NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't Ask, Who Cares
by Bob Barr
special to The Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 9:00 AM

Last week's forum of 10 Republican presidential hopefuls offered the country some troubling insight into the thinking of leading GOP candidates. In particular, the five who responded to questions about the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" policy governing military service by gays and lesbians showed a disturbing move away from conservative principles, in favor of what smells strongly of political expediency or timidity.

As a conservative Republican member of Congress from 1995 to 2003, I was hardly a card-carrying member of the gay-rights lobby. I opposed then, and continue to oppose, same-sex marriage, or the designation of gays as a constitutionally protected minority class. Service in the armed forces is another matter. The bottom line here is that, with nearly a decade and a half of the hybrid "don't ask, don't tell" policy to guide us, I have become deeply impressed with the growing weight of credible military opinion which concludes that allowing gays to serve openly in the military does not pose insurmountable problems for the good order and discipline of the services.

Asked about reconsideration of the don't ask, don't tell policy in favor of a more open and honest approach, the simplistic responses by several Republican presidential candidates left me -- and I suspect many others -- questioning whether those candidates really even understood the issue, or were simply pandering to the perceived "conservative base." The fact is, equal treatment of gay and lesbian service members is about as conservative a position as one cares to articulate.

Why? First, true conservative political philosophy respects the principles of individual freedom and personal privacy, particularly when it comes to what people do in private. The invasive investigations required to discharge a service member are an unconscionable intrusion into the private lives of American citizens. Worse, while supporters of don't ask, don't tell claim the policy only regulates behavior and not identity, the distinction is disingenuous. A service member could be discharged for being overheard remarking that, "I can stay later today since my partner will be taking the dog for a walk."

Second, and on a more practical level, the ban on gays openly serving in our armed forces is hurting a military that is stretched thin, putting further strain on an institution conservatives claim to love. The U.S. has fired over 11,000 people under the current policy, and in the process has lost over 1,000 service members with "mission-critical skills," including 58 Arabic linguists. Researchers at the UCLA School of Law have found that lifting the ban could increase the number of active-duty personnel by over 40,000.

Because the military can't fill its slots, it has lowered its standards, extended tours of duty and increased rotations, further hurting morale and readiness. Conservatives are supposed to favor meritocracy -- rewarding ability -- especially in the armed forces. Instead, the military is firing badly needed, capable troops simply because they're gay, and replacing them with a hodge podge that includes ex-cons, drug abusers and high-school dropouts.

Third, the gay ban wastes money. According to a Blue Ribbon Commission made up of academics and prominent defense leaders including former Defense Secretary William Perry, the gay ban has cost taxpayers over $360 million, and even this figure did not include many of the actual costs of rounding up gays and lesbians, firing them and training their replacements. The training of an Arabic linguist alone costs some $120,000; that of medical or aviation specialists can cost up to a quarter million dollars.

For all these reasons, many conservatives and other former supporters of the policy have concluded it's time to change. In March, former Republican senator and Army veteran Alan Simpson announced he no longer supported policy of don't ask, don't tell, and believed it was crucial to lift the ban, which in his view has become "a serious detriment to the readiness of America's forces." A handful of other Republicans have signed onto the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal the current ban on openly gay troops. In January, Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, became the highest ranking military official to call for repeal, joining a growing chorus of (mostly retired) military brass to oppose the policy.

Attitudes both within and outside the military have shifted greatly since 1993 when the current policy was formulated. Three-quarters of returning Iraq and Afghanistan vets said in a December 2006 Zogby poll that they are "personally comfortable" interacting with gay people. A majority of those who knew someone gay in their unit said the person's presence had no negative impact on unit morale. Among the public at large, polls show consistently that roughly two- thirds of Americans favor letting gays serve, including majorities of Republicans, regular churchgoers and even people with negative attitudes toward gays.

These reasons, and the credibility of many experts making the arguments, have convinced me that there is little reason left to believe gays openly serving would break the armed forces. Americans want strong, moral leadership, and they are quick to sniff out pandering and expediency. It sure would be nice if the presidential wannabes were as quick to realize this.

Mr. Barr is a former Republican Congressman from Georgia.

###

I'd hardly call that standing up for gay rights. He prefaces his remarks about gay service in the military with remarks that he doesn't support other areas of the gay rights movement.

If anything it just sounds pragmatic, along the lines of - 'Hmm... we seem to be low on grunts.'

I'd hardly call that standing up for gay rights. He prefaces his remarks about gay service in the military with remarks that he doesn't support other areas of the gay rights movement.

If anything it just sounds pragmatic, along the lines of - 'Hmm... we seem to be low on grunts.'

These are ideas that aren't even too hot on some members of the LGBT movement.

I'm bi, for example.

I'd hardly call that standing up for gay rights. He prefaces his remarks about gay service in the military with remarks that he doesn't support other areas of the gay rights movement.

If anything it just sounds pragmatic, along the lines of - 'Hmm... we seem to be low on grunts.'

True enough...but that doesn't mean that he's wrong when he says that "don't ask, don't tell" should be done away with.

It simply makes his motives somewhat reprehensible...like a fart in a closed room. :p

"Fight and die for our wars? Yeah, sure why not. Be afforded the same rights and be protected from discrimination? Now you're going too far..."

Color me unimpressed.

True enough...but that doesn't mean that he's wrong when he says that "don't ask, don't tell" should be done away with.

It simply makes his motives somewhat reprehensible...like a fart in a closed room. :p

Bob Barr opposes the war in Iraq.

Additionally, how is wanting to recruit more troops for the army reprehensible?

Additionally, how is wanting to recruit more troops for the army reprehensible?
Maybe because the US Army is a bloated piece of incompetent, outdated shit?

Maybe because the US Army is a bloated piece of incompetent, outdated shit?

Please prove the above statement.

Additionally, how is wanting to recruit more troops for the army reprehensible?

I'll tell you.

"Fight and die for our wars? Yeah, sure why not. Be afforded the same rights and be protected from discrimination? Now you're going too far..."

That's why.

Actually.

Adding gays into the constitution as a "specially protected class" is stupid. Just as hate crime laws are stupid, and for the same reason.

