GOV/MIL Danger To Discipline-Why we must keep ban on homosexuals

[William]

Washington Times
February 2, 2010
Pg. B3

Danger To Discipline

Why we must keep ban on homosexuals

By Richard H. Black

President Obama's promise to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military has caused tension among those responsible for military discipline. Former Marine Commandant Gen. Carl E. Mundy and 1,160 retired admirals and generals strongly oppose the change.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was tasked by Mr. Obama with implementing the change. But that task has proved difficult. On Jan. 15, The Washington Times reported, "Adm. Mullen was unable to get the full backing of other senior leaders during an unusual meeting of the top officers from each branch of the military." There are good reasons why top officers, including current Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway, oppose the change.

From 1992 to 1994, I served as chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon. During that time, President Clinton ignited a firestorm when he tried to force the Department of Defense to admit known homosexuals into the military. Key obstacles were the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ ) and department regulations stating that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." The uniform code prohibits indecent assaults, indecent acts, indecent liberties with children and sodomy. Each of those rules makes good sense in the unique military environment.

Even as Congress was wrestling with Mr. Clinton's proposal on homosexuals, officials were dealing with a major homosexual scandal at Fort Hood, Texas. Homosexuals had advertised a Fort Hood restroom as a gathering spot for casual sex. In just seven days, criminal investigators observed 60 men publicly committing serious acts on post. Officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and enlisted personnel participated. Many wore uniforms displaying their insignia of rank.

The Army dealt with the matter discreetly, and the chief of public affairs referred to it as a "potentially explosive issue." It was "explosive" because it contradicted the administration's campaign to portray gay GIs as "perfect gentlemen - a boon to the force."

At the Criminal Law Division, facts contradicted that party line. Worldwide criminal reports documented serious offenses being committed frequently by homosexual GIs. To be certain, homosexuals weren't the only soldiers committing crimes, but the administration's proposals would have placed homosexuals in situations of forced intimacy, where same-sex attractions invite serious trouble.

Activists claim the risk of crimes from same-sex offenders is no greater than it is between servicemen and women. They are wrong. Women are not required to sleep and shower under the watchful eyes of men.

Homosexuals dismiss concerns regarding privacy in showers and in the barracks. But the risk is high. At Fort Sill, Okla., in 1991, two homosexual recruits caught a lone soldier showering at night. They violently sodomized the soldier, forcing him to submit by strangling him with a bath towel. At the time of trial, the victim was hospitalized under psychiatric care.

Recruit training is especially problematic. Male recruits had to physically subdue one homosexual drill instructor at an Army base to keep him from raping a male recruit as that recruit struggled to escape out a second-story window. At Marine boot camp, an aggressive female recruit was discharged for sexually touching and soliciting fellow Marines. Her intimidating manner caused fear and distrust throughout her platoon. At Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., a company gunnery sergeant sexually attacked a young officer candidate who had stayed back at the barracks while his platoon was out training.

Rep. Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, spoke firmly against dropping the ban on homosexuals, stating that it would cause "disruption" and "serious problems." Mr. Skelton is correct.

Assaults aren't the only problem. Few things threaten unit cohesion more than consensual sex between homosexuals while others are present. The Fort Hood incident demonstrates how public sex among homosexual officers, NCOs and enlisted men destroys respect for rank. How would men respond to such officers and noncoms in battle?

If widespread misconduct of that severity could happen with the prohibitions now in effect, how much worse would it become if consensual homosexuality were lawfully sanctioned - and made the subject of sensitivity training?

Discipline will suffer if gays are permitted to serve. I learned the importance of discipline on the Marine drill fields of Parris Island. S.C., and during fierce fighting with the 1st Marine Regiment. Later, in the disciplinary collapse following the Vietnam War, I spent many years helping rebuild discipline in the Army. Experience shows that highly disciplined units are important in garrison - and vital in battle.

Mr. Clinton practically brought down his presidency trying to lift the ban. After an exhaustive national debate, the House of Representatives determined that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Congress then enacted Title 10 U.S. Code Section 654, which states that homosexuals are ineligible for military service. That ban is an essential element of military discipline. It must be retained.

Richard H. Black, retired from the U.S. Army, was chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division. As a Marine pilot, he flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam and he served four terms in the Virginia General Assembly.

[gelatinous]

The US military isn't the place to attempt social experiments. It is a dictatorship for a reason. Our soldiers have more than enough to do without worrying if they might offend an out in the open homosexual. And that's exactly what will happen. The very first time somebody calls one a fag or a queer, the lawyers will be lining up salivating for the chance to be the first to sue under the new homosexual law. Courtesy of our military hating commander in chief.

[BadMedicine]

Originally Posted by gelatinous

The very first time somebody calls one a fag or a queer, the lawyers will be lining up salivating for the chance to be the first to sue under the new homosexual law.

Why should anyone in uniform be saying this to a comrad? sexual harrassment is harrasment anyway yuo slice it. I'm strait and I don't think I'd put up for that, if meant in a serious deriding way.. if it was a joke, a homo couldn't take it? I think they're a lot thicker skinend that some expect but why shouldn't someone stand up for their rights? Rights are not givin by people. they're assumed to all people. I'll just sit this one out (If I can stand to...) and watch the religious morally 'just' xenophobes foam and froth over who 'their' god lets into heaven. yall are a huge disappointment to jesus though. seriously.

[American Rage]

They don't give a damn what the military thinks, just the opposite. They'll do anything possible to destroy our defenses.


Rage

[SarahLynn]

I'm on the side of the Christian conservatives/traditionalists on this but I would like to see someone honestly answer the question which has often been posed in counter argument of why having homosexuals openly serve in the Israeli and Canadian miliary does not seem to be a problem, or is it, and we are not being told?

[American Rage]

Originally Posted by SarahLynn

I'm on the side of the Christian conservatives/traditionalists on this but I would like to see someone honestly answer the question which has often been posed in counter argument of why having homosexuals openly serve in the Israeli and Canadian miliary does not seem to be a problem, or is it, and we are not being told?

I've never heard this. I do know that in the early 80s the left were pushing for women in combat. In fact, Israel tried it. The experiment in the IDF was a disaster. And yet, America's left continued to push this idealism for another decade.



Rage

[SarahLynn]

Okay, I found something from the United States General Accounting Office that explains why allowing homosexuals to serve in the militaries of Israel, Canada, Sweden, Germany, etc. seems to not be a problem. What they're basically saying is the homosexuals self-censor.
For those who are interested:
http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/GAO.pdf

[gelatinous]

Originally Posted by BadMedicine

Why should anyone in uniform be saying this to a comrad? sexual harrassment is harrasment anyway yuo slice it. I'm strait and I don't think I'd put up for that, if meant in a serious deriding way.. if it was a joke, a homo couldn't take it?

I'm really basing my comment on what I observed while I was in the military. There was a very low tolerance for nonsense that affected the whole unit. That included racial tension (which was the main thing I saw). Once a homosexual decided that he/she needed to prove a point, the very first instance of anything negative will be a trigger for a lawsuit. At that point he/she would be an outcast of the unit for stirring up crap that will affect them all.

[Anrol5]

As far as I am concerned any type of inappropriate sexual behaviour is unacceptable, whether that behaviour is by homosexuals, or heterosexuals.

There was an article a while back, about a military commander, who said he would jail any woman who got pregnant on active service. Several people pointed out that some of those women would have got pregnant after rape, and gave very good explanations for why they didn't report it at the time.

Rape is rape, whether it is against women or against men. It is wrong.


This article struck me, as another anti gay piece. There are plenty of examples, of recruits, being harmed by their instructor - being bullied; recruits dying after instructors forced them to walk many miles in extreme heat, even after they complained of symptoms of heat exhaustion; of recruits being assaulted by instructors, and so on. Thankfully these incidents are rare, as a I suspect attacks by gays on others, but the military has been plagued by stories of the senior person harming a junior; or more junior ranks going to far.

Harming another person, straight or gay, through lack of care or stupidity is wrong. Malice has two sides to it. Deliberately harming another person, straight or gay, in your unit is considered wrong, but shooting the enemy isn’t.

As to the homosexuals meeting in the shower for sex, I believe on some ships/bases, there are rules that say, *NO* sexual behaviour of any form is allowed. And that includes married couples. If a married couple is found, even fully clothed behind a locked door, they get punished. The rules define appropriate behaviour. Break the rules, you will be disciplined. End of discussion.

And before you say only gays would meet in showers, what about swingers? Oh they would meet somewhere more discreet! So that's OK!

So far all I have seen is a bunch of anti gay sentiments. Rules in the military exist, and can be made to deal with inappropriate behaviour, by anyone, straight or gay. IMO, use the rules to deal with unacceptable behaviours, not to deal with the prejudices of some.

Wouldn’t it be easier to go back to an all men military. Perhaps it would be simpler to run, BUT.... If the military wants the best person for the job, they need to look at that person's abilities, regardless of race, religion, age, sexual orientation, or gender. Or whatever!

There are stories coming out now of how non white, non Christian women saved the day in WWII. There wasn't a white, Christian man who could have done the job the woman did. Interestingly their stories are only now coming out, and they are only now getting posthumous medals. Men who served in the war, and did similar jobs, their stories were told decades ago, and they, or their families were given the medals then.

If I was under fire, I would want the best person next to me, regardless of colour, creed, sexual orientation, or gender. I wouldn't want someone just because they were a man. I would also want my commanding officers, and their superiors to be the best there were. I wouldn’t want a repeat of WWI commanders, who got there because they paid for their commissions. And look how many millions died through their incompetence

I want the military to be the best there is, and that means letting anyone, and everyone, who meets the entry conditions in.

Anrol

[Walker10]

Originally Posted by SarahLynn

I'm on the side of the Christian conservatives/traditionalists on this but I would like to see someone honestly answer the question which has often been posed in counter argument of why having homosexuals openly serve in the Israeli and Canadian miliary does not seem to be a problem, or is it, and we are not being told?

I tend to think that many times we're not being told about it because it happens on such a low level. Something that happens at the squad level in a barracks just doesn't rate mention.

Bear in mind that a lot of what we're told is designed to fit preconcieved outcomes (that homosexuality isn't a problem) also.

But, gelatinous is quite correect in saying that the unit polices itself also. A soldier who is posing a problem for the rest of the unit is taken care of by the other members of the unit very quickly before TPTB bring trouble down on everyone else.

[IDK]

As they say
Aids kills fags dead.

[Stormy]

I am gay and served my Country proudly as a United States Marine from 1980 - 1986.

No declared war, but I went on covert missions due to my ability with firearms. I caused no problems, but problems were caused to me by men.

I would not date them, and this was way before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I had a civilian girlfriend and was very happy.

But because I would not cave into the pressure to go out drinking with the male Marines, I was told I should get out of the Corps before I was charged with being a homosexual and given a bad conduct discharge.

My Dad was a highly decorated WWII vet who fought with honor aboard the USS Essex, CV-9 and lost his hearing as a result. Given the many kamakazi attacks on his ship plus being nearly capsized in a typhoon, it's a wonder he survived.

I truly was an outstanding Marine and wanted to go to Officer Candidate School, but with this being thrown in my face I just left my beloved Corps rather than face charges and embarrass my family, especially Dad who is an American Hero.

This was, in my opinion, a terrible affront to my integrity, my character, and my love of Country and Duty. I just wanted to serve my Country, but because of who I loved that was not possible.

Under fire nobody cares who you sleep with. They just care about your sniping abilities.

