Thread: Gays in the military

Originally Posted by Mario92

Stupid question, but what if you started profiling new recruits to the military and started lumping like-minded people together? The element of surprise never gets old, and what could be more surprising than the world's First Battalion Transvestite Brigade? Let the meatheads be douchebags somewhere else.

That sounds an awful lot like the all black companies of the 40s and before. I should think segregating the military is a hurdle we already jumped once, jumping it again is silly. If we take one step back in order to take a step forward in the equality market we are just wasting our time.

Originally Posted by spockman

That sounds an awful lot like the all black companies of the 40s and before. I should think segregating the military is a hurdle we already jumped once, jumping it again is silly. If we take one step back in order to take a step forward in the equality market we are just wasting our time.

More like "take a lot of steps back in order to pull off some stupid gimmick"

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The don't ask don't tell law from Clinton is going to be pulled shortly, assuming the republicans don't fuck it up.

"I regret to see that the long-respected and revered Senate Armed Services Committee has evolved into a forum for a social agenda of the liberal left of the Senate," - McCain on gay rights.

What for? Don't see anything wrong with it.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

What for? Don't see anything wrong with it.

Nothing wrong with DADT or the republicans?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Wow, what conservative or Republican said that? Was it the bald eagle in the picture?

George Bush, Bill O'Reilly, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, take your pick.

Nelson Mendela and Willie Nelson are both on the terror watch list. One is a 90 year old former president with a nobel peace prize, the other is an aging pothead who morally wouldn't step on a bug. You really think being called a terrorist has anything to do with actually being one? No, it means you questioned the government while the republicans were in charge.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

What for? Don't see anything wrong with it.

A lot of gay men want to be out of the closet. You can't be in the military and be openly gay.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Nelson Mendela and Willie Nelson are both on the terror watch list. One is a 90 year old former president with a nobel peace prize, the other is an aging pothead who morally wouldn't step on a bug. You really think being called a terrorist has anything to do with actually being one? No, it means you questioned the government while the republicans were in charge.

Actually, it means you were once associated with a terrorist organization, as Mandela was (the African National Congress was officially branded a terrorist organization in the 80's and it wasn't America who did the branding.) It was a technicality which had nothing to do with Mandela's moral character and it was immediately waived.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Actually, it means you were once associated with a terrorist organization, as Mandela was (the African National Congress was officially branded a terrorist organization in the 80's and it wasn't America who did the branding.) It was a technicality which had nothing to do with Mandela's moral character and it was immediately waived.

Aaaand being on the no fly list can mean somebody with some kind of authority somewhere or other figured that it might be a good idea to possibly put this guys name on this list, maybe. And then, boom! No planes for you.

What guy?

Originally Posted by spockman

Nothing wrong with DADT or the republicans?

Both I suppose but if it's such a issue then I don't mind if they change it. I don't really care to know someone's sexual orientation but if you wish to let the world know then happily do so.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

George Bush, Bill O'Reilly, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, take your pick.

Really? Are you serious? All four of those guys said people who are not conservative or Republican are terrorists? I would love to see evidence of that. Do you have any?

Caprisun cleared up your Nelson Mandela point, and Willie Nelson is crazy out of his skull, so no telling what he did to arouse suspicion. Those are just two guys any way. Does your entire claim rest on just those two guys? Give evidence that the people you named said ALL people who are not conservative or Republican are terrorists. I really want to see it.

I can't tell if ninja is serious or not. His views on Republicans are so extreme and most of them are blatanly false or unfair. I don't even identify with Republicans, but I can't help but be offended by some of the things he says. Are you being facetious ninja?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

What guy?

Lots of guys. I'll give you half a dozen names right now. Ayman Latif, Raymond Earl Knaeble, Steven Washburn, Mohamed Sheikh Abdirahman Kariye, Samir Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed, and Abdullatif Muthanna. They are all filing a joint lawsuit right now with 4 others, one I sincerely hope they win. Half of these listed are actually veterans, one from each of the primary branches. After serving this country, likely with the idea of protecting U.S. freedoms, they are repaid by having their liberties stomped on. The rest are U.S. Citizens. These are people with nothing in their past that should keep them on a terrorist watch list. Nothing that the media has uncovered at least, excpet that they seem to be Muslims! Gotta' hate them Islams, apparently.

You might be saying that they could have done things we don't know about. Some people say that, anyway. To those people I ask if giving the government the authority to decide what someone is guilty of without a trial is a good idea. If the government can hide under the, "We are acting against consitutional rights guaranteed to citizens with arbitrary enforcement of our illegal policies because there are things that are too big for the public to understand. So trust us, without these small evils greater evils would present themselves" then you may as well tack on "and stop bitching about it or we will put your name on it, too. Realizing what piss ants they are, the people of the American public will shut up." I mean, really, they may as well add that second bit if they can get away with the first.

