Military Continues to Discharge Gay Linguists

[LukenDC]

I find it appalling that the military continues to discharge Arabic linguists simply because they are gay or lesbian. We are desperate for Arabic speakers and involved in a war with Islamic extremists, yet the military is more concerned with someone's sexual orientation than saving lives through rapid translation of terrorist texts and transmissions.

I have always opposed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and believe that gay men and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military. In prior years, we have lost an Army Soldier of the Year, fighter pilots, and numerous officers to this bigoted and ridiculous policy. Now we are losing our few Arabic linguists. How many American lives, both in and out of uniform, have we lost due to a shortage of skilled linguists?

The article below concerns the latest discharge of a gay Arabic linguist, but there have been several others over the past two years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513/

 

[NewJersey]

I find it really absurd too. Why should it matter if a soldier fighting on the front lines is gay or lesbian. What is Rummy embarassed he has a gay man protect him?

As for linguists who speak Arabic, I would think the military would take all they could get (who could perform their job effectively, that is).

It should be based on merit and performance (among other things), not on someone's personal life.

This is one of the few things I disagreed with Clinton on.

 

[TCPluto]

I find it appalling that the military continues to discharge Arabic linguists simply because they are gay or lesbian.

This talks about one linguist's dismissal ,what makes it continuing?

Having principles, and sticking to them, can sometimes be difficult. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't.

 

[TCPluto]

What is Rummy embarassed he has a gay man protect him?

As a policy instituted by Clinton, where does Rumsfeld come into this?

 

[cardaway]

As a policy instituted by Clinton, where does Rumsfeld come into this?

Nice try. The policy of dismissing gays from the military was in place long before Clinton was in office.

 

[RickinNYC]

This talks about one linguist's dismissal ,what makes it continuing?

Having principles, and sticking to them, can sometimes be difficult. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't.

In your self perceived knowledge of the military's principles, please enlighten us as to how being gay or lesbian can effect one's ability to serve in the military.

 

[TCPluto]

In your self perceived knowledge of the military's principles, please enlighten us as to how being gay or lesbian can effect one's ability to serve in the military.

It really has nothing to do with what I think. It's a military regulation.

You can't pick and choose which policy or rule of law you would like to ignore. To uphold the policy, in the face of apparent or perceived need, takes a great deal of principle.

 

[RickinNYC]

It really has nothing to do with what I think. It's a military regulation.

You can't pick and choose which policy or rule of law you would like to ignore. To uphold the policy, in the face of apparent or perceived need, takes a great deal of principle.

Oh my God, that is such a cop out answer.

Military regulations, like any other laws, get changed all the time when it is realized that the law is completely idiotic. Women's right to vote? Prohibition? Interracial marriage? Women's right to choose?

Because it seems you are well versed in military policy, please enlighten us as to how this particular law was created and why it is still enforced.

 

[NewJersey]

Oh my God, that is such a cop out answer.

Military regulations, like any other laws, get changed all the time when it is realized that the law is completely idiotic. Women's right to vote? Prohibition? Interracial marriage? Women's right to choose?

Because it seems you are well versed in military policy, please enlighten us as to how this particular law was created and why it is still enforced.

Rick,
You took the words out of my mouth.

As a policy instituted by Clinton, where does Rumsfeld come into this?

Hence the " " it was meant to be a joke. But this has been in place, like caradaway, said for many years before Clinton.

It seems Britain is now actively recruiting gays and lesbians to join the Royal Navy, since they stopped banning gays and lesbians from joining the military back in 1999. Wow, are we behind or what?

http://www.gaypasg.org/Gaypasg/Pres...by Royal Navy- A Campaign to Recruit Gays.htm

 

[LK03]

My best friend in college was actually set up to attend the linguistics program in the ARMY and learn Arabic but then she learned she no longer preferred men but women. She would have been really great at it too, but alas her sexual prefrence deemed her inelegible.

 

[Uncle Remus]

...principles, who you kiddin'? This country continues its' discrimination of gays and lesbians in all areas because of stupidity and a deep religious desire to hate somebody.