[IDK]

Originally Posted by gelatinous

I'm really basing my comment on what I observed while I was in the military. There was a very low tolerance for nonsense that affected the whole unit. That included racial tension (which was the main thing I saw). Once a homosexual decided that he/she needed to prove a point, the very first instance of anything negative will be a trigger for a lawsuit. At that point he/she would be an outcast of the unit for stirring up crap that will affect them all.

When I was mil.. once a fag decided to prove a point they got point intell they died or were killed.
Both takening care of a problem that should never have been.

[Stormy]

Originally Posted by IDK

When I was mil.. once a fag decided to prove a point they got point intell they died or were killed.
Both takening care of a problem that should never have been.

What are you talking about? So a "fag" did what?

And it was 'takening' care of exactly how?

[AutmnWind]

Originally Posted by Anrol5

As far as I am concerned any type of inappropriate sexual behaviour is unacceptable, whether that behaviour is by homosexuals, or heterosexuals.

There was an article a while back, about a military commander, who said he would jail any woman who got pregnant on active service. Several people pointed out that some of those women would have got pregnant after rape, and gave very good explanations for why they didn't report it at the time.

Rape is rape, whether it is against women or against men. It is wrong.


This article struck me, as another anti gay piece. There are plenty of examples, of recruits, being harmed by their instructor - being bullied; recruits dying after instructors forced them to walk many miles in extreme heat, even after they complained of symptoms of heat exhaustion; of recruits being assaulted by instructors, and so on. Thankfully these incidents are rare, as a I suspect attacks by gays on others, but the military has been plagued by stories of the senior person harming a junior; or more junior ranks going to far.

Harming another person, straight or gay, through lack of care or stupidity is wrong. Malice has two sides to it. Deliberately harming another person, straight or gay, in your unit is considered wrong, but shooting the enemy isn’t.

As to the homosexuals meeting in the shower for sex, I believe on some ships/bases, there are rules that say, *NO* sexual behaviour of any form is allowed. And that includes married couples. If a married couple is found, even fully clothed behind a locked door, they get punished. The rules define appropriate behaviour. Break the rules, you will be disciplined. End of discussion.

And before you say only gays would meet in showers, what about swingers? Oh they would meet somewhere more discreet! So that's OK!

So far all I have seen is a bunch of anti gay sentiments. Rules in the military exist, and can be made to deal with inappropriate behaviour, by anyone, straight or gay. IMO, use the rules to deal with unacceptable behaviours, not to deal with the prejudices of some.

Wouldn’t it be easier to go back to an all men military. Perhaps it would be simpler to run, BUT.... If the military wants the best person for the job, they need to look at that person's abilities, regardless of race, religion, age, sexual orientation, or gender. Or whatever!

There are stories coming out now of how non white, non Christian women saved the day in WWII. There wasn't a white, Christian man who could have done the job the woman did. Interestingly their stories are only now coming out, and they are only now getting posthumous medals. Men who served in the war, and did similar jobs, their stories were told decades ago, and they, or their families were given the medals then.

If I was under fire, I would want the best person next to me, regardless of colour, creed, sexual orientation, or gender. I wouldn't want someone just because they were a man. I would also want my commanding officers, and their superiors to be the best there were. I wouldn’t want a repeat of WWI commanders, who got there because they paid for their commissions. And look how many millions died through their incompetence

I want the military to be the best there is, and that means letting anyone, and everyone, who meets the entry conditions in.

Anrol

[citybear]

Originally Posted by IDK

As they say
Aids kills fags dead.

Not all of us.

But it does kill PEOPLE just as effectively as stupidity takes out uneducated morons.

Your screen name is appropriate IDK.

[undead]

I really cannot understand what the issue is for DADT such that it's so damn critical that everybody "comes out of the closet."

What's that going to get you? - It's going to get you crappy morale and a whole crapload of UCMJ actions on both sides, and probably some grenades going off in tents.

I mean, really, why should "sexuality" be a factor to be incorporated into the military in any regard?


DADT works.


There is some agenda going on here.

