It is late, I am in DC, and I have to get up at 6:30 AM, so I haven't read everyone's posts since Greg posted the comment about, 10 U.S.C. § 654(b). This might have been covered already, and I will come back tomorrow when (and if) I have time and correct myself if I am mistaken.
First, Greg's citation of 10 U.S.C. § 654 is codified policy. There are a number of examples of such policy that is codified, and not law. Second, Dick is correct,the UCMJ is currently the defining law on Gays in the military. I could be mistaken, but I think that right now, the UCMJ bans all Gays in the military. Obviously, this will be remedied after the repeal of DADT. On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:32 PM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > They are willing to vote for something without reading it. Question > answered. > > > On 12/19/2010 03:26 PM, GregfromBoston wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure I haven't bashed anyone on this, let alone you. >> >> The constitution mandates a military subserviant to civilian rule. >> Not ruleS, but rule. This is that case. 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) was a >> congressional act banning gays from military service outright. That >> just got killed too (ok, I haven't read the actual bill, but if it >> doesn't, then it damned well better and fast, because Justice Virginia >> Phillips rules does so explicitely. >> >> Please tell me they are not THAT dumb, as to leave the US Code out. >> >> On Dec 19, 3:14 pm, Mark<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> fromhttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread621767/pg1 >>> >>> First of all, this is not a gay bashing post, nor is it a pro-gay post. >>> This >>> is neutral. I simply want to point out some things that might change how >>> everyone views what is going on, if you can separate yourselves from >>> personal experience and opinions, one way or another. This post will >>> hopefully ignite thoughtful introspection, not hateful debates one way or >>> another. Consider the following before making a comment, and please add >>> to >>> it with thoughtful, respectful discussion. >>> >>> When our country first formed an organized military, it needed rules to >>> govern the unique culture that it is. Considering the time frame and >>> moral >>> and religious backbone of the men during that time, the UCMJ very much >>> made >>> sense. To hate the UCMJ, one would also have to hate the Declaration of >>> Independence, because it was the same men who formed the very first >>> "draft" >>> that their military would be held accountable. Interestingly, most of >>> what >>> was covered in the original 69 Articles of War in 1775 (which was a year >>> after the signing of the Declaration of Independence), had to do with >>> desertion with stiff punishments of death, and behavior that was >>> honorable >>> and gentlemanly. It wasn't until the following revisions over the next >>> century that great lengths were taken to define moral sexual ideals - >>> apparently, lewd sex acts had warranted stiff guidelines straight across >>> the >>> board, to include heterosexuals. However, one article from 1775 would >>> cover >>> any indecencies that the "gentlemen" of those days would dare not put >>> into >>> words on a formal document... >>> >>> Art. XLVII. Whatsoever commissioned officer shall be convicted before a >>> general court-martial, of behaving in a scandalous, infamous manner, such >>> as >>> is unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman, shall be >>> discharged from the service. >>> >>> Articles of War< >>> http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_06-30-75.asp> >>> >>> On 30 June 1775, the Second Continental Congress established 69 Articles >>> of >>> War to govern the conduct of the Continental Army. Effective upon its >>> ratification in 1789, Article I, Section 8 of the United States >>> Constitution >>> provided that Congress has the power to regulate the land and naval >>> forces.[1] On 10 April 1806, the United States Congress enacted 101 >>> Articles >>> of War (which applied to both the Army and the Navy), which were not >>> significantly revised until over a century later. The military justice >>> system continued to operate under the Articles of War until 31 May 1951, >>> when the Uniform Code of Military Justice went into effect. The UCMJ was >>> passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. >>> Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951. >>> >>> UCMJ<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice> >>> >>> So many people are so willing to bash the laws of the military, but I >>> dare >>> say few have ever read the UCMJ in it's entirety. Here's the problem with >>> messing with military law....when you try to change it to fit one group, >>> you >>> end up implicating them and many others with other laws, so then THOSE >>> laws >>> will need to be altered, and then that affects other laws. It turns into >>> an >>> ugly mess. Forget gay rights for a moment, (yes, I have gay friends in >>> the >>> military, I'm a vet, and I'm straight, so this isn't about that)....what >>> congress is about to do (IF they do), is to dismantle almost the entire >>> UCMJ. Hear what I'm saying please....it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to >>> reassemble it and still protect everyone while upholding law and order >>> within its ranks. This is precisely why gay military members are still >>> being >>> told NOT to be open about their sexuality, but recruiters can now recruit >>> gays without secrecy. Here's the problem.... >>> >>> If someone signed up under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, it >>> actually >>> protected their careers, because once they "came out", then they were >>> subject to the UCMJ under Article 83 for Fraudulent Enlistment, Article >>> 125 >>> for Sodomy, Article 133 for conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman >>> (which also includes all ranks and females), Article 134-9 for wrongful >>> cohabitation (if they were living with their lover), Article 134-19 for >>> False Swearing under oath that they swore not to LIE and that all >>> enlistment >>> information was true to the best of their knowledge, and Article 134 for >>> General acts that disrupt the good order and discipline of the armed >>> forces, >>> or brings discredit to the armed forces. >>> >>> All those who KNEW someone was gay and didn't say anything would be >>> charged >>> under Article 77, for knowing that this military