Posted on 07/08/2003 2:21:21 PM PDT by ewing
Citing the precedent set by the US Supreme Court ruling in the Texas sodomy case, a decorated Vietnam Combat Veteran filed suit late yesterday with the US Court of Federal Claims challenging the constitutionality of the 'don't ask, dont tell' policy.
The challenge filed by LTC Steve Loomis, who was ousted from the Army for being gay just 8 days prior to his 20 year retirement date in 1997, also challenges the federal anti sodomy statute covering the military.
The lawsuit is based on the recent US Supreme Court opinion in Lawrence v. Texas which declared that the Texas Sodomy Statute violated the Consitiution's guarantee of the right to privacy. Loomis suit seeks to reverse the discharge.
The challenge is the first of several likely to be filed in the wake of Lawrence according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
'Lawrence has a direct impact on the federal sodomy statute and the military's gay ban, said SLDN Executive Director C. Dixon Osbourne.
(Excerpt) Read more at advocat.com ...
For owning a gay XXX tape? That appears to have been the basis for his discharge..
How does one ignore evidence handed to you.
Also, such behavior ie not taping someone in sex act and then keeping copies is actionable as far as I'm concerned. Its certainly a dishonorable act.
It's called Don't Pursue. Also, in this circumstance, one may wait 8 days and the issue goes away....
Also, such behavior ie not taping someone in sex act and then keeping copies is actionable as far as I'm concerned.
There's no doubt that would be actionable under the federal anti-sodomy statute; I'm uncertain that it would be actionable under any other (or whether it was acted upon under any other). If the federal anti-sodomy statute is struck down (which seems probable, but not assured) then it's not actionable under that.
To my knowledge, taking nude photos for whatever private purpose is not cause for discharge (unless the photographed individual is a minor). Again, I'm not altogether certain whether this may be actionable under some vague, indirect provision.
Was Army Pvt. Michael Burdette coerced?
If the enlisted soldier had been female would the same code of conduct been applied in the same manner?
Was he discharged simply because he was gay or because he was having sex with enlisted personnel?
If the Army can cite cases similar to this, where an officer received similar punishment after sex with an enlisted woman, then they may have a case.
My guess is that if this had been between a man and a woman, then they would have allowed him to keep his pension. As much as many will not like it, eventually, the courts will rule that gays can serve (they already do anyway).
Looks like the arson fire took place in July of 1996, and the Marines were given the video shortly thereafter, at which point an investigateion would appropriately ensue. Here's some more info...
Meanwhile, a video found at the scene of an arson at the home of Lt. Col. Loren Stephen, a decorated Fort Hood Army lieutenant colonel, caused the military to discharge Stephen just one week shy of his retirement. An Army private "later would plead guilty to setting the empty house on fire in an attempt to destroy - or perhaps call attention to - the lewd tape," the Houston Chronicle said. The paper also reported: "Like some recent military sex scandals, the dispute at Fort Hood involved contact between an enlisted person and an officer. But this case has prompted new questions about the military's 'don't ask, don't tell policy on homosexuality. ... In recent months, the arsonist and the officer were drummed out of the Army. Both men left Texas and now claim they were victimized, though for vastly different reasons. The arsonist, former Pvt. Michael Burdette Jr., 20, served 90 days in jail, was given a 10-year, probated sentence last November by a court in Coryell County and was ordered to pay $68,445 in restitution. ... [The] felony conviction got him kicked out of the Army. ... Lt. Col. Loren Stephen Loomis, 50, received a 'less than honorable' discharge for 'behavior unbecoming an officer' after an Army board ruled he had engaged in homosexual conduct. ... Loomis is preparing to take his protest to the Board for Correction of Military Records in Washington, D.C., because Secretary of the Army Togo West has refused to reverse the July 14 ruling at Fort Hood. That decision, which took effect about a week before Loomis would have been eligible to receive retirement benefits, requires him to wait until he is 60 to begin collecting his pension, officials said."
LINK
If any officer had nude pictures of any subordinate and refused to return them or destroy them upon request that would be, in my mind, a dishonorable act.
If you cannot see the possibilities of the threat, embarrasement and potential harrassment just possessing those photos by this creep could be to the private then you need to refocuse your glasses from the gay issues because they are blinding you. Could the man have worried that once the guy retired he would blackmail him with the photo's ? Put yourself inthe guys shoes a minute and ask yourself how you would feel.
Then imagine the same circumstances and the superior officer is a male and the PVT is a female.
Do we want to send a signal to the troops that is OK for a superior officer to have naked pictures of his subordinates when the sunbordiantes requested their return ?
Its called harrassment.
A tape of himself, two other men, and an enlisted man. He's got more than one strike against him in this discharge.
I have my legal blinders on, as I usually do in such discussion. I'm altogether disinterested in prurient details or emotionalized fixations.. My only interest is in how this case stands or falls on the legal merits.
I disagree completely. Keeping those photo's was harrasment and should not be tolerated by whoever did it.
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.