[Chair Warmer]

What about the rights of straight people who don't want their nakedness ogled by homosexuals? Forcing straight people into living quarters with homosexuals is equivalent to forcing them to be naked in front of members of the opposite sex. It's traditionally accepted that the only times one must expose their nakedness to the opposite sex is for medical care or intimate relations, so why force straights into such an uncomfortable position as this? Isn't that taking away the rights to not be exploited and the rights to modesty for the straight people?

Mrs. Chair Warmer

[Blastoff]

It strikes me that this issue is so small compared to what is going on in the world. WHY! is this an issue on the table right now.

The Ft Hood shooter is still not dealt with, nor the conditions that allowed him to remain in the service despite others' grave, documented concerns.

DADT strikes me as an "easy win" for O - he needs something - and a media distraction from more important issues with which O's viewpoints cannot score him points with Americans.

[johnnymac]

[quote=Anrol5;3639391]

This article struck me, as another anti gay piece.

No. This is an article written by a former military man based upon his personal experience and opinion. Unfortunately, if one's opinion is not the correct version, they are automatically labeled a "bigot", "racist" or "anti something". Proponents of gays in the military should listen to what the writer states and counter his arguments and examples rather than fall back to the same old name calling which is what generally occurs.

So far all I have seen is a bunch of anti gay sentiments

.

I have only read a couple of blatant and ugly anti-gay statements here. The majority of responses from members who posted support the current rules and regulations. Their responses are not "anti-gay"; they are "pro current rules".

[Thomas Paine]

Originally Posted by Stormy

I am gay and served my Country proudly as a United States Marine from 1980 - 1986.

No declared war, but I went on covert missions due to my ability with firearms. I caused no problems, but problems were caused to me by men.

I would not date them, and this was way before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I had a civilian girlfriend and was very happy.

But because I would not cave into the pressure to go out drinking with the male Marines, I was told I should get out of the Corps before I was charged with being a homosexual and given a bad conduct discharge.

My Dad was a highly decorated WWII vet who fought with honor aboard the USS Essex, CV-9 and lost his hearing as a result. Given the many kamakazi attacks on his ship plus being nearly capsized in a typhoon, it's a wonder he survived.

I truly was an outstanding Marine and wanted to go to Officer Candidate School, but with this being thrown in my face I just left my beloved Corps rather than face charges and embarrass my family, especially Dad who is an American Hero.

This was, in my opinion, a terrible affront to my integrity, my character, and my love of Country and Duty. I just wanted to serve my Country, but because of who I loved that was not possible.

Under fire nobody cares who you sleep with. They just care about your sniping abilities.

Sorry got to throw the BS flag on this one.Covert missions? Jamie Bondette?
Sniping abilities? As they say on the street Negro Pleeeze!! I could see undercover work if you were CID or MP or even CI but the way you put that shite out there is you were playing super secret mall ninja for the NSA. And as an ex infantryman I can we did care if we had a queer in the unit because his behavior was flaming and designed to be a point of contention. As to your service you intentionally joined the service under false pretenses and in violation of regulations, you had to lie to get in. Therefore there was nothing honorable about your service I don't care if you personally fell on a grenade to protect Ray Gun Ronnie.

[FarmerJohn]

It's not a "Danger To Discipline" to allow anyone, even anonymously, the opportunity to make claims of 'gayness' against both straight and gay servicemen and women?

FJ

[Garf]

[Maryh]

My son who just came back from Iraq said he wouldn't like it cause when they were deployed they had community showers and he wouldn't like being olged if they were able to come out.

Daughter wonders about the social events on base. It would open up a whole can of worms. They are serving just fine right now.

[Green]

I am retired military (27 years, 16 days) and I can tell you, there were and are plenty of gays in the military. Discrete, yes, but still in. And all that I knew of served honorably and were excellent soldiers. But hey, why get in the way of a good fag bash, huh?

Carry on.

