Interesting: Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
ART. 125. SODOMY Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court- martial may direct On Dec 20, 1:21 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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, > > ... > > 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/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
