 |
| |
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:23
|
|
From this morning's AP, via Salon:
quote:
Army dismisses gay Arabic linguists
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By MARGIE MASON
Nov. 14, 2002 | SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Nine Army linguists, including six trained to speak Arabic, have been dismissed from the military because they are gay.
The soldiers' dismissals come at a time when the military is facing a critical shortage of translators and interpreters for the war on terrorism.
Seven of the soldiers were discharged after telling superiors they are gay, and the two others got in trouble when they were caught together after curfew, said Steve Ralls, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that defends homosexuals in the military.
Six were specializing in Arabic, two were studying Korean and one was studying Mandarin Chinese. All were at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, the military's primary language training center.
The government has aggressively recruited Arabic speakers since the Sept. 11 attacks.
"We face a drastic shortage of linguists, and the direct impact of Arabic speakers is a particular problem," said Donald R. Hamilton, who documented the need for more linguists in a report to Congress as part of the National Commission on Terrorism.
One of the discharged linguists said the military's policy on gays is hurting its cause.
"It's not a gay-rights issue. I'm arguing military proficiency issues -- they're throwing out good, quality people," said Alastair Gamble, a former Army specialist.
Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe in Tidewater, Va., confirmed the dismissals occurred between October 2001 and September 2002, but declined to comment further on the cases.
He said 516 linguists enrolled in the Arabic course this year at the Monterey institute and 365 graduated.
The military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy allows gays to serve provided they keep quiet about their sexual orientation.
Gamble and former Pfc. Robert Hicks were discovered in Gamble's room during a surprise inspection in April, Gamble said.
After their discharges, Gamble and Hicks applied for other federal jobs where they could use their language skills in the war on terrorism, but neither was hired, Gamble said. |
Every day, in every way, the War on Terror is just a little harder to take seriously. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
I don't make the policy. 
It's not specifically "gay people" - there's a whole range of heterosexual sexual issues, and other conduct issues, that can get you bounced. That includes marriage in some cases (senior and subordinate within the same command is one I can think of - I know an ex-Navy JAG lawyer couple who had that come up, and they both left the Navy early).
The general idea is that any conduct which causes or is likely to cause unit cohesion issues can be prohibited. Sometimes the policy is BS, sometimes chickenshit gets allowed in other forms. Then again, there's a bunch of gay court martial cases with clearly inappropriate conduct in a military setting - some of them would be pretty hilarious. One of the funniest I heard about was a Navy chief petty officer in San Diego, who invited young enlisted guys (3-4 grades lower in rank) out for beers, pool, etc., had them meet him at his apartment, and then greeted them in drag and came on to them. Apparently his gaydar was a bit defective. 
My point is that these people knew what the policy was when they joined, and they knew that telling their commanders they were gay was going to get them adminned out.
BTW, civil rights (legally recognized or otherwise) are standarly subordinated to the military mission - this includes free speech, political and religious rights, not just "gay rights." The military ain't the place for it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
Yeah, SpencerH - Why would an open homosexual be any riskier for security clearance than anyone else?
MtG:
You're essentially saying it's okay to ban gays because it 1) makes some others uncomfortable to be around gays and 2) gays would somehow be more likely to indulge in inappropriate contact and there would be a huge upsurge in sexual couplings in the military.
1) is meaningless, as if someone has a problem with a group of people, that is THEIR problem, not the group's. Homophobes shouldn't be accomodated. If this were a valid reason, then blacks would never have been integrated into the army. Basing the rules on type of person rather than actions is wrong.
2) is prejudiced, as it makes an assumption that gay men are more sex-crazed than normal people, which they are not. Under this logic, women would still be excluded. There are plenty of incidents of men and woman having inappropriate contact, and the solution is to handle the cases individually, not ban all women. The same should be done for gays.
All of the armies that have integrated homosexuals have not had any serious problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Amadan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by red_jon
Well what if they didn't let black people into the military? Of course there'd be uproar then.
There's not even the 'they'll be destracted when fighting' excuse (bollocks that it is) - these people were simply linguists. |
That was the one thing that got me with C. Powell when he was talking about all the reasons gays should not be allowed to serve. Substitute the word 'black' for 'gay' and you get the exact same arguments that would have been used to keep him out of the military not that long ago.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Amadan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
Even if the army allowed gays, they have no hope of any high level security clearance now that their preference is out in open. Therefore there's no point in continuing their education. |
The only reason gays are a security risk is that we can be discharged for that reason. If someone were to find out an individual in a sensitive position was gay, they would have blackmail material. Remove the threat of discharge for being gay, you remove the risk of blackmail.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-11-2002 12:09
|