Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Senate Repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the everyone's-got-an-opinion dept.

The Military 828

An anonymous reader writes "The Senate and House have now acted to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, [a decision] which President Obama will soon sign into law. While this does not permit homosexuals to openly serve, it does return control of the policy to military leaders after nearly two decades."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

New targets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603346)

Make them the test targets!

It's what you do in a foxhole (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603628)

From personal experience in the military, and from being in a war, I can tell you that you feel close to your buddies and that sexuality is almost non-existent in the sense most people thing about it, when you are in combat. After a few days under fire you just comfort each other however you can, and nobody is self conscious about showing affection to each other, man or women. You just want to do a good job and take care of each other.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603680)

a good blowjob maybe!

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole (-1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603708)

Now you can suck dick, and STILL get to kill brown babies, to steal their oil!

God bless America. I think this is what MLK would have striven for.

Obama achieved something (-1, Flamebait)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603352)

My head is gonna explode...

Re:Obama achieved something (-1, Flamebait)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603374)

Congress did, Dems with some Reps, no thanks to Obama.

Re:Obama achieved something (5, Informative)

AmaDaden (794446) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603432)

Um... http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-27/politics/obama.gays.military_1_repeal-policy-that-bars-gays-servicemembers-legal-defense-network?_s=PM:POLITICS [cnn.com]

I agree that he did not physically vote for this and he could have done far more but to say this is "no thanks to Obama" is just plain wrong.

Re:Obama achieved something (0, Troll)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603474)

Until about a week ago, repeal of DADT was a dead issue because it was tied to bigger bill concerning military policy. Obama diddn't do jack squat to move the thing forward, but Senators (Rep and Dem) worked out a way to isolate this issue to move it forward, and this is the result. Google news pieces on this.

Like I wrote, Obama did squat. The guy wouldn't know leadership if it elbowed his jaw.

Re:Obama achieved something (2)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603640)

Well, I wouldn't follow your elbow into battle, so your comment is worthless to me :)

Re:Obama achieved something (5, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603488)

Given the scale of the US political system I am amazed anything gets done at all. I am coming to the view that we would be better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities. It is possible that population growth has turned formerly manageable nations into unmanageable ones.

Re:Obama achieved something (1)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603558)

Given the scale of the US political system I am amazed anything gets done at all. I am coming to the view that we would be better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities. It is possible that population growth has turned formerly manageable nations into unmanageable ones.

Um, yeah, that's the point. States and municipalities were supposed to have that finer-grained control and the federal government wasn't allowed the power it now currently wields. Population growth per se doesn't have much to do with it.

Re:Obama achieved something (1, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603650)

It is possible that population growth has turned formerly manageable nations into unmanageable ones.

Population growth doesn't do that. The increasing centralization of power is what does that.

I am coming to the view that we would be better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities.

That's a good model for governance within a large nation as well. The Founding Fathers realized that a long time ago and they probably weren't the first. The USA has largely abandoned federalism when it comes to anything important. Even things like roads and schools that are well within the domain of states and local governments have many federal mandates attached to them.

There is one trick in particular that the feds love to use to undermine the power of states: they impose taxes on the citizens of the states and give them some of that money back only if the states follow the federal mandates. They could impose taxes only for issues that are legitimately the domain of the federal government and let the states work out what they need and how to fund it, but they'd get less power that way. This trick works so well that most of the states are deeply dependent on this federal funding and their budgets would break without it. The closest model you could use for comparison would be the drug pusher and the crackhead.

None of this happened because federalism had glaring flaws or wasn't working. It happened because politicians love power so much that they don't care about the long-term damage they do to the country while acquiring it, especially not when it is future generations who will have to live with it. Globalism in the economic sense is already here. Globalism in the one-world government sense is in the works, bit by bit, step by step, and you can imagine how much more fun that is going to be. Hypothetically, all it really needs is one gigantic international crisis, such as the financial collapse and insolvency of the USA, and it will be ushered in and presented as the golden solution to all problems. That's the way these things operate both within nations and among nations.

