Skip to comments.
Military dismisses 6 gay Arabic linguists amid shortage of translators
AP ^
| 11-14-02
Posted on 11/14/2002 1:12:58 PM PST by mikenola
Edited on 07/14/2004 12:59:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Nine Army linguists, including six trained to speak Arabic, have been dismissed from the military because they are gay.
The soldiers' dismissals come at a time the military is facing a critical shortage of translators and interpreters for the war on terrorism.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 200211; arabictranslators; homosexuals; translators
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-95 next last
1
posted on
11/14/2002 1:12:58 PM PST
by
mikenola
To: mikenola
"Don"t Ask , Don't" Jihad !!!!!
2
posted on
11/14/2002 1:15:10 PM PST
by
cmsgop
To: mikenola
I guess they got tired of all the "girlfriend" and "you go girl" thrown into the translations.
To: Paul Atreides
Maybe they should have hidden the Pink Head Wraps in a better place.....
4
posted on
11/14/2002 1:17:40 PM PST
by
cmsgop
To: mikenola
Is there some reason translations can't be done by civilian support personnel? That would moot the whole issue.
5
posted on
11/14/2002 1:18:03 PM PST
by
steve-b
To: mikenola
They were obviously not cunning linguists.
To: mikenola
"Nine Army linguists, including six trained to speak Arabic, have been dismissed from the military because they are gay."
Good. Send them to Saudi Arabia to bone up on their skills. The Muslims there will clear up their "problem".
7
posted on
11/14/2002 1:19:46 PM PST
by
ZULU
To: mikenola
... "It's not a gay-rights issue. I'm arguing military proficiency issues -- they're throwing out good, quality people," said Alastair Gamble, a former private first class ...
No, this is a gay rights issue. The army discharges far more adulterers than it does gays. So where are the articles about how discharging adulterers is undermining preparedness?
Part of being fit to serve means adhering to the military's codes of conduct. This is the case no matter how talented you are.
8
posted on
11/14/2002 1:20:27 PM PST
by
Asclepius
To: steve-b
I think they can ( civies ) I remember a statement by the FBI asking for such help.....
9
posted on
11/14/2002 1:20:44 PM PST
by
cmsgop
To: cmsgop
Or, they shouldn't have shown up for work in burkas.
To: TroutStalker
Bad. Bad. Bad boy.
11
posted on
11/14/2002 1:22:02 PM PST
by
Samwise
To: mikenola
I can understand an infantry or armor unit not allowing homosexuals within their ranks. Whether they are gay or sad seems arbitrary. However, I do not understand why it is of any importance if office rats are homosexuals. Is this any more disruptive than male and female office rats being attracted to one another?
To: mikenola
they were caught together after curfew
Talk about a Covert Jihad !
13
posted on
11/14/2002 1:23:34 PM PST
by
cmsgop
To: mikenola
Why don't they just hire them as private contractors? The DOD could still provide the training and benefit from their services. I see no need for linguists to be soldiers, if they are just used for document translations.
To: mikenola
Alas poor Gamble and Hicks
Were discharged for handling di--s
The shame took its toll
But they're still smoking pole
Cause you can't gay dog new tricks
15
posted on
11/14/2002 1:31:55 PM PST
by
JohnMac
To: Asclepius
"Part of being fit to serve means adhering to the military's codes of conduct."Well put.
16
posted on
11/14/2002 1:32:28 PM PST
by
onedoug
To: Schmedlap
This gets into the whole discussion of "don't ask - don't tell".
Somehow the behavior of these former analysts became known and was considered to be disruptive to a productive work atmosphere. Sort of like adultery is - and is a non-gay issue.
A separate thread on FR yesterday mentioned a coach who benched his entire first string football team (including his son) in an important game for violating an alcohol policy they had signed before the season. The players were sobered up probably by game time - why would this coach want his rules enforced?
17
posted on
11/14/2002 1:34:11 PM PST
by
NorthGA
To: NorthGA
"Somehow the behavior of these former analysts became known and was considered to be disruptive to a productive work atmosphere."
I didn't notice it written anywhere that it was considered to be disruptive. I know it is against policy, but sometimes leaders down at the lower levels forgo policy in the interest of mission accomplishment. I am curious why these leaders did not. They may have been right. Again, I'm just curious.
To: TroutStalker
LOL!
To: JohnMac
Last line should be:
"Cause you can't teach a gay dog new tricks".
Sorry
20
posted on
11/14/2002 1:38:50 PM PST
by
JohnMac
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-95 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson