Connect with us

DADT: Celebrate Certification But Remember Our Equality March Is Long

Published

on

Tanya Domi and Clinton Fein met 20 years ago when acclaimed author Randy Shilts was writing his tour de force book, “Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military,” the 1993 historical account of gays who had served in the military. Domi was a subject of the book and Fein was the digital artist and producer of a companion CD-ROM which contained interviews of some of the veterans depicted in the book. Today, Domi and Fein are thinking of Randy Shilts and his legacy work. Shilts died in 1994 from AIDS.

A conversation.

TANYA: Clinton, while the entire country is seized with the debt ceiling crisis, we can for the moment celebrate today’s decision by the Obama Administration to certify Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT), indicating to the Congress that the Department of Defense is ready to accept openly gay soldiers in the military. It is long, long overdue and feels anticlimactic to me, especially in light of the facts. During President Obama’s tenure approximately 700 soldiers have been discharged under DADT and America is a minority among our allies on gay equality in the military. For example, Britain and Canada have had openly gay soldiers serving since the early 1990s. Even Poland’s military has a non-discrimination policy.

When the history books are written about the repeal process, it will be a historical account about America’s intolerance of gays and Obama’s agonizing leadership style. The White House had to be pressured and fortunately GetEQUAL delivered the requisite pain, forcing the Administration’s hand to repeal one year earlier than originally planned.

Whatever happened to American pluck and “can-do”? It seems to have dissipated along with America’s bankrupt politics and treasury. I am ashamed that our country had to be dragged kicking and screaming through an excruciating process, supported by countless empirical studies, before repealing DADT. At its very core, DADT is thoroughly anti-American, particularly with respect to First Amendment rights. Let the record reflect that in the U.S. we do regulate, even censor speech as it relates to sexual orientation.

Let there also be no doubt that the Log Cabin Republican case, subject of a recent flurry of action in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, also provided necessary pressure enabling certification today.

The Department of Justice’s request for an emergency injunction last week to reinstate DADT followed the 9th Circuit’s decision on July 6 directing the Pentagon’s to cease enforcement of the policy was a low moment for the community and its relationship with the Obama Administration (more about the enablers and apologists later).

CLINTON: I agree with you – the certification for the repeal is anti-climactic. It took me a while to wrap my head around what was going on with DADT in last week’s development in the Ninth Circuit.

Something had to happen, given the glacial pace of certification of the DADT repeal. As of today, despite the repeal, servicemembers are still being discharged for being gay. Four that we know of since the repeal, but even one, at this point, is one too many. Now that the Pentagon is set to announce certification of the repeal today, there is still an inexplicable 60-day wait before it actually takes effect. Given the way this repeal has been handled to date, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if we see servicemembers discharged for being gay in the next 60 days.

Sergeant 1st Class Leroy Arthur Petry, who was just awarded a Medal of Honor, was deployed eight times with two tours to Iraq and six tours to Afghanistan. We are engaged in three wars (officially). How dare anyone claiming to care about national security think we are in a position to discharge servicemembers for being gay?  I’m glad you mentioned the manufactured debt ceiling crisis, because it’s the same fundamental inability to grasp reality that has the likes of John Boehner focused on overturning the repeal of DADT and bringing federal abortion legislation to the floor, when he should be focused on creating jobs – not spending money to eliminate them by trying to fire committed servicemembers we spent a fortune training to begin with.

TANYA:  Everyone should keep in mind that DADT as a policy is not over until the 60 days has expired, absent further interference by the Congress. Indeed Howard McKeon, chair of the House Armed Services Committee issued a statement this afternoon expressing his “disappointment that Obama has not properly addressed the concerns of the military service chiefs” (don’t expect them to give up).

Lawyers are advising service members not to come out until the 60 days has officially expired. The Log Cabin Republican case may be mooted, but that remains an open question, as only time will tell. We could obtain a future decision that speaks to broader constitutional rights of LGBT persons, which the government is clearly trying to avoid.

Bridget Wilson, a San Diego based attorney-at-law who is a military administrative law expert and an Army veteran (also consulting counsel to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network), shared with me earlier this week her view that the Ninth Circuit’s response to the government’s injunction indicated that they were not pleased that the government was trying to have their cake and eat it too. Wilson said, “I was rather amused by the latest court missive in which the stay was lifted in part but still prohibits the government from investigating, processing or discharging service members under DADT. It was rather a ‘screw you’ to the government in the case. Sure, you can argue your case, but we will hold your feet to fire and not let you use the opportunity to purge a few more”.

“The Ninth Circuit does not appear to be buying the government’s argument. But remember this is primarily [emanating from Chief Judge] Alex Kosinski, The Ninth is no longer the ‘liberal’ circuit. For example, Judge Jay Bybee of the ‘torture memo‘ was appointed by President George W. Bush.”

Wilson added, “I think the slow crawl through the Pentagon has not helped them.” Indeed, the slow rollout has been an agonizing process to monitor, while most Americans thought the deed was actually done in December. Obama brilliantly framed DADT as repealed, without explaining the next two steps before gays were actually freed.

CLINTON: The legal machinations are pretty complicated, but the government’s move to fight the Ninth Circuit’s ruling suggests that a definitive ruling by the courts that DADT is unconstitutional is critical.

And not because I’m a lawyer – I’m not – but because the historically the courts have always given deference to the military. Having looked at the documents being filed by the government, their reasoning is crafty and cunning. Essentially they seem to be arguing that there isn’t a controversy here because Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is in the process of being repealed as Congress had intended. They argue that interference by the courts in a process that’s already underway would undermine the whole repeal process as envisioned and articulated by congress.

I believe that since there are already efforts by certain members of Congress to either rescind the DADT repeal or render it toothless, the Congressional repeal alone is not enough. A ruling on its constitutionality by the court would add a very important weapon into the arsenal against any attempts to reverse course. And given that Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum have all publicly stated that as President they would support reinstatement of DADT – unlikely as some of them are as contenders – the prospect of a different Administration or congress reinstating DADT is very real. We seem to be going backwards as a country in every other sphere.

The days of just accepting anything Obama does as strategy, and warnings against any attempts to call him on his bullshit are indefensible. I know there will be those who argue that we are politically naïve by refusing to so simply give Obama the benefit of the doubt. But if there’s a legitimate strategy behind requesting a stay on this demand to cease implementing DADT, the President, or his minions need to come forward and explain it. And what the pros and cons are before unilaterally making these decisions that don’t, on their face, make any sense at all.

TANYA:  When I spoke to Wilson yesterday as the news broke that the Pentagon would certify today, she added:  “…this will be used to bolster the government’s claim that the case is moot. It is my sense that this is what is motivating it”. She also made a point of asserting that the Administration has needlessly advanced the “Rehnquist Doctrine”, considered an overly broad legal approach taken by federal judges on due deference to the military that has effectively capitulated federal court review of military policies(a subject of a future blog). A sobering notion asserted by Wilson is that it is clear that the longest legal rollouts with respect to implementation in our country’s history is in the arena of civil rights.  In other words, this process will take many, many years to come.

Affirming Wilson, many gay activists are convinced that the Obama government does not want the Courts to establish sexual orientation as a protected class because it would open the door in the military to future law suits by those seeking redress for damages.

I already feel the pain of our gay soldiers—despite the repeal, they remain second-class and must be prepared to render service absent medical benefits for their families, on-base housing and the minimal perks that go along with these small, but important measures that provide support to all other military families.

Add in the complicity of gay politicos like David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign and Winnie Stachelberg, formerly with HRC, now with the Center for American Progress, who both eagerly carried the White House’s political “water” to the detriment of gay service members. Strachelberg personally negotiated away the non-discrimination clause from the House version of the bill and proudly took credit for it, when the White House yielded to the Pentagon’s demand for no protections.

Neither of these political insiders has a realistic clue about the life of a soldier, nor about the sacrifices military families must endure.  Smith and Stachelberg’s unprincipled leadership and complicity should be noted for posterity sake.

CLINTON: That’s unfortunate. Once again these morons having the audacity to make deals on behalf of communities that don’t respect them nor want them doing anything in their name. If I remember correctly, Stachelberg was one of those “saviors” who signed onto the original DADT policy as a reasonable compromise.

The notion that allowing this decision to stand would open the door to restitution and other punitive actions is legitimate, but I think that if a lawsuit was filed on that basis, the government could argue that it was implementing a policy that had been ordered by congress and signed into law by President Clinton. A court could side with the administration and say that in view of the fact the military was adhering to the policy, it cannot be held retroactively responsible for damages that occurred or actions that were taken prior to the repeal.