Consider this: if you live in one of the more nanny-state US states like Massachusetts you could move to another US state if you don't want that. If you think your country is becoming tyrannical you can move to another though it would be much more difficult. If a one-world government becomes tyrannical, what are you going to do, terraform Mars?

Re:Obama achieved something (1)

coaxial (28297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603642)

Would that be the Democratic congress?

But kudos on taking the very pedantic view, and ignore that the President campaigned, and urged congress to pass the law, like EVERY PRESIDENT.

Re:Obama achieved something (3, Funny)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603438)

where have you been? He has been achieving his goals since day one.

Re:Obama achieved something (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603554)

where have you been? He has been achieving his goals since day one.

Ya, his goals of destroying the US military, forcing a socialist health care system down our throats, and giving Muslim terrorists as many opportunities to kill us as he can.

Re:Obama achieved something (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603588)

Sounds like another Tea Partier who gave up getting his GED...

Re:Obama achieved something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603636)

Step 1: Repeal DADT
Step 2: ???
Step 3: No more military!

Re:Obama achieved something (4, Insightful)

Isaac-1 (233099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603562)

Let me start off by saying I often agree with the Republicans, but I have been saying DADT was a bad policy since it first came about and it has nothing to do with gays serving in the military. This policy was a side step, it was like the solution of cutting the kid in half for joint custody, no one liked it. The reality of this policy after all was not "Don't Ask Don't Tell", but was instead "If we don't find out it is ok", just look at the number of gays in the military that were outed through no action of their own, who then had to face the punishment. At least now we can move on to something that is A POLICY.

Re:Obama achieved something (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603598)

True. You either accept gays into service, or you don't. It was a crap compromise to keep the gays in at the time, but it's long past its expiration date.

Re:Obama achieved something (1, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603590)

Yeah between passing Healthcare Reform, Banking reform, a nearly $1T stimulus bill, significant student loan reform, a CC bill of rights, expanded hate crimes to include sexual orientation and restabilizing the finance and automotive industries I was wondering when he was going to finally do something.

Pointless Article (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603354)

Seriously, this has nothing to do with technology whatsoever. Keep your non-technology opinions to yourself Timothy.

Re:Pointless Article (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603378)

That's why it's in the Politics section, you fucking prick.

Re:Pointless Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603428)

I hate to defend timmah, but where are you seeing opinion in this summary? Looks pretty straightforward to me.

Re:Pointless Article (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603472)

I don't see any opinions, though I do fail to see how this falls under "stuff that matters". The world will keep turning just the same and we'll keep fighting pointless wars just the same, regardless of whether or not you can openly say "I'm gay" while being in the military.

Re:Pointless Article (5, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603534)

Nothing to do with technology?

Let's see. Does the name Alan Turing [wikipedia.org] ring a bell? The same guy who saved more lives in WW2 than anyone else by cracking the german cypher codes was also forced to take female hormones to chemically castrate him to avoid going to jail for being gay (1952).

The military owes a lot to the gays and lesbians, both civilian and military, who put up with the intolerance and ignorance to serve their country. The military is also the single biggest spender on technology. Any change in military hiring and staffing of this nature is relevant.

The summary is a bit inaccurate - the military is in fact required to implement the repeal; the actual timetable is set out in the bill, based on certain milestones. So DADT is pretty much dead.

Yea America! (5, Insightful)

Silpher (1379267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603364)

Now get rid of torture and death sentence and you'll upgrade from stone age to bronze age!

Re:Yea America! (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603440)

The problem is that this just left the decision to the military rather than grant blanket protection against discrimination.

Re:Yea America! (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603484)

Yes, but now there is a real ability to protect Gays and Lesbian's and unless we make a huge step backwards, I doubt we will have another president who is homophobic like Reagan or Bush Sr. was.

Re:Yea America! (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603592)

Unfortunately, that's probably not the case. If the last elections of the house/senate are any indication, it's certainly possible that if the dems screw up too much we'll have another one just like Reagan/Bush as the president within the decade.

Re:Yea America! (0)

imamac (1083405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603620)

Of course you let out who actually instituted DADT. But feel free to go on living in your dream world of Democrat perfection.

Re:Yea America! (2)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603658)

To me the democrats are incompetent and the republicans are evil, but I don't live in the US and am just happy that this bill finally passed.

Re:Yea America! (4, Informative)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603670)

I left Clinton out because DADT was a proposed rule to protect Gays in the military. It reversed the policies under Reagan and Bush that persecuted Gays and Lesbians by "protecting their private lives from scrutiny". It was not an Anti-gay measure, even though it failed miserably and allowed persecution to continue, but now codified it and tied the executive branch's hands from being able to do anything about it.

But go on living in your bizzaro world where stoopid is smart.

Re:Yea America! (2)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603724)

The problem is that this just left the decision to the military rather than grant blanket protection against discrimination.

But remember who is commander-in-chief of the military. Obama will be making a mistake if he doesn't have a press conference to, first, sign the bill, and second, give an order pronouncing DADT dead.

Re:Yea America! (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603454)

They'll need to collect enough food first.

Re:Yea America! (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603662)

You can't seriously be suggesting that Americans need more food, can you?

Re:Yea America! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603684)

You can't seriously be suggesting that Americans need more food, can you?

Lord knows we have enough knowledge and military/civics research.

And we're not pop capped at the moment.

Re:Yea America! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603456)

lmao :)

Re:Yea America! (2)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603470)

Errr, I thought Bronze Age armies in Greece and whatnot had openly gay soldiers.

Re:Yea America! (5, Funny)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603536)

Don't worry, we still have the Christian fundamentalists and the far right to help us catch up to radical Islam in the race back the middle ages.

Re:Yea America! (1)

alchemy101 (961551) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603600)

No, according to my Civilization tech tree poster there's still a few more prerequisite techs you need...

ok (0)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603366)

Good.

In other (more accurate) words, (1, Insightful)

kramerd (1227006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603368)

Instead of a blanket policy of not talking about sexuality in the military, policies toward homosexuals (of either sex) are now left to the discretion of military leaders.

This will either lead to segments of our military being strictly only for homosexuals or strictly not for homosexuals, without regard to what might be best for military purposes.

This is a lose/lose/lose/lose move.

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (5, Funny)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603388)

My brigade is more fabulous than yours.

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (1)

zwede (1478355) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603466)

Posting to undo my unintentional "overrated" mod.

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (1)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603540)

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (1)

johnkennethhunter (1326527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603644)

The 50th Regiment (Gordon Highlanders of Canada) had the nickname "Gay Gordons." However, that was back when gay then didn't mean gay now.

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603402)

This will either lead to segments of our military being strictly only for homosexuals

AKA, "the Marines,"

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (3, Insightful)

rat7307 (218353) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603430)

Here's a thought: How about just removing any sexuality based stuff from the books and then it's not an issue? Win/Win/Win/Win

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (5, Insightful)

kramerd (1227006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603460)

Its not much of a thought. DADT was implemented because nothing was in the books, so it became an issue when individuals had (for lack of better terms) issues.

Now that all you do is remove the policy, the same problems will come back, because now there is no policy to say that you cant discriminate.

You can find similiar problems with the US constitution; historically, we have had to specifically state that women or black people also count. Sadly, there are plenty of places in the US where if those ammendments were not made, they wouldn't.

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (3, Informative)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603522)

Obama and Gates will make sure they have a policy. They will just need to rewrite a few regulations to exclude homosexual behavior from being applied. If they catch two soldiers engaging in Homosexual behavior, then they will just use the fraternization section of the UCMJ.

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (1)

imamac (1083405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603638)

Fraternization only occurs between supervisor and subordinate. (Officer > Enlisted)

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (2)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603702)

Try again. Enlisted > Enlisted as well. There is almost always a rank difference because even in a room full of corporals, there are different enlistment dates.

This is what has been told to me both my brothers, one is a Staff Sargent in the Marines, the other is a Staff Sargent in the Air Force.

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (2, Informative)

imamac (1083405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603732)

You are incorrect.

Fraternization, as defined by the Manual for Courts-martial, is a personal relationship between an officer and an enlisted member that violates the customary bounds of acceptable behavior in the Air Force and prejudices good order and discipline, discredits the armed services, or operates to the personal disgrace or dishonor of the officer involved.

Enlisted and Enlisted is referred to as "Unprofessional Relationship". Read AFI 36-2909 for more specifics.

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (4, Informative)

coaxial (28297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603624)

Its not much of a thought. DADT was implemented because nothing was in the books, so it became an issue when individuals had (for lack of better terms) issues.

No. DADT came about because Clinton wanted to repeal the ban, (Homosexuals were considered security threat because they could be blackmailed into spying. How openly homosexual soldiers could be blackmailed on being gay, was never clear.) and there was push back because of fear that "sodomites" would try to rape straight soldiers while taking refuge from artillery barages in fox holes and whatnot. And really, what red blooded straight American boy with bulging muscles can resist the sailor from the Village People?

It was a compromise because bigots wanted to stay bigots. Clinton should have just pulled a Truman and ordered it.

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (2)

Isaac-1 (233099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603630)

The thing is DADT was not an anti-discrimination policy, it was an anti-investigate policy, if knowledge of someone being gay came to the powers that be in the military, then the person was treated the same as before this policy came about (no gays allowed). The thing is it did not have to be the gay told, it could be an angry ex-spouse with a video tape, a police raid on a motel room, any number of other sources and then it was court martial time.

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603492)

I'm all for removing sexual bias and ushering in a new era of unified showering facilities.

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603500)

mod parent something that's not funny, because i fail to see the attempt at humor. All i see is a post pointing out what has happened in the past and how it relates to this, which is more sad then amusing.

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (1)

kramerd (1227006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603514)

I definately was not going for funny...

Re:In other (more accurate) words, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603690)

This will either lead to segments of our military being strictly only for homosexuals or strictly not for homosexuals,

Why? Do you really think that gays will refuse to serve with straights?

And the tech scoop? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603370)

No, really. You can read this on every other news source. Is there anything slashdot can add?

DADT and wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603382)

...and this has *nothing* to do with 1/20th of the military keeping secrets for their own livelihoods from their superiors for 20 years. As long as the Joint Chiefs go along with it, and make openly serving legal, (you know following that whole 14th ammendment thing) Now the only "squirly" people who are "evasive" will be suspected leakers. Bradley Manning, your service to the military was your swan song. Your service to your nation... well that's still up for debate.

THIS IS NOT NEWS FOR NERDS!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603384)

Why is timothy using this site as his own political blog? This is disgusting.
When as DADT been a topic before on slashdot? The answer is never.

This is not news for nerds. This is news for gays.

Re:THIS IS NOT NEWS FOR NERDS!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603404)

Shut up, fag..

Re:THIS IS NOT NEWS FOR NERDS!! (-1, Redundant)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603420)

what say you about the apple "fanboi" ?

Re:THIS IS NOT NEWS FOR NERDS!! (1)

thryllkill (52874) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603686)

So you're assuming that there are no gay nerds who might have interest in discussing this story with their fellow nerds? Or maybe there's no nerds in the military who might? Or even that there might be no gay nerds in the military?

Here's a better idea for you. Shut the fuck up.

The reason this is slashdot worthy (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603386)

A protocol with an ask request without a tell response could be considered an early form of udp.

Chapter 1 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603398)

September 16, 1991. Today it finally began! After all these years of talking and nothing but talking we have finally taken our first action. We are at war with the System, and it is no longer a war of words.

I cannot sleep, so I will try writing down some of the thoughts which are flying through my head.

It is not safe to talk here. The walls are quite thin, and the neighbors might wonder at a latenight conference. Besides, George and Katherine are already asleep. Only Henry and I are still awake, and he’s just staring at the ceiling.

I am really uptight. l am so jittery I can barely sit still. And I’m exhausted. I’ve been up since 5:30 this morning, when George phoned to warn that the arrests had begun, and it’s after midnight now. I’ve been keyed up and on the move all day.