True enough...but that doesn't mean that he's wrong when he says that "don't ask, don't tell" should be done away with.

It simply makes his motives somewhat reprehensible...like a fart in a closed room. :pWhoops, I meant to add to my last post - 'I guess you have to work with what you've got though.'

To be fair, his first reason is perfectly fine. It's the second and third that stink.

These are ideas that aren't even too hot on some members of the LGBT movement.Really? Why don't you support such measures?

Really? Why don't you support such measures?

Because I'm an idiot completely brainwashed by the Republicans, why else did you think? :D

Please prove the above statement.

I can't "prove" an opinion, but I'm of the frame of mind that the time for large standing armies has passed. What we need is a small highly trained force capable of responding quickly and efficiently to specific terrorist threats.

I can't "prove" an opinion, but I'm of the frame of mind that the time for large standing armies has passed. What we need is a small highly trained force capable of responding quickly and efficiently to specific terrorist threats.

What is this opinion backed by?

Is there a lack of enemy armies or 'really-big-terrorist groups' to smack with B52's?

Also cute and relevant picture:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/a-10-142524.jpg

The world needs more of these.

As such, the Pentagon needs more cash.

Donate generously!

What is this opinion backed by?

Is there a lack of enemy armies or 'really-big-terrorist groups' to smack with B52's?
My opinion is backed by the consistent failure of the large armies of the Soviet Union and United States to achieve objectives in the last half-century and to function at any level approaching what could be described as effective.

Oh, and yes, there is a lack of enemy armies.
Only Russia and China come close to our military power. Russia is an ally, China is a trading partner and both are far too pragmatic to confront the United States in any direst manner.

Also, I didn't say anything about the air-force and/or navy, and in any case I'm not a big fan of "smacking" groups with B52 as that tends to involve "smacking" civilian populated areas.

My opinion is backed by the consistent failure of the large armies of the Soviet Union and United States to achieve objectives in the last half-century.

Really? Damansky Island ring a bell? Korea ring a bell?


Only Russia and China come close to our military power.

So you acknowledge that the US military is capable of fending off any military threat to the US coming from an organized military? Great! Then it should be kept that way.

What is this opinion backed by?

Is there a lack of enemy armies or 'really-big-terrorist groups' to smack with B52's?

Why is it that the Pentagon had to extend soldier tours in order to get the necessary manpower in Iraq, that Humvees have no armor, that national guards got sent to Iraq, why is it that the US cannot handle Iraq when you spend so much on your military? I think that proves the point.

Why is it that the Pentagon had to extend soldier tours in order to get the necessary manpower in Iraq, that Humvees have no armor, that national guards got sent to Iraq, why is it that the US cannot handle Iraq when you spend so much on your military? I think that proves the point.

Humvees are not armored vehicles.

Further, the war in Iraq is not over yet, ergo it is not yet lost.

Third the National Guard is part of America's defense forces.

Fourth, I am unfortunately not American.

Fifth, you're right. America needs a bigger defense budget.

Being "protected" by hate crime laws =/= equal rights.

Wow...

...damning with faint praise somewhat. I hardly see that as 'Standing Up For Gays', really. More a sort of 'Those faggots shouldn't get married or have equal rights, but hey, it's fine if they can die for their country!"

Outstanding...

Fifth, you're right. America needs a bigger defense budget.
:eek:
We already spend more than the entire rest of the God-damned world.

:eek:
We already spend more than the entire rest of the God-damned world.

And clearly it is not enough.

You should be spending money on your own military, not on Israel's or Egypt's.

Humvees are not armored vehicles.

I am sure the guy who just had his hit with an RPG or IED wished it was.

Further, the war in Iraq is not over yet, ergo it is not yet lost.
Do you see an optimistic view of how it will end, I certainly don't, I think the results thus far indicate substantial tactical and strategic defeat for the US.

Third the National Guard is part of America's defense forces.
You have to be pretty desperate to be sending homeland defense units to a foreign campaign.

Fifth, you're right. America needs a bigger defense budget.
If the US military can't succeed with it's current budget I fear for it. It needs reforms to prevent duplication of effort and resources, waste and other errors of incompetence or oversight, millions are lost in this manner.

Moreover the failure of the US military to develop substantial anti-guerrilla tactics that work, even after Vietnam, proves a failure in of itself. Instead the same mistakes as the French Algeria are being made by the US, the 'gated communities' approach for one, that does not work.

And clearly it is not enough.

You should be spending money on your own military, not on Israel's or Egypt's.
We should be spending money on not having one of the worst infant mortality rates in the developed world. We should be spending money addressing the fact that the world's richest nation manages to have tens of millions of people without health-care.

How is would spending more money on the military help anything? All we've done with it since we failed to disarm after WWII due understandably to the perceived threat of the USSR is fuck the world up.

And clearly it is not enough.

You should be spending money on your own military, not on Israel's or Egypt's.

No, the point is, military problems cannot be solved simply by throwing more money at them. The US military needs to innovate to changing situations.

I am sure the guy who just had his hit with an RPG or IED wished it was.


You can't decently expect what are basicalyl jeeps to be defended on the level of IFVs. Anyway the US is replacing them with Strykers/

Do you see an optimistic view of how it will end, I certainly don't, I think the results thus far indicate substantial tactical and strategic defeat for the US.

Tactically, the US is inflicting huge casualties on the insurgents. Far more insurgents are being killed then American soldiers. Strategically, it ain't over yet.


You have to be pretty desperate to be sending homeland defense units to a foreign campaign.

Was the US desperate in Desert Storm? The National Guard was there.
Was the Us desperate in WWI? The National Guard was there.
Was the US desperate in Somalia, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo? The National Guard was there.

If the US military can't succeed with it's current budget I fear for it. It needs reforms to prevent duplication of effort and resources, waste and other errors of incompetence or oversight, millions are lost in this manner.

It needs more guns, more tanks, more technology.
It needs orbiting combat sattelites, it needs viable EMP weapons and field nonlethals, it needs robotic ground combat vehicles and powered armor (all in developement IRL).

Tactically, the US is inflicting huge casualties on the insurgents. Far more insurgents are being killed then American soldiers. Strategically, it ain't over yet.

