20 Oct 10
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?
20 Oct 10
Originally posted by generalissimoThis is not backpedaling. It's been the Obama administration's position to not repeal DADT pending more study since the beginning of his administration.
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]
20 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76Is study really necessary? I don't see why anyone would hesitate to repeal such an absurd and counter-productive policy.
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.
20 Oct 10
Originally posted by generalissimoThat'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.
Is study really necessary? I don't see why anyone would hesitate to repeal such an absurd and counter-productive policy.
20 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76Other 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.
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.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 27978
20 Oct 10
Originally posted by generalissimoThe 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?)
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.
20 Oct 10
Originally posted by generalissimoThis 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.
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]
20 Oct 10
Originally posted by TerrierJackI 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?
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?)
20 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76That wasn't his position on the campaign trail.
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.
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.
20 Oct 10
Originally posted by TerrierJackHouse,
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?)
255 dems
178 repubs
senate,
57 dems
41 repubs
So , explain how the Republicans are "obstructing" anything.
20 Oct 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe House already passed repeal of DADT.
House,
255 dems
178 repubs
senate,
57 dems
41 repubs
So , explain how the Republicans are "obstructing" anything.
The Senate Republicans filibustered it (stopping a filibuster requires 60 votes).
Any other questions?
21 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThat 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.
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