But at the same time I’m exhilarated. We have finally acted! How long we will be able to continue defying the System, no one knows. Maybe it will all end tomorrow, but we must not think about that. Now that we have begun, we must continue with the plan we have been developing so carefully ever since the Gun Raids two years ago.

What a blow that was to us! And how it shamed us! All that brave talk by patriots, "The government will never take my guns away," and then nothing but meek submission when it happened.

On the other hand, maybe we should be heartened by the fact that there were still so many of us who had guns then, nearly 18 months after the Cohen Act had outlawed all private ownership of firearms in the United States. It was only because so many of us defied the law and hid our weapons instead of turning them in that the government wasn’t able to act more harshly against us after the Gun Raids.

I’ll never forget that terrible day: November 9, 1989. They knocked on my door at five in the morning. I was completely unsuspecting as I got up to see who it was.

Read more... [avrtech.com]

Nice of them to decide to get something done (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603414)

Now how do we get Congress to work the other 11 1/2 months of the year?

Re:Nice of them to decide to get something done (4, Insightful)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603568)

I think you need to pay closer attention. The Democratic congress has worked almost every work day of each month, with some time off during the traditional times taken off. The Republicans are the ones who are never in session. during the Bush years, they worked 10 days a month... and the new house leadership has already scheduled next years session and they are back to 10 days a month.

Only took... (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603424)

Finally. Now we just have to trust our military leaders will do the right thing(s).

Sad news :( Justin Bieber, singer, dead at 16 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603426)

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Pop/R&B singer Justin Bieber died from a car accident this morning, after leaving from an interview. Paramedics arrived at the scene, but they were unable to revive him. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Reddit community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Sad news :( Justin Bieber, singer, dead at 16 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603578)

Shut the fuck up Anon bitch. No one wants to hear your trolling.

Stupid (-1, Troll)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603452)

This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate gays. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy wasn't about discrimination by their superiors, it was about discrimination by their peers. You're not allowed to ask someone if they're gay, and you're not allowed to tell someone if you're gay, and if you do either you will be met with disciplinary action. That was to prevent being discriminated against by the people you work with in the potentially-life-endangering industry of violence and death that is the military.

Re:Stupid (5, Insightful)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603544)

I'd rather have the gays in the military than the homophobes. At least then they'd all believe in the freedom they're fighting for.

Re:Stupid (4, Insightful)

ayvee (1125639) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603552)

If anyone's worried about that, they can continue to choose to hide their own sexuality as long as they please. And I'm pretty sure they're more qualified to make that decision than some random blowhard on the Internet.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603556)

They are in the Military!

If they can't follow a simple order like "don't shoot/attack your fellow enlisted personnel because they are different" then I think the US has a bigger problem than a group of Elite marines scared to share a shower block with a guy guy...

Re:Stupid (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603566)

Should we not allow other minorities in the military because there are racists in it? Your argument is tired and hollow.

Re:Stupid (0)

ShootTheCoreSam (1961550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603574)

I actually just created an account to down-vote this ignorant homophobic stupidity.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603652)

Funniest post ever.

Re:Stupid (5, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603576)

Other countries have gays and lesbians serving openly without problems. Maybe you need better leaders?

Re:Stupid (1)

coaxial (28297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603580)

This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate gays.

True, but that doesn't mean bigotry should be tolerated.

That was to prevent being discriminated against by the people you work with in the potentially-life-endangering industry of violence and death that is the military.

But that's not what actually happened. Someone would find out who was gay, and then harass that person mercilessly because they knew their victim had no recourse without outing themselves. The record is actually pretty clear on this fact. In 17 years, DADT was an abject failure on all counts.

Re:Stupid (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603584)

Wow.... you really have no idea what was actually done.

people asked, no one told, people reported, and gay men and women were removed from service while the askers and the liars continued serving.

Re:Stupid (4, Insightful)

Guido von Guido (548827) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603632)

Let me change one word in your first sentence (in italics):

This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate blacks.

Which was very true when the army was first integrated, and it's still true today. Many of those people were in the army then, and some of them still are.

