There are two stories to take from this CNN article, and this YouTube video:
The first is that Obama’s going to wait to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” – emphasis on the “wait.” This is already the narrative being spun on conservative blogs cynically trying to peel liberal fans away from the Democratic Party; the “concern trolls” of the media, if you will. But a focus on the timeframe obscures two important facts. Namely, Obama has always said that repealing DADT would take time, and (enter story two), he’s actually going to repeal DADT. Stop a minute and consider this – the most conservative government institution in the United States government, the armed forces, will now have to accept openly gay servicemembers. This is a major victory for equality and, incidentally, for the U.S. Armed Forces, who’ve lost upwards of 10,000 soldiers during wartime to this policy, including 55 Arabic-speaking cryptologists. Have to wonder if they might have come in handy.
Even though it means waiting a little while longer, I’m still ecstatic about it! : D
Posted by Radioactive afikomen | January 15, 2009, 3:55 pmI KNOW! Glad I don’t have to say goodbye to you, RA, even if I’m saying goodbye to RationalWiki for now :)
Posted by Ames | January 15, 2009, 4:04 pmIs rationalwiki having some tech issues right now? I’ve been unable load it for several days now?
Posted by Jello | January 15, 2009, 4:48 pm@Ames: I’m glad, too. : )
@Jello: RationalWiki was moved to a new server recently, but I was under the impression that all/most of the problems had been fixed. Perhaps your ISP just doesn’t like the site?
Posted by Radioactive afikomen | January 15, 2009, 5:06 pmYeah, I was reading a conservative take on this as well, with some magazine poll saying there would be a 10% drop off in enrollment. Some of the comments make me angry but of course they would.
http://minx.cc/?post=280917
Posted by Oneiroi | January 15, 2009, 5:54 pmNow, I’m no lawyer, but Obama doesn’t have the authority to rescind the UCMJ. So that means when he says he’s going to “lift DADT”, he’s either going to start prosecutions for sodomy or he’s going to just refuse to enforce the law. I’m not particularly thrilled with either option.
I guess there’s a third option, that they’re going to keep the sodomy law on the books but not kick soldiers out just for being gay, just for having actual gay sex.
Posted by Narc | January 15, 2009, 7:30 pmNow, Narc, I’m no big city lawyer, but aren’t you?
As to the UCMJ, that’s a good point, but isn’t it within CiC prerogative to amend? Perhaps the power of non-enforcement is the answer though…
Posted by Ames | January 15, 2009, 9:06 pmAmes, no, it isn’t within CiC prerogative to amend the UCMJ, as Article I makes clear that the CiC is subordinate to Congress and its rules governing the military. Even accepting for the sake of argument that the Executive’s coequal with the Legislature, Commander in Chief isn’t part of the Executive, it’s a totally separate office that’s been tacked on. It’s comparable to the way that Queen Elizabeth II of England has a separate office, Head of the Commonwealth, that you have to be Queen of England to be qualified for. CiC means the President gets a 4-year ex officio commision as a 6-star, but as that 6-star he’s still just as subject to the dictates of Congress as any 3-star, or even any piddly E-1.
Posted by Steve | January 15, 2009, 11:54 pmTouche. So how’s he going to do it?
Posted by Ames | January 16, 2009, 12:05 amI assume he’s going to tell Congress he wants the UCMJ changed, the majority will cooperate, and he’ll sign legislation repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, for which he will take/be given credit for “lifting” it. You know, the way presidents properly “do” anything.
Posted by Steve | January 16, 2009, 6:27 amSorry Ames, small town computer programmer here, actually.
The problem with Steve’s method is that any Democrat that votes on repeal then gets to be called “against the troops” in the next election, which may make it politically untenable for some.
I just figure Obama should drop DADT and say he’s going to start enforcing the law against any soldier that has non-procreative sex (which is really what the law covers) whether straight or gay or married or not. I figure i won’t last long then.
Posted by Narc | January 17, 2009, 10:19 am