When President Truman signed his Executive Order in 1948, he too could have refrained, claiming the only reason he wanted to defend segregation in the armed forces was to avoid responsibility for damages or actions taken prior. In my mind it’s worth the risk. Even if, in the end, a court rules that gays and lesbians are indeed entitled to full compensation and repayment of their tuition costs, then so be it.

We don’t deny people civil rights on the basis that providing them is too expensive. Imagine if that was used as a justification for the continuation of Apartheid.

TANYA: Defenders of the Administration are already engaged like Sue Fulton of Knights Out, who was recently named by Obama to West Point’s Board of Visitors. Last night she said that the certification was timely as planned by the White House. Let’s hope Fulton will be as quick to criticize Obama during post-repeal, especially in light of DoD’s overly reliant leadership driven, no anti-discrimination policy for gay soldiers. We will be watching too.

CLINTON: While I am pleased this process is moving forward, snail-paced as it may be, we can still expect the die-hard, pseudo-religious hater on the right, along with the self-loathing Auntie Toms at GOProud to be screeching like turkeys on Thanksgiving in their racist hatred of Obama, masked in “conservatism”. But that’s another conversation I look forward to having with you.

 

Tanya L. Domi is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, who teaches about human rights in Eurasia and is a Harriman Institute affiliated faculty member. Prior to teaching at Columbia, Domi worked internationally for more than a decade on issues related to democratic transitional development, including political and media development, human rights, gender issues, sex trafficking, and media freedom.

Clinton Fein is an internationally acclaimed author, artist, and First Amendment activist, best-​known for his 1997 First Amendment Supreme Court victory against United States Attorney General Janet Reno. Fein has also gained international recognition for his Annoy​.com site, and for his work as a political artist. Fein is on the Board of Directors of the First Amendment Project, “a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to protecting and promoting freedom of information, expression, and petition.” Fein’s political and privacy activism have been widely covered around the world. His work also led him to be nominated for a 2001 PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Sovereignly Appointed’: Trump Praised in Pentagon Prayer Event Led by Hegseth and Pastor

Published

on

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, an Evangelical Christian whose religious tattoos drew scrutiny during his confirmation hearings, led a Christian prayer service in the Pentagon auditorium during official working hours on Wednesday. The event featured Secretary Hegseth’s personal pastor from Tennessee, Brooks Potteiger, and included remarks describing President Donald Trump as “sovereignly appointed,” according to The New York Times.

“This morning at 9:00 AM the Office of the Secretary of Defense sent out what appears to be a building wide email to the entire Pentagon inviting everyone to a ‘Christian prayer service and worship’ in the Pentagon auditorium,” wrote Fred Wellman, who writes “On Democracy” at Substack. Wellman is a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School, an Army veteran of 22 years who served four combat tours, and a political consultant. “Not the chapel. The auditorium.”

“This is a clear and direct violation by a Cabinet member of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and is a direct violation of military norms, traditions, and regulations by the senior official of the entire military,” Wellman alleged.

“The defense secretary said that attendance at the prayer service was voluntary,” the Times added, “but encouraged the uniformed military personnel and civilian employees there to tell their co-workers about it.”

READ MORE: ‘Get Out of Here’: Trump Erupts, Calls for NBC Probe After Reporter Asks About Qatari Jet

Politico Pentagon and national security reporter Paul McLeary noted that there was even an official government email address on the invitation, “to RSVP to this 30 minute event in the middle of a workday.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and expert on national security, added: “The RSVP is a nice touch, so that they know who’s on board.”

He also weighed in more broadly:

“Not sure of the constitutionality here – not a lawyer! – but years ago, one of the War Colleges used to do this with ‘voluntary’ Bible study opportunities that had the same kind of roster-taking, and that went away pronto after complaints and an investigation,” Nichols wrote.

Last week, the Freedom From Religion Foundation published a report stating that Pastor Potteiger is “known for promoting Christian nationalist views,” and claimed that Wednesday’s event “is expected to be a monthly prayer gathering. According to Potteiger, the event will include Christian preaching, proselytizing and the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer — all within one of the most powerful institutions of the U.S. government.”

