Military dismisses 6 gay Arabic linguists amid shortage of translators

AP ^ | 11-14-02

[mikenola]

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.

[Prodigal Son]

You may be right,

No, I am right. If you didn't figure this out while you were serving- you were pretty slow. How many gays did you have serving in your unit? Don't know? That's the way it was supposed to be.

(You did serve didn't you?)

"Don't ask don't tell" is a leftist/liberal policy instituted by Clinton. That these soldiers "told" their commander they were gay obviously says they did so for extracurricular reasons. They couldn't follow a simple order. They allowed their extracurricular concerns to override military concerns. They can't be trusted with a security clearance- period.

[Clint N. Suhks]

My point is that your comparisons were irrelevant because animals and 12-year-olds do not serve in uniform.

So the homosexual whose sodomy buddy isn’t in the military doesn’t count? You don’t think that’s disruptive? Your arbitrary criterion doesn’t make any sense.

I'm not sure what UCMJ says about incest,

Hehehe…you think that if UCMJ doesn’t list incest in a code that the military is above civilian law? That’s a cop out and admittedly you can’t answer the legitimate comparisons honestly.

[paulklenk]

They can always move the gay translators out of the military and into a non-military government job, then take 6 straight translators from non-military government jobs and move them into the military. No loss of personnel.

[CapedCrusader]

No, I didn't serve. But my sister does in the navy and she knows of homosexuals serving alongside her.
It doesn't seem to affect her performance or her morale. Funny that.

[Prodigal Son]

No but my sister does...

The maximum effective range of that one is about 0 meters. Someone else's service doesn't count on your track record.

It never made me uncomfortable to serve alongside gays either- that's not the point.

At any rate, what's your point? The policy is very clear and it is a simple one. To be a linguist you have to be trustworthy with top secret stuff. If you put activism/politics above the simplest of directives there is no way you should be trusted with our nation's secrets. These guys wanted out- they got out. It was their decision. If you can't follow simple instructions- you've got no need to be in the military and certainly not in the Military Intelligence branch. .

Why not join up? It's a good thing to do. You get to serve your country, get a decent paycheck, do interesting things, get to be a part of historic events. If you join as a linguist you sometimes get signing and resigning bonuses of up to $25,000. It's a great job and a great way of life. And afterwards- you can say "been there done that".

[CapedCrusader]

Someone else's service doesn't count on your track record.

Nor do I claim hers as my own.

At any rate, what's your point?

Just that it seems we need more specialized Arab intel, not less. 'Tis all.

If you put activism/politics above the simplest of directives there is no way you should be trusted with our nation's secrets.

Agree.

Why not join up?

Actually, I'm looking for work right now and I am rather adept at learning languages...

[Prodigal Son]

Ok, but the military policy is don't ask-don't tell. It matters not what the policy is over- it's no different than required hair length and other uniform standards. These soldiers were in clear violation of a standing and very clear and simple policy and they disobeyed it. They would not be fit for service in any type of unit- Mil Intel or otherwise. There is no way to defend them. They knew the rules and they purposefully broke them.

If you're adept at learning language (I am myself as well) you should go to your local recruiter and ask to take the DLAB test (Defense Language Aptitude Battery). It's a pretty freaky test. It's a totally made up language. You listen on headphones and you have to select what the correct word for something is in a language you've never heard before. It's hard to tell if you're answering right or wrong- you don't know till you got your score. It supposedly measures any intrinsic ability you have at deciphering foreign language. I got a 118 on the thing, good enough to learn Russian or Arabic if I'm not mistaken. The DLI is also a good school. Monterrey, civvies, 8 hours a day of learning a language.

You ought to give it a go. You might be able to take the test without actually joining. If you make a good score- play hard to get with the recruiter and he'll hook you up with a good package. Get a good contract and you're looking at a sweet deal and a good job. If you make interrogator- you could be sweating jihadis in a couple of years.

[Schmedlap]

“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?”

I thought this was simple enough. Women are not allowed in the infantry for a couple of reasons. One, they are different, physically – different enough to assume that they would not be able to handle the physically demanding job of an infantryman. Two, they are women, and men are attracted to women. This creates inevitable problems with discipline and morale. However, women are allowed in non-combat branches, because the environment is different. There are still disruptions in the workplace that will arise from romances/lusts, but the effects are not nearly as devastating as they would be in a unit that must engage in a close combat, direct fire situation.

These disruptions are accepted, since we know that they are going to occur and we still allow females to hold many specialties within the Army. But, for some reason, we do not allow homosexuals in those same positions that women are allowed to serve in. Whether it is a relationship between a man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, it is an office romance/lust. I fail to see any significant difference in the level of disruption that would result between two males doing whatever they do, and a man and women doing their thing. I am not an office rat, which is why I posed this as a question, “Is this any more disruptive than male and female office rats being attracted to one another?”

In spite of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I was also curious why the leadership chose to enforce this regulation. That probably sounds like a wacky question, but I think that most, if not all of us, have ignored certain regulations, for the sake of mission accomplishment. However, I am well aware that situations are not always such that a leader can selectively enforce regulations. It is even more difficult to do this, when dealing in matters regarding discipline – more so when that discipline involves personal relationships. That is why I wrote, “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.”

Sheep and 12-year-olds do not fit anywhere in this. Bonaparte, in post #80, gave me the heads up on UCMJ:
“It's not specifically addressed but is prosecuted as ‘conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.’ It's the same with other deviations from standards of decency.”

To answer your original questions, no, no, and no. Now what? I still fail to see their relevance.

[CapedCrusader]

Thanks for the info. I'm intrigued...