 

[LukenDC]

This talks about one linguist's dismissal ,what makes it continuing?

Having principles, and sticking to them, can sometimes be difficult. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't.

There were at least seven Arabic linguists dismissed last year for homosexuality.

Sorry, bigotry is not an acceptable principle ever.

 

[jsmith]

wow-this is one touchy subject-homosexuality was considered to be a threat to good order and disipline-i believe the ban came into play earlier in the 20th century-because other soldiers are often homophobic. It is in fact a very very complicated issue-Clinton instituted the "Dont Ask Dont Tell" policy as a way of allowing gay soldiers to continue to serve-before it there were numerous "witch hunts" and good soldiers were discharged on SUSPISION of being homosexual-the change to the dont ask dont tell policy meant that the military could not question a soldiers sexual orientation and as long as they did not do anything to call attention to it-like participating in gay pride events or having an open and notorious affair in the barracks it would be treated like adultery-which can also get you discharged-meaning there had to be proof-like pictures or a sworn statement from one of the parties.
I didnt read the article-so i dont know the specific circumstances here-thats just an over view of how it is in the army today-or is supposed to be.
As for the lingusit-take the discharge-they will rehire him as a contractor at twice the money the day after he outprocesses-cause thats how it works.

 

[LukenDC]

You can't pick and choose which policy or rule of law you would like to ignore. To uphold the policy, in the face of apparent or perceived need, takes a great deal of principle.

I suppose that it would take a great deal of principle not to leave a crosswalk and illegally jay-walk if a huge truck was barrelling at me. After all, the law is the law.

From your posting, it sounds like adhering to "principle" and discharging a homosexual is much more important than having that person provide life-saving translation to our military forces under fire. That is not "principled," that's asinine.

 

[mickeyfan2]

I find it appalling that the military continues to discharge Arabic linguists simply because they are gay or lesbian. We are desperate for Arabic speakers and involved in a war with Islamic extremists, yet the military is more concerned with someone's sexual orientation than saving lives through rapid translation of terrorist texts and transmissions.

We so need their skills!!

 

[NewJersey]

That is not "principled," that's asinine.

Luke,



I wish I could make that into a T-shirt!!

 

[mickeyfan2]

In your self perceived knowledge of the military's principles, please enlighten us as to how being gay or lesbian can effect one's ability to serve in the military.

It doesn't.

 

[TCPluto]

Oh my God, that is such a cop out answer.

Military regulations, like any other laws, get changed all the time when it is realized that the law is completely idiotic. Women's right to vote? Prohibition? Interracial marriage? Women's right to choose?

Because it seems you are well versed in military policy, please enlighten us as to how this particular law was created and why it is still enforced.

It seems you may be a bit to close to the issue.... How well versed are you in military policy?

Since this has been a regulation well, forever, and became a "don't ask, don't tell" policy under Clinton, it's not new.

I strongly suspect that those in charge have seen the detriment it can cause in the military, so I would defer to them.

While I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, this sems like an issue better left to those who actually do know.

 

[TCPluto]

I suppose that it would take a great deal of principle not to leave a crosswalk and illegally jay-walk if a huge truck was barrelling at me. After all, the law is the law.

From your posting, it sounds like adhering to "principle" and discharging a homosexual is much more important than having that person provide life-saving translation to our military forces under fire. That is not "principled," that's asinine.

Instead of taking every printed word for gospel and a recitation of the enitre story, I would defer to the Paul Harvey principle and believe that there is more to the story/incident.

After all, the military didn't release this story, the discharged soldier did. Could he have left out key points that make this more damaging to his position as just a poor linguist trying to do his job? I think it's quite possible...

Not considering that there may be more to this story is asinine, in my opinion. But certainly not cause for outrage....

 

[eclectics]

While we pretended, briefly, in the 1920's and '60's to be socially progressive, we are not, never were, and probably never will be the world's front runner in embracing social change. This country is too deeply rooted in religious beliefs to ever be that. We crawl along at our own pace and grudgingly accept things slowly. Will Gays ever serve openly in the military? Yes, I'm sure they will. Gonna take some more time though. In the meantime sadly, it's the military's loss.