Compiling lists about Americans that limit their freedoms without a trial happened a while ago in what is now almost universally agreed upon to be an act of complete ignorance and social injustice.



Oh, and it's in direct conflict with the Security Act of 1974 which tells us gullible patriots that this kind of stuff acnnot happen. Nice job, anti-terrorist legislators and policy makers, completely and intentionally ignoring an established civil liberty.

Considering how it works in a manner that directly relates to us... First, you can't find out if you are on the list by enquiring. You have to just find out by going to the the airport. Then, to get off it, well, we will have to see if it is even possible to get off via due process after this trial is finished. It's so fascist, I think one of these days the TSA and DOHS will hook up and give birth to Papa Stalin II.

To clarify, any of my bitterness/sarcasm in this post is not directed at you, Caprisun. Far from it. It is directed at an establishment that promises certain rights and then denies those rights directly and deliberately.

If you are not a liberal or a Democrat, you want to nuke poor black homosexuals in rainforests. That is what Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi said.

Originally Posted by spockman

You might be saying that they could have done things we don't know about. Some people say that, anyway. To those people I ask if giving the government the authority to decide what someone is guilty of without a trial is a good idea.

I agree that there is a lot of "McCarthy-esque" hysteria surrounding terrorism today. I don't believe, however, that names are put on that list to spite people who speak out against the government. I have to believe there is a deliberate reason and I do believe a government has a right to protect itself, within reason. Maybe these people are innocent, maybe they're guilty, we can only speculate. They should be given a chance to clear their names. It's wrong if they aren't. This isn't a simple case of "innocent until proven guilty," though. If you want a successful security system, which I can't imagine you wouldn't, you have to be proactive. There are no if, ands, or buts about that.

Being placed on a terror watch list or a no fly list doesn't mean they have an arrest warrant out for you. They aren't convicting you of anything, except being sucpicious. It just means you need a waiver if you ever want to fly or get a visa, which is fair, as long as you are given a chance get that waiver. You can still enter the country as long as you drive across the border.

The no fly list is one of the best lines of defense our airports have, and believe it or not, there are still people who want to exploit our system. While I'm a little torn on this issue, I am inclined to say the TSA is obligated to protect the people who fly. Flying on a public airline with other citizens is not an unalienable right. They shouldn't be subjected to undue danger.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I agree that there is a lot of "McCarthy-esque" hysteria surrounding terrorism today. I don't believe, however, that names are put on that list to spite people who speak out against the government. I have to believe there is a deliberate reason and I do believe a government has a right to protect itself, within reason. Maybe these people are innocent, maybe they're guilty, we can only speculate. They should be given a chance to clear their names. It's wrong if they aren't..

So they should be guilty until they prove otherwise? And the list of names of American citizens should be kept secret even though that is the whole point of the Security Act of '74 which was never repealed? Is it 'reasonably protecting itself' for a government to blatantly violate the law? Not the, oh, that kind of abstractly violates a constitutional amendment kind of law breaking, but to ignore the entire point of an act meant to limit government power, is that okay?

Being placed on a terror watch list or a no fly list doesn't mean they have an arrest warrant out for you. They aren't convicting you of anything. It just means you need a waiver if you ever want to fly or get a visa, which is fair, as long as you are given a chance get that waiver. You can still enter the country as long as you drive across the border. The no fly list is one of the best lines of defense our airports have, and believe it or not, there are still people who want to exploit our system. While I'm a little torn on this issue, I am inclined to say the TSA is obligated to protect the people who fly. Flying on a public airline with other citizens is not a right.[/QUOTE]

Well, with the exception of a handful or people, the black list wasn't convicting people of anything, either. Mainly it served to limit jobs. I could just as easily say working in the movie industry is not a right, so HUAC was justified. Except I would be wrong. I would be wrong because there is such a thing as freedom of speech that would protect me in that instance. Likewise, I would be wrong if I said that the no-fly list doesn't violate my rights. Perhaps it doesn't interfere with my freedom of speech, but other rights I have are spat on becasue of it. Rights that were set up as safeguards to prevent another 'Red Scare.' These safe guards have failed.

Originally Posted by spockman

So they should be guilty until they prove otherwise? And the list of names of American citizens should be kept secret even though that is the whole point of the Security Act of '74 which was never repealed? Is it 'reasonably protecting itself' for a government to blatantly violate the law? Not the, oh, that kind of abstractly violates a constitutional amendment kind of law breaking, but to ignore the entire point of an act meant to limit government power, is that okay?