Politically and morally it is.

Politically and morally it is.

It's only over when Congress makes the decision to get out.

And it appears they don't have the public support for that yet.

Fifth, you're right. America needs a bigger defense budget.

Less bloat and stupid. Bigger budget is essentially throwing money at a fundamental problem, like a burning building, and hoping it'll go away.

Or maybe it should spend 70% of it's budget on the military hmm? I'll be laughing when it collapses.

And orbital weapons are banned according to a treaty the US itself drew up.

Less bloat and stupid. Bigger budget is essentially throwing money at a fundamental problem, like a burning building, and hoping it'll go away.

Developing new technologies cost money. Implementing them costs even more money. Want a high-tech military? Cough up.

Developing new technologies cost money. Implementing them costs even more money. Want a high-tech military? Cough up.

There are plenty of things I want a lot more.

There are plenty of things I want a lot more.

I thought you were saying te US military had to be improved?

Or are you just after defunding it?

erm, Bob Barr is not a former senator. He's a former congressman from Georgia.

erm, Bob Barr is not a former senator. He's a former congressman from Georgia.

Meh. Do I look like an American to you?

Developing new technologies cost money. Implementing them costs even more money. Want a high-tech military? Cough up.

What part of "less stupid" don't you get?

The US has been developing it's technologies and army primarily for massive army on army combat. And it's using them for anti-guerrilla warfare, which it sucks at.

Maybe that strikes you as, oh I don't know, maybe, just a teeny, weeny, bit, stupid?

Or are you the kind to ram a round peg into a square hole with so much force that it breaks and say it works?

I don't see how the various techologies which I mentioned are bad for guerilla combat. If anything, they're perfect for it.

I don't see how the various techologies which I mentioned are bad for guerilla combat. If anything, they're perfect for it.

More guns, tanks, orbital weapons and EMP weapons are useless in guerrilla warfare. Especially in urban combat situations.

Guns and tanks don't particularly solve anything when the one directing them has the strategic capabilities of a snot nosed 4 year old Texan.

Orbital weapons are likely to be highly damaging in a wide radius. Nothing conventional missile silos and airstrikes can accomplish. Which, like airstrikes, are useless in urban guerrilla warfare unless you stop caring about civilian casualties. Which in that case, you're better off just flattening the entire city and killing the whole population. Which makes you a prime candidate for death row sentencing.

Directed EMP weapons might work against equally advanced foes, but when they use cheap but simple tricks, they're worthless.

You're basically representing the mindset of US defence industries. "It's useless for your current needs, but give us more money anyway"

More guns, tanks, orbital weapons and EMP weapons are useless in guerrilla warfare. Especially in urban combat situations.

Tanks are only useless in urban combat when they're not properly protected or used without conjunction with infantry. Systems like Trophy or Arena can defend tanks extremely effectively against RPG's for instance (as proven by Russia in Chechnya II).

Further, SWORD/TALON combatants, when improved, are capable of augmenting infantry resources in urban combat and already have faster reaction times and better target acquisition abilities then humans.

Orbital weapons are likely to be highly damaging in a wide radius.

First, this is incorrect. Orbital weapons can (and IIRC the USSR tested this) destroy invididual vehicles from orbit.

Second, they can be used to destroy training camps or facilities used to support and fund terror (remember there ARE still countries that support terror and which America sometiems fights).

Unlike aircraft, they cannot be shot down or intercepted by most nations' armed forces.


Directed EMP weapons might work against equally advanced foes, but when they use cheap but simple tricks, they're worthless.

They also work against insurgents who use, say, cell phones to communicate (q.v. Iraq or Chechnya II).

@Bob Barr: Hypocrisy much? Is there a good principle reason why gays should be allowed in the military, but not be afforded other rights such as marriage?

@Bob Barr: Hypocrisy much? Is there a good principle reason why gays should be allowed in the military, but not be afforded other rights such as marriage?

I personally think government shouldn't register gay marriages.

Or straight marriages.

IMO government should get out of marriage altogether.

ESPECIALLY FedGov.us.

@Bob Barr: Hypocrisy much? Is there a good principle reason why gays should be allowed in the military, but not be afforded other rights such as marriage?

Because they make him feel icky. That's about it.

Bob is actually a card-carrying Libertarian now. But the important thing is that he doesn't hold an elected office, so his opinion is worth exactly the same as anyone else's. I think he's reached the point where he might be a has-been in Georgia politics and he's just trying to keep his name in the papers. So, "Bob Sez..., Who Cares?" might have been a better title for the column.

Bob is actually a card-carrying Libertarian now. But the important thing is that he doesn't hold an elected office, so his opinion is worth exactly the same as anyone else's. I think he's reached the point where he might be a has-been in Georgia politics and he's just trying to keep his name in the papers. So, "Bob Sez..., Who Cares?" might have been a better title for the column.

Do you actually disagree with him?

Do you actually disagree with him?
Do I disagree that homosexuals should be encouraged to join the armed services? Or do I disagree that homosexuals should be allowed to enter into marriage?

I do agree on the first.

The second doesn't strike me as an awful thing, either. Hollywood celebrities have probably done more to damage marriage than a few homosexuals ever could.

Bob is actually a card-carrying Libertarian now. But the important thing is that he doesn't hold an elected office, so his opinion is worth exactly the same as anyone else's. I think he's reached the point where he might be a has-been in Georgia politics and he's just trying to keep his name in the papers. So, "Bob Sez..., Who Cares?" might have been a better title for the column.

I imagine he's trying to keep his hand in, stay relevant as much as he can. Not succeeding all that well, I'd imagine--too conservative for any liberal to vote for him, and he joined the ACLU, which made him a commie in the eyes of many conservatives.

It is a sad, sad day when saying, "I think the US government should be able to openly recruit gay people to die in Bush's Losing War" constitutes "standing up for gay rights."

Let's set our standards just a smidgen higher, shall we?

Tanks are only useless in urban combat when they're not properly protected or used without conjunction with infantry. Systems like Trophy or Arena can defend tanks extremely effectively against RPG's for instance (as proven by Russia in Chechnya II).

