Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 20 Oct '10 18:08
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11589638
    Obama administration seeks gay military ruling stay
    "The White House has asked a US appeals court to suspend a judge's decision permitting gays to serve openly in the military, while it appeals against it.

    The military began accepting gay recruits this week after a judge struck down the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring openly gay people from serving.

    The US defence department had warned gay recruits that an appeal could come."


    "The Obama administration says it wants the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco to grant an emergency stay while the government prepares its appeal against the ruling by the California judge.

    President Barack Obama has said he supports getting rid of the policy, but his administration believes that overturning it immediately could cause problems for the military."

    ....

    any thoughts?
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    20 Oct '10 18:10
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11589638
    [b]Obama administration seeks gay military ruling stay

    "The White House has asked a US appeals court to suspend a judge's decision permitting gays to serve openly in the military, while it appeals against it.

    The military began accepting gay recruits this week after a judge struck down the ...[text shortened]... rning it immediately could cause problems for the military."

    ....

    any thoughts?[/b]
    This is not backpedaling. It's been the Obama administration's position to not repeal DADT pending more study since the beginning of his administration.
  3. 20 Oct '10 18:15
    Originally posted by sh76
    This is not backpedaling. It's been the Obama administration's position to not repeal DADT pending more study since the beginning of his administration.
    Is study really necessary? I don't see why anyone would hesitate to repeal such an absurd and counter-productive policy.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    20 Oct '10 18:23
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Is study really necessary? I don't see why anyone would hesitate to repeal such an absurd and counter-productive policy.
    That's because you have the luxury of being an armchair strategist. If you were responsible for actually running a military organization with millions of members and a complex hierarchy, you might have to take factors into account other than merely what seems to you to be absurd and counterproductive.
  5. 20 Oct '10 18:25
    Originally posted by sh76
    That's because you have the luxury of being an armchair strategist. If you were responsible for actually running a military organization with millions of members and a complex hierarchy, you might have to take factors into account other than merely what seems to you to be absurd and counterproductive.
    Other countries don't seem to have a problem with allowing openly gay people in their armed forces, though I am indeed an armchair strategist my opinion is shared by many who do have this responsibility you're referring to.
  6. 20 Oct '10 18:29
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Other countries don't seem to have a problem with allowing openly gay people in their armed forces, though I am indeed an armchair strategist my opinion is shared by many who do have this responsibility you're referring to.
    The administration excuse is that since DADT was implemented by Congress they want Congress to repeal it. Whether that is possible with an entirely obstructionist Republican Party is another question. (Would someone please tell me again why a civil libertarian would waste their time in the Republican Party, again?)
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    20 Oct '10 18:32
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11589638
    [b]Obama administration seeks gay military ruling stay

    "The White House has asked a US appeals court to suspend a judge's decision permitting gays to serve openly in the military, while it appeals against it.

    The military began accepting gay recruits this week after a judge struck down the ...[text shortened]... rning it immediately could cause problems for the military."

    ....

    any thoughts?[/b]
    This change needs to happen under controlled circumstances. This judge is moving too fast, too dramatically. For the safety of the troops this needs to be done very carefully with careful planning and analysis at each step, including the impact on the hearts and minds of homophobes in the Muslim world.
  8. 20 Oct '10 18:50
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    The administration excuse is that since DADT was implemented by Congress they want Congress to repeal it. Whether that is possible with an entirely obstructionist Republican Party is another question. (Would someone please tell me again why a civil libertarian would waste their time in the Republican Party, again?)
    I think to leave it at the mercy of the partisanship of the US Congress would be to eliminate any realistic chance of getting it repealed any time soon. wouldn't you agree with me on this?
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    20 Oct '10 23:01
    Originally posted by sh76
    This is not backpedaling. It's been the Obama administration's position to not repeal DADT pending more study since the beginning of his administration.
    That wasn't his position on the campaign trail.

    It's been 18 years since the country first elected a President that promised to do away with the military's invidious discrimination against gays; surely the military has had time enough to figure out how to implement a nondiscriminatory policy. Maybe they could ask Israel or the many other countries which have no such discriminatory policy how to do it.
  10. 20 Oct '10 23:21
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    The administration excuse is that since DADT was implemented by Congress they want Congress to repeal it. Whether that is possible with an entirely obstructionist Republican Party is another question. (Would someone please tell me again why a civil libertarian would waste their time in the Republican Party, again?)
    House,

    255 dems
    178 repubs

    senate,

    57 dems
    41 repubs

    So , explain how the Republicans are "obstructing" anything.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    20 Oct '10 23:24
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    House,

    255 dems
    178 repubs

    senate,

    57 dems
    41 repubs

    So , explain how the Republicans are "obstructing" anything.
    The House already passed repeal of DADT.

    The Senate Republicans filibustered it (stopping a filibuster requires 60 votes).

    Any other questions?
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    21 Oct '10 00:18
    Unfortunately, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit has allowed the military to reinstate the policy pending that court's determination of whether a stay of the lower court's ruling should be granted pending a (yet unfiled) appeal. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39768949/ns/us_news
  13. 21 Oct '10 00:39
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The House already passed repeal of DADT.

    The Senate Republicans filibustered it (stopping a filibuster requires 60 votes).

    Any other questions?
    Are you referring to the defense spending bill?
    Which included "dadt" and the "dream act"?
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    21 Oct '10 01:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Are you referring to the defense spending bill?
    Which included "dadt" and the "dream act"?
    We know the Republican Party line, but it hardly supports your assertion that the Republicans can't "obstruct" anything.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 Oct '10 01:21 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Unfortunately, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit has allowed the military to reinstate the policy pending that court's determination of whether a stay of the lower court's ruling should be granted pending a (yet unfiled) appeal. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39768949/ns/us_news
    That makes perfect sense. Whether you want DADT repealed or not (and I would), one federal judge should not have the authority to dictate policy without the ability to appeal. Staying enforcement pending review by the Circuit makes perfect sense. Otherwise any federal judge could essentially do anything and force the government to comply. What if some yahoo federal judge in Alabama strikes down Obamacare? Should the entire bill be shelved until the 11th Circuit gets around to reviewing it? Then what happens if some judge in Mississippi does the same thing as the 11th circuit case is winding down? etc.