The army survived integration, though, and it's fine. It'll survive the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and it'll still be fine

Re:Stupid (2)

Xzallion (949882) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603678)

This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate gays. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy wasn't about discrimination by their superiors, it was about discrimination by their peers. You're not allowed to ask someone if they're gay, and you're not allowed to tell someone if you're gay, and if you do either you will be met with disciplinary action. That was to prevent being discriminated against by the people you work with in the potentially-life-endangering industry of violence and death that is the military.

There are also people in the military that hate females serving in the military. The military tells them to shut up and learn to be more accepting and caring while killing the rest of us with POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) and EO (Equal Opportunity) training sessions. The people that violate this are subject to UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) action. In the case of hatred of homosexuals, the guidelines established in EO and POSH can apply just as well, so there is no real reason for Don't Ask Don't Tell to exist.

How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Jews (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603510)

How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Jews

There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.

In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb.

I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.

Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people.

That made me sit up and think. Hold on, I thought, I know this woman sits on all sorts of “multi-cultural” committees and is constantly being invited onto TV and radio to yap about the joys of diversity and the evils of racism. She’s all in favor of mass immigration and there’s no way she’s worried about Whites marrying non-Whites, because “Race is Just a Social Construct” and “We’re All the Same Under the Skin”. She’s a liberal and she thinks that race-mixing is good and healthy and Holy. Yet this same woman is worried about Jews marrying Gentiles. Small contradiction there, n'est ce-pas?

Well, no. Big contradiction. She obviously didn’t apply the same rules to everyone else as she applied to her own people, the Jews. She was, in short, a hypocrite. But not just that – she was a Jewish hypocrite. And that’s a big step for a brainwashed White to take: not just thinking in a negative way about a Jew, but thinking in a negative way about a Jew because of her Jewishness.

After that, I slowly started to see the world in a different way. Or to be more precise: I started to see the world. I started to see what had always been there: the massive over-representation of Jews in politics and the media. And I started to notice that a lot of those Jews – like Rabbi Julia Neuberger, in fact – gave me the creeps. There was something slimy and oily and flesh-crawling about them. And it wasn’t just me, either: other Gentiles seemed to feel it too.

Politicians often attract nicknames based on some outstanding aspect of their character or behavior. Margaret Thatcher was “The Iron Lady”. Ronald Reagan was “Teflon Ron”. Bill Clinton was “Slick Willy”. But these are Gentile politicians and their nicknames are at least half-affectionate. Jewish politicians seem to attract a different kind of nickname. In Britain, Gerald Kaufman, bald, homosexual Member of Parliament for Manchester Gorton, is nicknamed “Hannibal Lecter”. Peter Mandelson, now Britain’s Euro-Commissioner and Tony Blair’s suspected former lover, is “The Prince of Darkness”. Michael Howard (né Hecht), the leader of the British Conservative Party, is “Dracula”.

When I noticed this kind of thing, I started to ask questions. What was going on here? Why did Jews attract nicknames like that? And why had Gentiles reacted to them like that not just now, but a long way into the past? Shakespeare seems to have felt the same kind of repulsion when he created the vengeful lawyer Shylock, and Dickens when he created the parasitic master-thief Fagin. Classic “anti-Semitic” stereotypes, but I knew that stereotypes aren’t always wrong. If anti-Semitic stereotypes aren’t always wrong, then there’s an obvious conclusion: neither is anti-Semitism. Gentiles are sometimes right to dislike and distrust Jews.

After all, at the same time I was noticing something else: the massive over-representation of Jews, not just among politicians and journalists, but among crooked businessmen too. In fact, among very, very crooked businessmen, the ones responsible for really big frauds at Gentile expense. Men like Robert Maxwell (né Hoch), Ivan “Greed is Good” Boesky, and Michael Milken. And, on a slightly lesser scale, Ernest Saunders, who finagled an early release from prison because he was coming down with Alzheimer’s, that well-known incurable brain disease from which no-one ever recovers. Only Saunders managed to confound medical science and recover from it.