A current look at current Iraqi insurgency tactics are IEDs and buried mines with overloaded explosives. Both of them beat any existing defense system.


First, this is incorrect. Orbital weapons can (and IIRC the USSR tested this) destroy invididual vehicles from orbit.

Yeah, with what? Particle weapons? :rolleyes: And the comprehensive ban against orbital weapons remember?

Energy weapons are useless currently for orbit to surface ops due to dissipation. Orbital missiles are pointless when you already have air superiority. And orbit dropped kinetic energy warheads will blow a hell lot more than just a vehicle.


Second, they can be used to destroy training camps or facilities used to support and fund terror (remember there ARE still countries that support terror and which America sometiems fights).

Unlike aircraft, they cannot be shot down or intercepted by most nations' armed forces.

So much for the vaunted stealth bomber. Any nation capable of intercepting those most likely has surface to orbit kill weapons.


They also work against insurgents who use, say, cell phones to communicate (q.v. Iraq or Chechnya II).

Uh huh, and you've got a terrorist detector to go with that? Unless you're blanket spamming the area with EMP to block communications, it's worthless.

And jamming is cheaper anyway.

And orbit dropped kinetic energy warheads will blow a hell lot more than just a vehicle.


Actually they tested smaller-yield orbital kinetics that stop jeeps.



So much for the vaunted stealth bomber. Any nation capable of intercepting those most likely has surface to orbit kill weapons.


Serbia.


Uh huh, and you've got a terrorist detector to go with that? Unless you're blanket spamming the area with EMP to block communications, it's worthless.


I can see it now:

"Weire attacking the terrorist training camp/capital of terrorist sponsor nation. Drop an EMP bomb on it first, then bring in the tanks.

I see you conceded the point about tanks ,too.

A current look at current Iraqi insurgency tactics are IEDs and buried mines with overloaded explosives. Both of them beat any existing defense system.

Actually one can detect both mines and IEDs by sweeping for them, which is what the Russian army does. And RPG's are also used frequently.

And orbital weapons are banned according to a treaty the US itself drew up.

I'd bet money that if the U.S. and Russia don't already have weapons in space, they are both prepared to put weapons in space as soon as they know/suspect that the other has done so.

Neither nation is going to let some treaty stop them from preparing to exploit the latest strategic combat theatre.

I thought you were saying te US military had to be improved?

Or are you just after defunding it?

Both, as the two are not mutually exclusive. However, there are a great many things that are higher on my list of priorities.

I'd bet money that if the U.S. and Russia don't already have weapons in space, they are both prepared to put weapons in space as soon as they know/suspect that the other has done so.

Neither nation is going to let some treaty stop them from preparing to exploit the latest strategic combat theatre.

Space weapons are in developement by everybody with half-a-brain. Russia, US, China.

Further, current space treaties only limit nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz

Actually they tested smaller-yield orbital kinetics that stop jeeps.

You're going to have to provide proof of that. Your link on Almaz only showed orbit to orbit intercept.


Serbia.


The exception caused by complacency, not the rule, as Myrmi would like to point out.


I can see it now:

"Weire attacking the terrorist training camp/capital of terrorist sponsor nation. Drop an EMP bomb on it first, then bring in the tanks.


I'm talking about use of EMP weaponry in places like Baghdad you noodnik. Where the insurgency and non-insurgency occupy the same city.


I see you conceded the point about tanks ,too.

See point about landmines and overloaded charges. Come back when you have some reading comprehension.

ARENA systems are good against things like HEAT and maybe SABOT rounds. When you're talking about several 155mm artillery shells going off under a tank, it's about as useful as tissue paper.

You rely too much on technology to save you and forget how badly your strategies and tactics are geared towards this sort of conflict.

In other words, just the sort of people who populate the Pentagon.

"Strategy? Who needs strategy? We've got a $20 billion dollar bomber. It'll do everything for us"

Actually one can detect both mines and IEDs by sweeping for them, which is what the Russian army does. And RPG's are also used frequently.

US measures for minesweeping in urban zones must suck pretty bad then.

It is a sad, sad day when saying, "I think the US government should be able to openly recruit gay people to die in Bush's Losing War" constitutes "standing up for gay rights."

Let's set our standards just a smidgen higher, shall we?

I'd imagine there are some people who are saying "Whut? We ain't hangin' 'em no more. Whaddya want?"

Ah, the right to get killed for no good reason. The gay community must be overcome with joy at the mere thought.

US measures for minesweeping in urban zones must suck pretty bad then.

I believe they operate by counting around the blocks to determine where the mines are, and then marking them with a little smilie face.

I can't "prove" an opinion, but I'm of the frame of mind that the time for large standing armies has passed. What we need is a small highly trained force capable of responding quickly and efficiently to specific terrorist threats.

While allowing for effective counter-terrorism operations, it is absolutely vital, so long as nations remain sovereign and retain their own sovereign militaries, that the US maintain its military in condition to engage and fight a General War. Not maintaining such a force would be entirely imprudent and thoroughly unwise.

I'd imagine there are some people who are saying "Whut? We ain't hangin' 'em no more. Whaddya want?"

And ...? What's your point? We've had that conversation about three different times and about at least five different groups already this morning.

I'm glad Republicans (and I bet more than this burnout) are rethinking "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It's not a physical or major mental defect, and those whom happen to have non-traditional orientations provide invaluable military service. As Barry Goldwater once said, "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight."

I'm glad Republicans (and I bet more than this burnout) are rethinking "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It's not a physical or major mental defect, and those whom happen to have non-traditional orientations provide invaluable military service. As Barry Goldwater once said, "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight."

It's not even a minor physical or mental defect.

Don't Ask, Who Cares
by Bob Barr
*snip*

Mr. Barr is a former Republican Congressman from Georgia.

###

Former Congressman (not Senator) Barr is occasionally right. Here is a glimmer of decency when it comes to gays serving in the military. Now if he would stop being a bigot about other aspects of gay rights.

Actually.

Adding gays into the constitution as a "specially protected class" is stupid. Just as hate crime laws are stupid, and for the same reason.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

What do you mean by "[a]dding gays into the constitution as a 'specially protected class'"? Do you mean that the Equal Protection Clause ought not apply to homosexuals?