[Per-Ling]

I'll agree here. I'm currently a student at DLI studying Farsi in the Navy. Yes, we will never be as adept at the language as a native speaker, but there is a desire to recruit patriotically-driven home-grown Americans. 3 skilled non-native DLI grads can do the work of one native speaker. The military is willing to accept that seeming inefficiency for the security they feel knowing that boy from Iowa with the headphones on has his heart in the right place.

Yes, some sit in offices and translate docs, but most are in theater dealing with real-time data transfer. I'll stop there...

The issue with homosexuals in my opinion, has more to do with an acceptably upstanding lifestyle. Getting a TS security clearance is not all that difficult. Things that will keep you from getting cleared are habitual drug use, habitual fiscal irresponsibility, sexual deviancy, namely anything that resembles a skeleton-in-the-closet that a foreign agent can use to "persuade" you to turn. Homosexuality is a biggie...

DLI is a great institution. I'm sure I'll appreciate it even more after I leave. Sure is a b1tch waking up at 0300 with Farsi sentences rattling your brain!

[Clint N. Suhks]

But, for some reason, we do not allow homosexuals in those same positions that women are allowed to serve in.

You see the problem is Einstein, you keep comparing the practice of perversion (disordered behavior) to a normal man/woman relationship (right behavior). That’s why you can’t give a reasoned answer for your arbitrary “office only” situation for incest, just because bestials and pedophiles don’t neatly fit in your scenario is irrelevant. Homosexual apologists like you have lost the ability to see the forest through the trees.

[Schmedlap]

"You see the problem is Einstein, you keep comparing the practice of perversion (disordered behavior) to a normal man/woman relationship (right behavior)."

First off, I don't think that Einstein is the problem. Second, of course I made that comparison. That was the basis for my question. Note that I was asking a question, since I do not know the answer to it. See below:
"I fail to see any significant difference in the level of disruption that would result between two males doing whatever they do, and a man and women doing their thing. I am not an office rat, which is why I posed this as a question, 'Is this any more disruptive than male and female office rats being attracted to one another?'”

I am an infantryman, so I have never worked in an office setting, nor have I ever worked closely with women or people whom I knew to be homosexuals, while in uniform. The only exception to this is when I was a cadet, but I don't really consider that to be the Army. That is why I posed this as a question. I have my suspicions, but I don't pretend to know the answer.

I gather that your answer to the question would be "yes." Is that correct? If so, that would settle the issue, from the position that I was asking the question from. A "yes" answer would mean that the Army is correct to not allow openly homosexual soldiers to serve.

"That’s why you can’t give a reasoned answer for your arbitrary 'office only' situation for incest, just because bestials and pedophiles don’t neatly fit in your scenario is irrelevant."

What question was this? I answered the 3 questions that you posed. See below:

"To answer your original questions, no, no, and no. Now what? I still fail to see their relevance."

What is their relevance?

[Clint N. Suhks]

Second, of course I made that comparison. …What is their relevance ?

There is no comparison, homosexuality is no more relevant to a normal man/woman relationship than any other paraphilic disorders, a point I’ve made over and over again. A point you can’t seem grasp. A point often posed by homosexual apologists, like you, to present a morally relative equality where there is none. Get it?

[XJarhead]

These guys weren't outed, they told their superiors that they were gay. It sounds like they were trying to start something. What better way to strike a blow (no pun) for gays in the military than using the WOT to frame the issue.

Exactly. So it was either a set-up, or they just wanted out anyway. But that's getting overlooked in the reporting of this story....

[Schmedlap]

“…homosexuality is no more relevant to a normal man/woman relationship than any other paraphilic disorders, a point … often posed by homosexual apologists, like you, to present a morally relative equality where there is none. Get it?”

I “get” what you wrote in the post. It has no relevance to my original question. You are answering a question that I didn’t ask. Your response would make sense if I asked, “Is there a difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship?” However, I am not asking if there is a morally relative equality. Furthermore, one does not need to be assumed, to consider my question.

I asked if homosexuals being attracted to one another is, “any more disruptive than male and female office rats being attracted to one another?” You responded by pointing out the lack of a morally relative equality. There need not be a morally relative equality to compare the effects of two things. For example, I could reasonably ask about disruption in an Army recruiting office in a high crime area of an inner city, by asking, “is the presence of female recruiters more disruptive than the fear of violent crime from the junkies in the area?” What is the morally relative equality there?

Also, I do not think that the moral inequality is the only factor to consider, when accounting for a difference in the level of disruption in the work place. In this case, for example, disruption caused by moral objection to the actions of co-workers is a factor, but so is the disruption caused by competition for affection among co-workers. In this case, the two disruptions could have a give-and-take relationship.

The disruptions caused by a heterosexual office affair are rarely due to moral objections, but rather due to young soldiers’ competitiveness and raging hormones. If I am working in an office with a hot chick and two other men, then my first instinct is that I am in competition with the men for the hot chick’s affection. When I realize that the two men are homosexuals, then my position appears to improve. Might I, or the hot chick, have moral objections and also have enough interest in other people’s personal lives that we would be uncomfortable knowing that our two male co-workers are having a homosexual relationship? Sure, though I think my elation over my improved chances with the hot chick will offset this.

The one disruption in the face of an immoral relationship would not be present if the men were heterosexual, but then another disruption arises when all three men are seeking the affection of one hot chick. So when the disruption caused by the homosexual relationship is not there, the disruption from the heterosexual relationship is, and vice versa. Are the two equally disruptive?

For the reasons explained above, I don’t think declaring the homosexual relationship to be more immoral is a sufficient explanation to support the claim that it is more disruptive. The conclusion that a homosexual relationship is more disruptive may be correct, but that it is more disruptive on the grounds that it is more immoral seems to be a poor explanation.