member was breaking the >>> above UCMJ laws, but didn't say anything...this falls under Principles. >>> Hence, "don't ask" protected the hetero military member from having >>> knowledge that could implicate him/her, and "don't tell" protected the >>> gay >>> member from being caught in a lie OR from being charged with all the >>> above >>> articles. >>> >>> There are possibly more articles that could apply to both gays and >>> straights, but I think I made the general point. It's not just one simple >>> rule that congress needs to change, it is many, but there is no way to >>> unscrew this mess, which is why military officials are butting heads with >>> congress right now. THIS is why the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came >>> into >>> effect to begin with, because it protected everyone from the laws that >>> would >>> prevent them from serving their country in the first place. Are you >>> reading >>> this?? Don't ask, don't tell was never a bad thing, folks, but now that >>> it >>> is getting shoved aside, what will happen next IS a bad thing. They >>> either >>> have to change all these laws, or punish a lot of people - lots of job >>> losses! Overlooking the law is bad news - you can't run a military >>> without >>> laws. Congress is purposely backing the military into a corner, and the >>> military heads are trying like heck to talk some sense into these >>> politicians. Forget all the gay rights hype for a minute...unless they >>> grandfather all the current members under a protection clause, there will >>> be >>> a lot of job losses if these folks ever decide to "come out". What is the >>> military suppose to do, since they are at the mercy of Congress who makes >>> and sets the laws for the UCMJ, and judges who aren't consulting with the >>> men who know best? >>> >>> Certain members of congress are purposely using the gay rights issues and >>> increased public fervor to pressure these changes, (thanks to the media), >>> but I challenge everyone to set aside temporary and/or perceived >>> discomforts >>> for a moment and consider WHY this is happening. It is not good! I >>> believe >>> this has little to do with gay rights. I propose that gay rights are >>> being >>> used to piggyback a different agenda....one that will need to disarm the >>> laws that govern behavior in our military services. Why? I don't >>> know...that's for the conspiracy forum. But having the experience and >>> connections that I have, I am not alone in feeling that this bypasses gay >>> constituent demands. I believe there is something much deeper going on >>> here. >>> >>> Have a made a clearer picture for everyone yet? >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:03 PM, GregfromBoston<[email protected] >>> >wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> No, thats the US Code. 10 U.S.C. § 654(b). recodified by congress >>>> (dem congress) in 1993. That is WHY Clinton did DADT. Both are done. >>>> On Dec 19, 2:47 pm, dick thompson<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The existing UCMJ bans all gays completely. >>>>> On 12/19/2010 11:00 AM, Tommy News wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Wrong again Kieth. Isolated incidents do not pass muster. >>>>>> The existing Military Code of Conduct will be more than adequate for >>>>>> any isolated behavioral incidents which may arise. >>>>>> On 12/19/10, Keith In Tampa<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>> Two words, four syllables that completely destroy your premise: >>>>>>> "Bradley Manning" >>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Tommy News<[email protected]> >>>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> No, Poorly said and and highly homophobic, Keith and Mark. >>>>>>>> Gays make fine, well behaved soldiers, and are well practiced at >>>>>>>> hiding and surpressing their sexuality, unlike many straight >>>>>>>> soldiers >>>>>>>> who go around bragging about thier sexual conquests, being vulgar, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>> >>>>> showwing "affection" in public. >>>>>>>> The exixting Military Code odf Conduct will be more than adequate >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> any isolated behavioral incidents which may arise. >>>>>>>> DADT repeal is a resounding victory for Civil Rights equality. >>>>>>>> On 12/19/10, Keith In Tampa<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well said Mark. It's a brand new day, and a brand new >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> world....Little >>>> >>>>> does >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> folks like Tom have a clue. >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:37 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hurray, Now they are subject to the complaints of the men and >>>>>>>>>> women >>>>>>>>>> they serve with under the UCMJ..... the reason for DADT in the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> first >>>> >>>>> place....Do not cry when instead of simple discharge those gay >>>>>>>>>> soldiers and sailors garner BCDs and DDs for being openly Gay and >>>>>>>>>> offending just one other person with "sexually oriented >>>>>>>>>> behaviour". >>>>>>>>>> Be careful what you wish for..... you just may get it. >>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 11:46 am, Tommy News<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Senate Vote on Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal is Scheduled for 3 PM >>>>>>>>>>> Saturday. Debate is in progress now. Tune in to C-Span 2 to >>>>>>>>>>> Watch. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 63 >>>> >>>>> Senators voted for Cloture, 60 Votes were needed, and that is a >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> great >>>> >>>>> sign! Grand Obstructionist Party Senator John McCain is attempting >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to >>>> >>>>> obstruct and block the repeal vote. >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. >>>>>>>>>>> Have a great day, >>>>>>>>>>> Tommy >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>>>>>>> For options& help seehttp:// >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>> >>>>> * Visit our other community at >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... >>> >>> read more »- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >>> >> > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> * It's active > and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the > latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