MAJ Green

[ainitfunny]

Originally Posted by SarahLynn

Okay, I found something from the United States General Accounting Office that explains why allowing homosexuals to serve in the militaries of Israel, Canada, Sweden, Germany, etc. seems to not be a problem. What they're basically saying is the homosexuals self-censor.
For those who are interested:
http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/GAO.pdf

I READ that report and their "success" is not only due to homos in their military NOT "coming out"and making their sexual inclinations known BUT ALSO A DELIBERATE POLICY BY THE FEW NATIONAL MILITARIES WHO WOULD consent to giving information about the REAL effect of homos in their military THAT THEY HAVE A CENSORING/SUPPRESSION POLICY ABOUT ANY "Problems" with homos and FORBID ACCESS BY NEWS REPORTERS wishing to access troops for questioning about the effect of homosexuals in their units. THEY ALSO "Keep a LOW profile" about it when problems DO arise, not permitting it to be known what is occurring to make it appear more successful than it probably is. EVER HAD TO FACE THE STOCK ANSWER BULLSH*T: "YOU are the ONLY ONE having a problem with it" when facing ANY complaint department?

So, if a straight guy or guys get RAPED by homosexuals in the military, nobody but he will know it and the public will be none the wiser, thinking everything is hunky dory. "Problems" are taken care of at as low a level of command as possible. BUT I BETCHA THEY WOULD MAKE A PUBLIC EXAMPLE OF ANY STRAIGHT GUY WHO TOUCHED A GAY TROOP.

IT IS GONNA BE LIKE THE PRESENT POLICY WITH BLACK ON WHITE CRIME, BLACKS "can't be racist" no matter what they say or do to a white man, but ANYTHING not obviously directly benefiting a black man, when caused by a white man is AUTOMATICALLY attributed to racist prejudice without any need for proof.

Gays will ascend to the seat of power and authority over straight troops, their word becoming incontestable against a straight troop.

[Chair Warmer]

Originally Posted by Green

I am retired military (27 years, 16 days) and I can tell you, there were and are plenty of gays in the military. Discrete, yes, but still in. And all that I knew of served honorably and were excellent soldiers. But hey, why get in the way of a good fag bash, huh?

Carry on.

MAJ Green

So did you mind being eye candy for the homosexuals, or did the other guys there unsuspectingly serve as your eye candy?

Also, I agree with these words about homosexuals in the military;

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

As to your service you intentionally joined the service under false pretenses and in violation of regulations, you had to lie to get in. Therefore there was nothing honorable...

Mrs. Chair Warmer

[Wowser]

I must say, this is some of the best news I have read in a while!

My Daddy, a WW2 combat vet, would often lament on the sad state of the U.S., before he died ie homos, abortion on demand, the massive non-White invasion, the feminization of the military. He would say, “I can not believe “we” fought WW2 to preserve the nation to destruction.”

I would say “Daddy hush!”

This is going to be a great blessing to some of us one day. We need to ENCOURAGE, woymns and homos, and non-Whites in the U.S. Military. In fact I hope this is what the military becomes entirely.

Can you imagine General Robert E. Lee’s Army fighting today’s panty waist U.S. Army?

I said this would prove to be a great blessing for some of us one day.

[Ozarkian]

+1000 on your comments Thomas Payne!

And your right Green. Far be it from me to pass up an opportunity to bash those that commit abominations. Although I pray they will repent!

[Thomas Paine]

Bump

[inynmn]

Green:
I am retired military (27 years, 16 days) and I can tell you, there were and are plenty of gays in the military. Discrete, yes, but still in. And all that I knew of served honorably and were excellent soldiers. But hey, why get in the way of a good fag bash, huh?


When I served (USAF) I noticed the same.
I had to room with humans that preferred the same sex - never had a problem.
I did notice many aggressive, violent heterosexuals.

One in 3 women are raped in the US Armed Forces - by heterosexual men.

Clearly the pentagon knows they are running out of volunteer cannon fodder and they want to ensure less "sexual preference loss".