Hate crime laws are not stupid and I rather doubt you know what they are. Hate crime laws offer no "special protection" to any group. The same protection is offerred to a straight white male as to a black lesbian.

Being "protected" by hate crime laws =/= equal rights.

Being protected by hate crime laws is a necessary but not sufficient step towards equal rights.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

What do you mean by "[a]dding gays into the constitution as a 'specially protected class'"? Do you mean that the Equal Protection Clause ought not apply to homosexuals?

Oh come on TCT, do you actually expect people to understand what the constitution means? Isn't it sufficient to hear buzzwords on TV and apply them horrifically incorrectly?

I've got to agree with several points that were made before all the tangents began. The only "moral" or "ethical" argument made in the original article was the first one about privacy and autonomy; the points about DADT being a "waste of money" and depriving the military of qualified personnel who are subsequently replaced out of desperation with B stringers are pure, shrewd pragmatism. Moreover, his argument that 'a majority of the public and the military now support allowing gay people to serve, therefore allowing it would be moral leadership' is bullshit. It's following by opinion polls, which is easy, not leading by morals, which is hard. What's more, yeah-- 'I oppose legal marriage for gay people, but I support letting gay people fight and die for a country that denies them full and equal rights' is hypocritical crap. Why risk one's self for a government that refuses to confer equal dignity and citizenship? One could hope that they go ahead and lift the ban, allow (or even encourage) enlistment by openly gay people, and then in protest not one shows up until all the other forms of governmental discrimination are dealt with. If he wanted to say something principled or impressive, he should have said, simply, "I support full equality for gay/lesbian/bi/trans citizens" and meant it. The article he did submit was crassly opportunistic and smacked of watered-down heterosexism.

While allowing for effective counter-terrorism operations, it is absolutely vital, so long as nations remain sovereign and retain their own sovereign militaries, that the US maintain its military in condition to engage and fight a General War. Not maintaining such a force would be entirely imprudent and thoroughly unwise.

Who's going to attack us? Especially if we still have nukes.

It's ridiculous that people's sexual orientations are still regarded as a major "controversial issue" in 2007, and that people still think it's a valid debate question as to whether we should have equal rights to others based on something as shallow and meaningless as the gender we're attracted to. That's what's perverted.

I believe they operate by counting around the blocks to determine where the mines are, and then marking them with a little smilie face.

Considering that bombings are almost daily, I suspect it's somewhat less than effective.

Hate crime laws are not stupid and I rather doubt you know what they are. Hate crime laws offer no "special protection" to any group. The same protection is offerred to a straight white male as to a black lesbian.
.

Actually, they offer 'special protection' to a person who got attacked 'becase he was gay/jewish/white' then to a person who got attacked for the $5 in his pocket.

Actually, they offer 'special protection' to a person who got attacked 'becase he was gay/jewish/white' then to a person who got attacked for the $5 in his pocket.

How? Do they grant superpowers or something? Seems like both people still get attacked...

I got two paragraphs into the OP and realized the topic is wrong. The guy couldn't give two shits about gay rights. All he wants is to have more people to be able to throw at frivolous wars. He wouldn't even be saying gays should be able to be shot in pointless battles if he wasn't out of Congress.

Please prove the above statement.

With or without trying?

How? Do they grant superpowers or something? Seems like both people still get attacked...

Generally speaking however, hate crime laws enact a tougher punishment in the case of hate-motivated crime.

As a conservative Republican member of Congress from 1995 to 2003, I was hardly a card-carrying member of the gay-rights lobby. I opposed then, and continue to oppose, same-sex marriage,

Why? First, true conservative political philosophy respects the principles of individual freedom and personal privacy, particularly when it comes to what people do in private.

What's that?

And what was up with that shit about expediency considering why Bob wants gays in the military:

"We need to save money and boost recruits! Let's put some gays in uniform, but remember this is about standing up for their rights *wink wink*, and not a matter of expediency concerning our enormous screw ups."

Well, I guess it is nice to know that Bob thinks that gays should be free to serve a government that hates them.

How? Do they grant superpowers or something? Seems like both people still get attacked...
I don't imagine many crimes are committed in the name of brotherly love, do you?

So if I, as a white man, happen to call someone a ****** while beating him senseless, I'll get an extra few years tacked on to my sentence. On the other hand, if I, as a black man, just happen to call the guy I'm wailing away on a cracker, it's very unlikely any "hate" related charges will ever flow my way.

These laws do provide an extra measure of protection for certain segments of our population and they are tantamount to law that punishes incorrect thought.

I don't imagine many crimes are committed in the name of brotherly love, do you?

So if I, as a white man, happen to call someone a ****** while beating him senseless, I'll get an extra few years tacked on to my sentence. On the other hand, if I, as a black man, just happen to call the guy I'm wailing away on a cracker, it's very unlikely any "hate" related charges will ever flow my way.

These laws do provide an extra measure of protection for certain segments of our population and they are tantamount to law that punishes incorrect thought.
Plenty of Blacks are convicted of hate crimes. Mostly for assaulting homosexuals I think.
And really, if what you described is how you see hate crime you're either being disingenuous or after all your years alive on this earth you've failed to grasp the concept that the motivation for the crime is very important when considering sentencing.

These are ideas that aren't even too hot on some members of the LGBT movement.

I'm bi, for example.
Good to know. ;)

Good to know. ;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NNC0kIzM1Fo

Plenty of Blacks are convicted of hate crimes. Mostly for assaulting homosexuals I think.
And really, if what you described is how you see hate crime you're either being disingenuous or after all your years alive on this earth you've failed to grasp the concept that the motivation for the crime is very important when considering sentencing.
I don't know law well enough to disagree about motivation, but I believe that aggravating factors are already considered when sentencing. Why do we need to codify the sentence for a particular aggravating factor?

Hate crime legislation is so wrong for a couple of reasons. First, it introduces identity-group politics into law. That intrusion into territory where it doesn't belong sends a very clear and frightening message. Before the bar of justice, all are supposed to be equal. Not so when a hate-crime statute is in play. Now we get the message that some are just a bit more equal than others, so we need to punish their detractors and attackers just a little bit more. That's the first wrong that they do.

