense to shape up or ship out on this issue.
Quite wrong Dane, and quite disingenuous again. I was speculating (and not even emphatically) about what could happen. Time to enroll you in remedial reading comprehension.
And I followed your lead in that speculation to make a point on how silly your intial speculation was.
Do you really think that the homosexual assaults against prisoners at Abu Ghraib were all perpetrated by homosexual American Soldiers?
Next you are gonna tell us that the male-on-male rape that is happening in American prisons WITHIN THE US, is because of all the gay men that we lock up.
I work in a state-level prison system, and I can tell you that more gay men get raped than commit rape.
The guys doing the raping in the prisons are, by definition, homosexuals.
It's really not a relative values thing, or a question of self-identity or philosophical actualization. It's an "action" sort of thing.
I beg to differ. The guys doing the raping in the prisons are, by definition, RAPISTS.
If it was a woman, raping a man, using a broomstick, it would still be a rapist.
What about men who self-identify as homosexual, but are (allegedly) celibate? No act is available to give us a definition, but we generally still agree that they are gay.
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.