In terms of national security, or any type of security for that matter, you have to assume suspicious people are guilty. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it's probably a duck. You have to assume it's a duck until proven otherwise. If you were a duck hunter, how successful would you be at hunting ducks if you needed a DNA test to positively identify a duck before you could shoot it? You will not prevent any type of attack with an overly politically correct system which places a greater importance on personal feelings or inconveniences rather than safety. It would be rather naive to assume everyone is innocent, or that there isn't anyone out there who wants to do you harm. Any security system which endorses such a philosophy is not really a security system, it is a charade. The fact that these individuals are prior military is unfortunate, but it is also irrelevant, and it is clear they are being used to tug on heart strings. We've had people defect before, it would be illogical, unprofessional, and counterproductive to assume the same couldn't happen today.

Originally Posted by spockman

Well, with the exception of a handful or people, the black list wasn't convicting people of anything, either. Mainly it served to limit jobs. I could just as easily say working in the movie industry is not a right, so HUAC was justified. Except I would be wrong. I would be wrong because there is such a thing as freedom of speech that would protect me in that instance. Likewise, I would be wrong if I said that the no-fly list doesn't violate my rights. Perhaps it doesn't interfere with my freedom of speech, but other rights I have are spat on becasue of it. Rights that were set up as safeguards to prevent another 'Red Scare.' These safe guards have failed.

I want to point out that the no fly list and the black list are completely different. There was no official, government santioned black list. It was a societally imposed phenomenon which happened to be driven by certain politicians. The members of the black list didn't pose a physical threat to the movie industry. The black list was public, it's members were subject to discrimination. Nobody knows who is on the no fly list, including most of the people who are on it. How can an employer discriminate against a person for being on the no fly list if neither of them know the contents of that list? The no fly list mitigates a legitimate threat, the black list did no such thing.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

In terms of national security, or any type of security for that matter, you have to assume suspicious people are guilty. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it's probably a duck. You have to assume it's a duck until proven otherwise. If you were a duck hunter, how successful would you be at hunting ducks if you needed a DNA test to positively identify a duck before you could shoot it? You will not prevent any type of attack with an overly politically correct system which places a greater importance on personal feelings or inconveniences rather than safety. It would be rather naive to assume everyone is innocent, or that there isn't anyone out there who wants to do you harm. Any security system which endorses such a philosophy is not really a security system, it is a charade. The fact that these individuals are prior military is unfortunate, but it is also irrelevant, and it is clear they are being used to tug on heart strings. We've had people defect before, it would be illogical, unprofessional, and counterproductive to assume the same couldn't happen today.

Of course it could happen. And of course veterans could be defective. But there is no reason to trust that the government is going to use powers with little to no established process to stop only people who are serious threats to the country from getting on a plane. I have no reason to believe that because the names on that list are accountable for no-one and any evidence obtained can remain under lock and key. I am supposed to assume that these people, who I have no reason to believe are guilty as far as evidence is concerned, are guilty of these crimes because some people who are proven to be distrustful and not too great at deciding who is a terrorist threat, (200+ released from Guantanomo after being detained with less than 10 percent joining with terrorists? Yeah, I would say they don't have the best track record,) say so? I should believe that the government is playing nice with these powers even though I have absolutely no reason to believe the power isn't being abused like crazy? How much want for some evidence will I have to suspend so that I can give the TSA the benefit of the doubt? If I am put on a list that could significantly hamper my life, am not told why, do not have my legitimate legal claims responded to, have no idea what process puts me on/takes me off so I cannot really challenge the list or my presence on it, I am being oppressed. Fortunately for me, I haven't been put on that list. But as far as I know, If I should distrust citizens naturally because they may be terrorists, then why shouldn't I distrust the government naturally because they may be fascists?

If it walks like a fascist, talks like a fascist, and looks like a fascist, it is probably a fascist.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I want to point out that the no fly list and the black list are completely different. There was no official, government santioned black list. It was a societally imposed phenomenon which happened to be driven by certain politicians. The members of the black list didn't pose a physical threat to the movie industry. The black list was public, it's members were subject to discrimination. Nobody knows who is on the no fly list, including most of the people who are on it. How can an employer discriminate against a person for being on the no fly list if neither of them know the contents of that list? The no fly list mitigates a legitimate threat, the black list did no such thing..

So then do you admit that the no-fly list is illegal and that it directly violates rights that are guaranteed by our laws?

Because that is as blatantly and obviously illegal as if I walked outside and blew up a mailbox.