The second wrong is that hate crime legislation fragments the culture of law. Adopting laws like these are the same as telling our citizens that, depending on the politics of the moment, criminal transgressions against some groups are taken more seriously by society than identical depredations against different, 'less valuable' groups." Didn't we hear enough of that in the Jim Crow era? We don't need an echo of it now.

It comes down to this "Equal Justice for All" or not. I vote for equality and oppose hate crime legislation.

I don't know law well enough to disagree about motivation, but I believe that aggravating factors are already considered when sentencing. Why do we need to codify the sentence for a particular aggravating factor?

Hate crime legislation is so wrong for a couple of reasons. First, it introduces identity-group politics into law. That intrusion into territory where it doesn't belong sends a very clear and frightening message. Before the bar of justice, all are supposed to be equal. Not so when a hate-crime statute is in play. Now we get the message that some are just a bit more equal than others, so we need to punish their detractors and attackers just a little bit more. That's the first wrong that they do.

The second wrong is that hate crime legislation fragments the culture of law. Adopting laws like these are the same as telling our citizens that, depending on the politics of the moment, criminal transgressions against some groups are taken more seriously by society than identical depredations against different, 'less valuable' groups." Didn't we hear enough of that in the Jim Crow era? We don't need an echo of it now.

It comes down to this "Equal Justice for All" or not. I vote for equality and oppose hate crime legislation.
Dude, hate crimes apply to all crimes motivated by race, religion, sex, ethnicity and in most places sexual orientation.
They don't apply to specific groups.
If some holdover from the Black Panthers killed someone because he was white, he'd be convicted of a hate crime.

And clearly it is not enough.

You should be spending money on your own military, not on Israel's or Egypt's.

If we already spend more then the rest of the world yet apparently are inefectual then members of that "rest of the world" maybe we aught to look at how the money is spent rather then throwing good money after bad

Generally speaking however, hate crime laws enact a tougher punishment in the case of hate-motivated crime.

How is that any different from the difference between aggravated assault and assault? Or between premeditated murder and a crime of passion? The presence of hate as motivation is an aggravating factor just like any other, and it certainly can be and has been used in cases where the victims were white.

Dude, hate crimes apply to all crimes motivated by race, religion, sex, ethnicity and in most places sexual orientation.
They don't apply to specific groups.
If some holdover from the Black Panthers killed someone because he was white, he'd be convicted of a hate crime.

Or at least he could be charged under the hate crimes law.

Dude, hate crimes apply to all crimes motivated by race, religion, sex, ethnicity and in most places sexual orientation.
They don't apply to specific groups.
If some holdover from the Black Panthers killed someone because he was white, he'd be convicted of a hate crime.
Taking the law at face value is a naive approach. Let's see how it is applied in practice...

Do rapists get charged with a hate crime because they pick their victims based on gender? Of course, we know that doesn't happen.

How about back in in 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisha_Meili), when a gang of black and Hispanic youths went "wilding" in Central Park, raping and savagely beating a white jogger, was this considered a hate crime? No, because the youths also assaulted some Hispanics, so their punishment was not enhanced.

Last (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_068203436.html), there was recently another case in New York where a surveillance camera taped a mugger beating and robbing a 101-year-old New York woman, he was charged with a hate crime - presumably hatred of the elderly. His attack on a 51-year-old woman was not a hate crime.

HR 1592 does protect citizens by category, based on a 1994 act. Just that very fact rejects the idea that equal treatment is to be expected before the bar. In fact, it does more damage by complicating how a defendant should be charged with all of the various categories of protected groups.

Let's leave aggravating factors and motivation where it belongs -- in the sentencing phase and not create new categories of crimes as moral pork for constituents back home.

It comes down to this "Equal Justice for All" or not. I vote for equality and oppose hate crime legislation.

Myrmi...there never was any equal justice.

Let's leave aggravating factors and motivation where it belongs -- in the sentencing phase and not create new categories of crimes as moral pork for constituents back home.

absolute and total bullshit, and utterly against how the criminal justice system works. Intent and motivation are what transform manslaughter into murder, assault into aggrevated assault, posession into posession with intent to distribute, assault into attempted murder.

to say that aggravating factors and motivation belong in the sentincing phase is demonstrating sheet and total ignorance of how the legal system works, and the concept of prima facie elements. Intent and motivation are key elements in numerous crimes, and to say otherwise is pure inanity and complete ignorance of our judicial system.

And to say that we should protect certain identity-groups over certain others is to have a total disregard for due process and equal protection.

except that it isn't, and given what you have already said in this thread, I hardly think you are qualified to discuss matters of constitutional interpretation, given your already demonstrated ignorance of how our criminal justice system works.

absolute and total bullshit, and utterly against how the criminal justice system works. Intent and motivation are what transform manslaughter into murder, assault into aggrevated assault, posession into posession with intent to distribute, assault into attempted murder.

to say that aggravating factors and motivation belong in the sentincing phase is demonstrating sheet and total ignorance of how the legal system works, and the concept of prima facie elements. Intent and motivation are key elements in numerous crimes, and to say otherwise is pure inanity and complete ignorance of our judicial system.

And to say that we should protect certain identity-groups over certain others is to have a total disregard for due process and equal protection.

Dude, hate crimes apply to all crimes motivated by race, religion, sex, ethnicity and in most places sexual orientation.
They don't apply to specific groups.
If some holdover from the Black Panthers killed someone because he was white, he'd be convicted of a hate crime.

Thing is only crimes against minorities are usually punished under hate crime laws.

Also how the hell did this thread turn into a pissing match over military spending priorities?

Thing is only crimes against minorities are usually punished under hate crime laws.

According to the data received for racially-motivated single-bias incidents, there were 3,409 anti-black offenses committed; 2,346 of these were committed by known offenders. Of the 2,346 anti-black offenses where the offender was known, 1,981offenses involved white offenders. Of the 1,050 anti-white offenses, 888 offenses were committed by known offenders. Of these 888 offenses, 527 offenses involved black offenders. (See Table 5.)