Slimy. Hypocritical. Crooked. In a word: Jewish. But I didn’t take the final step, the step to full recognition of the Jewish problem, until I watched the reaction to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. I’m not a Christian and I have little sympathy with modern Christianity, but I had a lot of sympathy for Mel Gibson as I watched the hysterical campaign against him. The hysterical, well-organized, international campaign by the slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jew Abe Foxman, Head of the Anti-Defamation League, and his fellow slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jews around the world. They didn’t like something and they were moving heaven and earth to get it stopped.

And what was it they didn’t like? A movie about an event at the heart of European art, literature, and culture: the crucifixion of Christ. So here was another obvious conclusion: Jews hate European art, literature, and culture. In other words, Jews hate White civilization and the White race who created it.

After that, it all fell into place. I finally recognized that Jews weren’t just slimy, hypocritical, and crooked, but actively dangerous too. If I thought of something harmful to White civilization and the survival of the White race – mass immigration, feminism, multi-culturalism, anti-racism, gay rights – I realized that Jews were behind it, were promoting it through their control of the media, and had been doing so for decades.

Finally, I had seen the light. Finally, I had gotten smart and recognized the Jewish problem, the problem that even dumb Gentiles subconsciously recognize when they give nicknames like “Hannibal Lecter” and “Prince of Darkness” and “Dracula” to Jewish politicians. Jews really do want to eat us, and steal our souls, and suck our blood, and it’s about time we started firing a few silver bullets.

New name for the policy (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603512)

Don't ask don't, give a damn even if we know.

It's more true now than ever before... (2)

grokgov (972024) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603520)

If you're going to fight in the jungle, clash!

Aww man (0)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603546)

That's going to make the gay sex in the military way less hot. Better get in that last super-hot gay orgy before Obama signs it in to law!

Harvard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603560)

So, is Harvard going to allow ROTC and recruiting on campus now? It's been their excuse since DADT - they of course used a different excuse before that

/. has far too many political stories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603570)

I realize our Elite Leaders in Washington, D.C. impact our daily lives, but /. has far too many political stories. I want techie stories, damn it!

I would discharge at the first opportunity (-1, Troll)

carigis (1878910) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603602)

as a soldier. I would file for a discharge at the first possible opportunity and choose not to renew any enlistment. You should not have to cover your ass as well as your ass..

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity (4, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603660)

as a soldier. I would file for a discharge at the first possible opportunity and choose not to renew any enlistment. You should not have to cover your ass as well as your ass..

Nice homophobic rant. You might look at the rules about fraternization among soldiers. They will still apply. So your virgin butt hole is safe.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity (3)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603706)

You must never have served. There have always been gays in the service, usually left alone if they do their jobs.

A huge step back for civil rights (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603654)

Before "don't ask don't tell" the military could endeavor to find out if you were homosexual and kick you out if they thought you were.
"Don't ask don't tell" made it so they could only target those that openly professed to be homosexual.
I've seen nothing saying the military was not allowed to discriminate based on sexual preference.
The repealing of this means the homophobes just got their hunting license back. :(

Apparently you haven't been paying attention (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603710)

There wasn't much "telling" going on, but there was a lot "asking", more like outing going on. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was just a mechanism to run witch hunts.

Re:A huge step back for civil rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34603714)

Sir, what, precisely, are you smoking?

This is why the Dems lost the House (2, Insightful)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#34603728)

Whether you agree with DADT or not, it's hard to argue that it's a priority. Shut down Guantanamo Bay, get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and do something about the economy and deficit. Then I won't view this debate as an utter waste of congress' time. In the meantime, this is just a wedge issue that Republicans can use to gain midwestern support, much like gay marriage was for Bush in '04. I doubt Obama even personally cares about this issue -- he just cares about the money he gets from the homosexual interest groups. This hardly changes anything. Now gay service members can talk about being gay. Whoop-di-do. I'd rather they be safe at home and not be allowed to talk about their sexuality than serving in hostile territory allowed to talk about it. It just doesn't matter if DADT is right or wrong, it's nowhere near as wrong as putting these soldiers in harm's way unnecessarily. Obama pretended to be outraged by these wars and Guantanamo Bay on the campaign trail, what happened to that?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?