|
|||
|
Jim Webb to Military Gays: Not So Fast, MaryPosted on May 25, 2010
Democratic Sen. Jim Webb says he won’t vote for the compromise ending the ban on gays in the military until the Pentagon completes its review of the policy, even though the whole point of the compromise is that the ban wouldn’t actually end until the military completes its review. Let’s play six degrees of discrimination: Before he was a Democrat, Webb was Ronald Reagan’s secretary of the Navy. The Ronald Reagan directive keeping gays out of the military served, in a roundabout way, as the inspiration for don’t ask, don’t tell. Oh wait, that’s not nearly six degrees. —PZS More background from AP here.
Advertisement New and Improved CommentsWe are launching a major overhaul of our comments section. In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread. Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts. Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with. Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page. |
By dihey, May 27, 2010 at 7:45 am Link to this comment
If you believe that gay soldiers will be allowed to serve openly or not so openly when the abominable amendment has passed and Mr. Obama has signed it into law you will be in for gigantic disappointments come next December. In order for gay soldiers to serve openly or not openly 10 USC Sec. 654: Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces must be amended. Guess who is empowered to make such amendments? The military? No. According to sub (1) that is the exclusive right of the Congress! What needs to be changed is sub (13): The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service. If you expect this to be amended after the November elections you are a saint.
Report thisBy dihey, May 27, 2010 at 6:49 am Link to this comment
The repeal of DADT only is terrible because we would go right back to where the superior asks and the soldier must tell.
Report thisI have read the text of the Lieberman amendment. It is disturbing to me because it asks the “Comprehensive Review on the Implementation of a Repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 (section 654 of title 10, United States Code) ” under D: “Recommend appropriate changes (if any) to the Uniform Code of Military Justice”.
Notice: recommend and “if any”.
I interpret this to mean that DADT could change into AandT.
By Peter Z. Scheer, May 26, 2010 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment
Latest on the site/comments:
Report thishttp://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/note_to_rea
ders_20100526/
By Peter Z. Scheer, May 26, 2010 at 1:11 pm Link to this comment
Note to readers: We are currently recovering from what
Report thiswe believe was an attack on the site. We were down for
over an hour. In restoring the site, we appear to have
lost a number of comments. We deeply regret this. We
appreciate the time and thought you put into your
comments and we will do our best to retrieve them if
possible.
By dihey, May 25, 2010 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment
The hundreds of you who were/are upset over the “show your papers” law of Arizona, where are you cowards hiding? Here is an amendment to a law that gives the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chief of Staff the power to determine whether a law passed by Congress is or is not a law. That is an infinitely more dangerous and illegal power grab by the executive than the Arizona law. Apparently you care absolutely nothing about the further erosion of the constitutional separation of powers. You care only that your ox was gored. You are disgusting.
Report thisIt does not matter how these three persons eventually vote. They do not have the constitutional power to be legislators.
Webb’s opposition, however, is nonsensical, i.e. makes no sense because it does not deal with the fundamental flaw.
By dihey, May 25, 2010 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment
I have argued elsewhere that the “compromise” is almost certainly unconstitutional because it gives the President two opportunities to sign or not to sign twice a piece of legislation sent to the President by the Congress. The constitution gives Mr. Obama only one shot.
Report this