2,000 known white offenders against blacks, 500 known black offenders against whites, 4:1 ratio.

yet the ratio of whites to blacks in america is closer to 7:1, making the number of noted hate crimes in 2000 disproportionatly black against white.

Gee, how about that....

Law enforcement agencies in 2000 reported a total of 7,530 known offenders were associated with the 8,063 incidents. By known offender's race, 64.4 percent were white, 18.7 percent were black

whoops, look at that, disproportionatly black, again....

Source (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0RFV/is_2000_Annual/ai_n7639628).

You were saying?

These are ideas that aren't even too hot on some members of the LGBT movement.

yeah, I'm gay and I won't participate in any gay rights group that protests don't ask don't tell. whining about being not allowed to be uncle sam's bitch is not my idea of striving for equality. demanding an equal right to participate in one of the largest abuses of human rights in the world is idiocy.

2,000 known white offenders against blacks, 500 known black offenders against whites, 4:1 ratio.

yet the ratio of whites to blacks in america is closer to 7:1, making the number of noted hate crimes in 2000 disproportionatly black against white.

Gee, how about that....



whoops, look at that, disproportionatly black, again....

Source (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0RFV/is_2000_Annual/ai_n7639628).

You were saying?


My you're good with selective quoting. From your article:

Within the offense type crimes against persons, intimidation was the most frequently reported offense; 73.5 percent of intimidation offenses with a known offender were committed by white offenders, and 11.2 percent were committed by black offenders. Additionally for intimidation offenses, race was unknown for 11.4 percent of the known offenders.

Note that the number of unknowns is higher than the number of blacks? Does that suggest to you that perhaps there's some underreporting going on? Also note this study only draws from reported incidents, reporting is optional and a great many agencies do not participate.

My you're good with selective quoting. From your article:



Note that the number of unknowns is higher than the number of blacks? Does that suggest to you that perhaps there's some underreporting going on? Also note this study only draws from reported incidents, reporting is optional and a great many agencies do not participate.

may I suggest you are the one who needs to learn how to read? In many hate crimes the race of the individual is not reported, because it's not a hate crime against someone due to their race. A black person is quite capable of comitting a crime against another black person, if one is straight and one is gay, for example.

As such, the race of many individuals who comitted hate crimes is not reported because race is irrelevant to the crime, and thus race need not be reported.

However, as I have noted in instances of hate crimes by race blacks are disproportionatly charged for hate crimes by blacks against whites for being white than whites are charged for hate crimes by whites against blacks for being black, and you will note, there is not really any area of unknown race in that statistic.

So I do suggest you read closer, and next time when you make an unsubstantiated claim and get beat, at least have the integrity to admit to it, rather than try to worm your way out of it.

You were wrong, you can just suck it up and admit it.

It's only over when Congress makes the decision to get out.

And it appears they don't have the public support for that yet.

Let me make this point really clear. I served for just over 22 years. Your arguments are rife with errors and just plain ingorance.

You assert that the US Military is not broke and simply needs to spend more money. You toss away the argument that the inclusion of the NG in overseas operations is NOT a sign of an overstretched US military.

You are wrong to do so. Starting in the Presidency of Ronald Reagan and continuing through the Presidency of GW Bush, active duty troop levels have been cut by extremely large numbers. Despite a continued willingness by this government to engage in foreign adventurism, troop levels have been on the decline in very real terms. Base closures and downsizing the military to Secretary Rumsfeld's idea of a leaner, more responsive force have gutted the manpower reserve of the active duty component. Ready reserves used to be sufficient to cover manpower shortfalls, they don't even come close now. THAT is why the Guard and components of the Guard are in Iraq and Afghanistan in increasing numbers (22% of the theater's frontline troops are Army NG). This has an ever increasing "push-pull" effect. For every Guard unit federalized, it reduces the Guard's capacity to fulfill it's primary mission, state disaster relief.

Before you start babbling at me and quoting manpower studies, understand we are operating on a standing ACTIVE DUTY component of less than 700,000. Before the Base Closure commission and troop drawdown, The US had a standing Army of 1.5 million and could handle three fronts without stressing the system and with a Ready Reserve component of 300 to 500K, could leave the NG to do it's primary mission.

Let's talk about recruiting numbers, I particularly love the number manipulation that is going on right now. In order to meet recruiting goals the Army did three things;

1. Reduced the quota numbers by a factor of three.

2. Lowered recruiting standards for admission to the Army.

3. Increased the enlistment age to 42.

Are you beginning to get an inkling here?

The Navy and Air Force have made recruiting standards even more stringent than before. The only manipulation they needed to do was to artificially reduce the quota.

____________________________________________________________

You mistake public support for political support.

Americans in general no longer support this deployment and the figures are not even CLOSE anymore. By 2/3 to 1/3 the American people consider this war a failure by most rational standards. By numbers over the 60% mark, they say this war was not worth the blood and treasure expended. These are not all liberal polls either, independents and moderate Republicans are in the same % range. Conservatives have inched over the 50% mark as NOT supporting the war anymore.

______________________________________________________________

Bob Barr, while being a reprehensible human being and an utter shit, is right. The US cannot continue to support a failed policy (DADT), it hurts the military and it hurts the US. I would not call his admission a clarion call for gay rights, but it sure as hell is a step in the right direction for LGBT service members.

Anytime we have the political right pushing things our way, it's a good thing. Their motives sure as hell aren't pure, but I'll take it. Every step away from institutionalized homophobia is a positive step. Remember, Bob Barr is in the EXTREME minority now on gay rights issues. The whole stinking pile has been pushed to the left for years and now we are seeing measured changes. They are beginning to realize that they are being left behind, and politicians HATE being left behind.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NNC0kIzM1Fo
Sweet, but I really hate that song. :p

Actually, they offer 'special protection' to a person who got attacked 'becase he was gay/jewish/white' then to a person who got attacked for the $5 in his pocket.

As already pointed out this is as silly as saying that first degree murder laws give special protection to some homicide victims or that aggravated assault should be treated the same as assault.

I don't imagine many crimes are committed in the name of brotherly love, do you?

Non sequitur based on a misunderstanding of what constitutes a hate crime. Hate crimes aren't all crimes, only those based on animus against certain types of people.

