?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
02 August 2008 @ 11:27 pm
'Don't Ask' Policy Hits Female Soldiers Hardest  
'Don't Ask' Policy Hits Female Soldiers Hardest

I don't understand the "don't ask; don't tell" policy. Are people being discharged for asking/accusing? Is the first part just being conveniently forgotten?
Tags:
 
 
Current Mood: confusedconfused
 
 
 
(Deleted comment)
a very caring potatomollydot on August 2nd, 2008 11:45 pm (UTC)
So how come they're being discharged? Is an accusation or its investigation not equivalent to asking?
W. B.Samplewill_sample on August 3rd, 2008 04:54 am (UTC)
Because they *are* gay...
....and respectively, no and no.

If you are guilty of it, you are discharged.
a very caring potatomollydot on August 3rd, 2008 10:43 am (UTC)
Re: Because they *are* gay...
But what happened the don't ask part?
W. B.Samplewill_sample on August 3rd, 2008 12:17 pm (UTC)
Re: Because they *are* gay...
...when confronted by evidence, the military won't ignore it.
They cannot, legally.

At that point, the accused is confronted with the evidence against them, and is given the opportunity to make a statement, resign, or to request for investigation.

Tanyacartographer on August 3rd, 2008 07:48 pm (UTC)
Re: Because they *are* gay...
It's a kind of a witch hunt. Some bloke asks you out, you say no, and before you know it, the scumbag's all "Goody O'Shea's a lesbeeeean!". Once it's officially reported, the "don't tell" aspect of the bullshit law is broken, and your commanding officer has to officially take notice. And unless you prove/swear under oath that you -aren't- one, you're discharged from the military. (C'mon, haven't you read The Crucible? :-))
W. B.Samplewill_sample on August 3rd, 2008 08:06 pm (UTC)
Re: Because they *are* gay...
...lots of points here:
1) reporting doesn't equate to guilt; you can request an inquiry and be thus exhonorated.

2) Don't Ask Don't Tell isn't law. It is policy. The US military is entirely within its rights to ask at any time. All are free to not answer if they so opt, but failure to answer is disobeying a lawful order, and grounds for a dishonorable discharge.


Tanyacartographer on August 3rd, 2008 08:10 pm (UTC)
Re: Because they *are* gay...
1) Nope, not unless it's true. The rule (as I understand it) is that you can be gay in the military so long as your commanding officers aren't required to officially know about it.

2) ok, s/bullshit law/bullshit policy/
W. B.Samplewill_sample on August 3rd, 2008 08:17 pm (UTC)
Re: Because they *are* gay...
...1 ) Not the case. You cannot be gay and in the military, legally. The official policy is to 'not know' unless such knowledge is forced upon them, usually beginning with a formal accusation under the terms of the UCMJ.

2) Military personnel like the policy; they aren't alone in that, either.
Tanyacartographer on August 3rd, 2008 08:56 pm (UTC)
Re: Because they *are* gay...
I think it's more correct to say that "-some- military personnel like the policy". I do appreciate that your views and mine are not going to converge here though, so I'm happy enough to leave it there and not try to convince you through the medium of internet debate :-P
a very caring potatomollydot on August 3rd, 2008 11:34 pm (UTC)
Re: Because they *are* gay...
If "she wouldn't go on a date with me" counts as evidence, that's a pretty strong weapon in the hands of someone with a grudge, even if the accused is straight.

Not that I think gay people should have to pretend to be straight, but if the policy is that it's ok so long as you hide your sexuality, then it shouldn't be made difficult to hide it.

I don't think the policy even makes sense from a homophobic point of view. If I was a homophobe serving in the army, I'd want to know who was gay so that I'd know who to be phobic of.


W. B.Samplewill_sample on August 4th, 2008 12:30 am (UTC)
Re: Because they *are* gay...
...the problem is that it isn't considered anything but possible corrobertative evidence-- and that even has plenty of its own hazards, under the fraterinization regs, under the standards of the UCMJ; the standards of evidence in the military are somewhat more stringent than in civilian courts.

I think it'd make much more sense to simply ask, and prohibit, as it used to be, though YMMV.
a very caring potatomollydot on August 4th, 2008 08:34 am (UTC)
Re: Because they *are* gay...
I mean if it's enough evidence to start the process, as the article seems to be claiming. I presume an investigation would be into sexual and dating history, which could reveal breaking of fraternization rules, as well as affect the accused's reputation, whatever the result of the investigation.

YMMV
Yeah, I think they should be allowed serve openly.