Originally Posted by spockman

Of course it could happen. And of course veterans could be defective. But there is no reason to trust that the government is going to use powers with little to no established process are only going to stop people who are serious threats to the country from getting on a plane. I have no reason to believe that because the names on that list are accountable for no-one and any evidence obtained can remain under lock and key. I am supposed to assume that these people, who I have no reason to believe are guilty as far as evidence is concerned, are guilty of these crimes because some people who are proven to be distrustful and not too great at deciding who is a terrorist threat, (200+ released from Guantanomo after being detained with less than 10 percent joining with terrorists? Yeah, I would say they don't have the best track record,) say so? I should believe that the government is playing nice with these powers even though I have absolutely no reason to believe the power isn't being abused like crazy? How much want for some evidence will I have to suspend so that I can give the TSA the benefit of the doubt? If I am put on a list that could significantly hamper my life, am not told why, do not have my legitimate legal claims responded to, have no idea what process puts me on/takes me off so I cannot really challenge the list or my presence on it, I am being oppressed. Fortunately for me, I haven't been put on that list. But as far as I know, If I should distrust citizens naturally because they may be terrorists, then why shouldn't I distrust the government naturally because they may be fascists?

If it walks like a fascist, talks like a fascist, and looks like a fascist, it is probably a fascist.

The issue is not nearly as black and white as you make it seem. People who are proven to be distrustful? Distrustful or incompetent? The people in Guantanamo are captured through a variety of means, not all of which involved the keepers of the no fly list. The FBI has access to information which no one else has, most of which is gathered first hand. They are clearly the most qualified to make such a list and I have no reason to distrust their abilities. Obviously they aren't infallible, and there are a number of circumstances which could account for a negative identification. I have no reason to believe they are being careless, however, and there is no evidence that they are restricting people who they know to be innocent. It makes no sense to abuse such a power, since you don't gain anything out of it. Maybe they are being over cautious.

You do have a right to appeal your status on the no fly list. People have been and are told the reasons for their inclusion when they challenge the fact. Not that you need to be told, there is little doubt that the individuals on the list know exactly why they were put on the list. If they are innocent, they at least know why they may seem suspicious.

I didn't say the average citizen should be inherently suspicious of every person they encounter. I said a good security system should be inherently suspicious and vigilant. I don't see how you can relate the no fly list to facism in any way. It is a mere security measure, one which fits the threat. It is only one facet of the government and divulging all of it's information and methods, as you suggest, would entirely undermine the one job it was meant to do.

Originally Posted by spockman

So then do you admit that the no-fly list is illegal and that it directly violates rights that are guaranteed by our laws?

Because that is as blatantly and obviously illegal as if I walked outside and blew up a mailbox.

There is no such thing as illegal when it is the collective sentiment of the government. As bad as that sounds, it's the truth. That's why I say the term "illegal war" is an oxymoron when you are talking about America. How can it be a law when there is no one who can enforce it? No law is ever set in stone, they are wholly dependent on context. We have a number of provisions meant to override normal laws during dire times. It should come as no surprise that provisions were enacted during times which could certainly be classified as dire.

So that's why I think it is more prudent to speak about the issue on ethical terms rather than legal terms. It annoys me to no end when people repeatedly refer to the Iraq war as an "illegal war." I'd much rather discuss the ethics of the war rather than the legality of it, especially since a law may prevent an ethical act and, likewise, a law may allow for an unethical act.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Wow, what conservative or Republican said that? Was it the bald eagle in the picture?

Lol

I posted that because it's kind of clear that ninja doesn't seem to agree with what republicans want. I also thought it would be obvious that the picture was a joke.

Lighten up, guys.

Originally Posted by louie54

Lol

I posted that because it's kind of clear that ninja doesn't seem to agree with what republicans want. I also thought it would be obvious that the picture was a joke.

Lighten up, guys.

I hope you didn't take my response too seriously. I never pass up a chance to be a smart ass in a political debate. But then Ninja made an asinine comment and wasn't joking. So I of course challenged his point and smarted off some more. It's always fun. Internet debates haven't had negative emotional effects on me in many years. I see it as just a silly game that I enjoy.

Well, it's hard to tell when your sarcastic on the internet lol. I thought, "oh haha, yeah the bald eagle thinks you're a terrorist" when I read your post. I then continued to read yours and ninjas responses and it seemed to me that maybe you did take it seriously after ninja provided those 4 examples.

I take it that ninja misunderstood your post also.

Sorry

Originally Posted by louie54

Well, it's hard to tell when your sarcastic on the internet lol. I thought, "oh haha, yeah the bald eagle thinks you're a terrorist" when I read your post. I then continued to read yours and ninjas responses and it seemed to me that maybe you did take it seriously after ninja provided those 4 examples.

I take it that ninja misunderstood your post also.

Sorry

Ha ha, it's no big deal.

Gay in the military...
...Is a good step forward. I don't know anything about the subject, but hey...

http://www.dreamviews.com/f100/judge...nction-105248/