So if I, as a white man, happen to call someone a ****** while beating him senseless, I'll get an extra few years tacked on to my sentence. On the other hand, if I, as a black man, just happen to call the guy I'm wailing away on a cracker, it's very unlikely any "hate" related charges will ever flow my way.

Untrue. Both as a matter of how hate crime legislation is written and as a matter of how it is enforced. Check out some hate crime statistics and you'll see you are being silly.

These laws do provide an extra measure of protection for certain segments of our population and they are tantamount to law that punishes incorrect thought.

Certain segments of our population like all races, all genders, all religions ... yeah a very narrow group. :rolleyes:

And motive and intent have always been part of criminal law. Nothing about hate crimes laws change that. Moreover, HR 1592, which you complain about below, has a specific provision that says "evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense." So there can be no witch hunts based on a defendant's general beliefs.

I don't know law well enough to disagree about motivation, but I believe that aggravating factors are already considered when sentencing. Why do we need to codify the sentence for a particular aggravating factor?

This shows your ignorance about both hate crime laws and criminal law in general. The Federal Government uses Sentencing Guidelines to sentence criminals. These Guidelines codify all of the various sentence enhancements, including that for hate crimes.

Hate crime legislation is so wrong for a couple of reasons. First, it introduces identity-group politics into law. That intrusion into territory where it doesn't belong sends a very clear and frightening message. Before the bar of justice, all are supposed to be equal. Not so when a hate-crime statute is in play. Now we get the message that some are just a bit more equal than others, so we need to punish their detractors and attackers just a little bit more. That's the first wrong that they do.

All defendants are treated equally under hate crime laws.

What groups are more equal than others? White, Christian, straight males are given the same protection under hate crimes laws that black, wiccan, lesbians are given.

The second wrong is that hate crime legislation fragments the culture of law. Adopting laws like these are the same as telling our citizens that, depending on the politics of the moment, criminal transgressions against some groups are taken more seriously by society than identical depredations against different, 'less valuable' groups." Didn't we hear enough of that in the Jim Crow era? We don't need an echo of it now.

This is just a rewording of your first objection. For there to be a hate crime, the criminal transgression is NOT identical to a case where there is a hate crime. There is an extra motive or intent that makes the crime different.

Again, no one is saying some groups are less valuable -- except for those that think certain categories (like sexual orientation) shouldn't be protected.

It comes down to this "Equal Justice for All" or not. I vote for equality and oppose hate crime legislation.

Based purely on misunderstanding of criminal law, constitutional law, and hate crime laws.

Taking the law at face value is a naive approach. Let's see how it is applied in practice...

Yes. Let's do that. Check the FBI crime reports (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm) and you'll see that about 20% of all race-motivated hate crimes have white victims. Also about 20% of known hate crime offenders were black.

But more importantly you'll see that both victims and offenders come from every category of humanity.

Do rapists get charged with a hate crime because they pick their victims based on gender? Of course, we know that doesn't happen.

If you knew anything about the hate crime laws, you would know that they specifically have an exception for crimes where there is already an intent to victimize based on gender.

How about back in in 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisha_Meili), when a gang of black and Hispanic youths went "wilding" in Central Park, raping and savagely beating a white jogger, was this considered a hate crime? No, because the youths also assaulted some Hispanics, so their punishment was not enhanced.

Again, you show your ignorance. A crime isn't a hate crime merely because of a difference in the race of perpetrators and victim. There has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim.

Nothing in the article you cite indicates there was any evidence that would support a hate crime charge.

Last (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_068203436.html), there was recently another case in New York where a surveillance camera taped a mugger beating and robbing a 101-year-old New York woman, he was charged with a hate crime - presumably hatred of the elderly. His attack on a 51-year-old woman was not a hate crime.

Um. Again, nothing in this article says anything about hate crime. Where are you getting your "facts" from?

HR 1592 does protect citizens by category, based on a 1994 act. Just that very fact rejects the idea that equal treatment is to be expected before the bar. In fact, it does more damage by complicating how a defendant should be charged with all of the various categories of protected groups.

The categories are neither a violation of equal protection nor particularly complicated. They are actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim.


And to say that we should protect certain identity-groups over certain others is to have a total disregard for due process and equal protection.

Due process? You've said nothing related to that. How do hate crime laws violate due process?

And I've already discussed why hate crime laws do provide equal protection.

Thing is only crimes against minorities are usually punished under hate crime laws.

Utter bullshit. See the FBI crime reports (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm).

My you're good with selective quoting. From your article:

Note that the number of unknowns is higher than the number of blacks? Does that suggest to you that perhaps there's some underreporting going on? Also note this study only draws from reported incidents, reporting is optional and a great many agencies do not participate.

Nothing about underreporting justifies your assertion that "only crimes against minorities are usually punished under hate crime laws." To the contrary the evidence is that crimes against whites, males, Christians, etc., are punished as hate crimes.

Is there any evidence to support your assertion or were you just talking out of your ass?

Khadgar frequently talks of his/her ass. It is part of the unique charm that is Khadgar.

Too bad Khadgar couldn't find his/her ass with a flashlight and a map.

It is the essence of overblown pontificating reduced to criminally short, innacurate quotations.

yeah, I'm gay and I won't participate in any gay rights group that protests don't ask don't tell. whining about being not allowed to be uncle sam's bitch is not my idea of striving for equality. demanding an equal right to participate in one of the largest abuses of human rights in the world is idiocy.

Let me say this. I respect your position. I don't agree with it completely, but I respect it.

I am a fairly liberal gay man who served in the military. I see it this way.

It is an issue of access. You might not want or even agree that serving in the military is a good thing, but gays and lesbians should not be excluded from the ability to choose to join that institution. To allow exclusion from that institution without protest is criminally irresponsible and defeats the idea of complete equality. You may despise the military for the reasons you choose, but not all gays and lesbians agree with you on this subject.

As for the rest, I will leave it up to you to define what constitutes a human rights abuse. I hate this stupid little war, and the men who lied to get it started ought to be strung up by their toes after a nice public impeachment and conviction. That does not however, invalidate the military as an institution.