“This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and its proscription of religion in government,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. “Assuming the pastor’s boast is true, these prayer meetings would not only exclude and marginalize the significant number of nonreligious and non-Christian service members, they will send the impermissible message that Christianity is the Pentagon’s preferred faith.”

“Turning the Pentagon into a church service during duty hours isn’t just inappropriate — it’s unconstitutional,” FFRF also said. “We’ve sent a letter demanding an end to this blatant breach of the First Amendment.”

In January, before he was confirmed, The Guardian reported that in “a series of newly unearthed podcasts, Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s pick for defense secretary, appears to endorse the theocratic and authoritarian doctrine of ‘sphere sovereignty’, a worldview derived from the extremist beliefs of Christian reconstructionism (CR) and espoused by churches aligned with far-right Idaho pastor Douglas Wilson.”

READ MORE: ‘It’s a Nightmare’: Trump’s ‘Beautiful’ Bill Slashes $500B From Medicare, Dems Say

Others are also blasting the decision to hold a Christian prayer service inside the Pentagon.

“Hegseth continues to propagate christian white nationalism, while undermining the separation of church and state and the norms of civil-military relations,” wrote retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the former Director of European Affairs for the U.S. National Security Council, whose whistleblower efforts led to the first impeachment of Donald Trump.

“This is what Christian nationalism looks like: the government using its power to push religion from the top down, said Max Flugrath, Communications Director for Fair Fight Action.

In February, author Brian Kaylor, a Baptist minister with a Ph.D. in political communication, posted a video from a Pentagon town hall where Secretary Hegseth began his remarks by declaring, “All glory to God.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Full MAGA Lobotomy’: Rubio Rebuked by Senate Dem — ‘I Regret Voting for You’

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Get Out of Here’: Trump Erupts, Calls for NBC Probe After Reporter Asks About Qatari Jet

Published

on

President Donald Trump called for an investigation into NBC News and the CEO of its parent company after one of the network’s top reporters pressed him on the Pentagon’s Wednesday afternoon acceptance of a $400 million luxury airliner from Qatar—a gift some legal scholars warn may violate the Constitution without congressional approval.

“The secretary of defense has accepted a Boeing 747 from Qatar in accordance with all federal rules and regulations,” Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement on Wednesday, as The New York Times reported. “The Department of Defense will work to ensure proper security measures and functional-mission requirements are considered for an aircraft used to transport the president of the United States.”

Estimates range as high as one billion dollars for work that would be required to make the luxury jetliner capable of acting as a mission center to not only transport the President but protect them and other top officials in the event of crisis or war.

Experts “said that accepting the 13-year-old jet would likely cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over time, noting that refurbishing the commercial plane would exceed its current value of $400 million,” NBC News reported last week. “The project might also not be completed by the end of Trump’s term in 2029, at which time the plane is expected to be handed over to Trump’s presidential library foundation.”

READ MORE: ‘It’s a Nightmare’: Trump’s ‘Beautiful’ Bill Slashes $500B From Medicare, Dems Say

But when confronted with a question about the jet, President Trump appeared combative and visibly angered.

“What are you talking about?” Trump asked NBC News Chief White House Correspondent Peter Alexander during an Oval Office meeting with the President of South Africa. “You know, you ought to get out of here.”

“What does this have to do with the Qatar jet? They’re giving the United States Air Force a jet, okay? And it’s a great thing. We’re talking about a lot of other things. It’s NBC trying to get off the subject of what you just saw. You are a real — You know, you’re a terrible reporter,” Trump charged.

“Number one, you don’t have what it takes to be a reporter. You’re not smart enough, but for you to go into a subject about a jet that was given to the United States Air Force, which is a very nice thing, they also gave $5.1 trillion worth of investment in addition to the jet. Go back, you ought to go back to your studio at NBC because [Comcast CEO] Brian Roberts and the people that run that place, they ought to be investigated.”

“They are so terrible, the way you run that that. And you’re a disgrace. No more questions from you.”

Moments later, the President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, jokingly remarked, “I’m sorry I don’t have a plane to give you.”

READ MORE: ‘Shameless Liar and Insane Conspiracy Theorist’: RFK Jr. Slammed by Democratic Senator

“I wish you did,” Trump replied, also saying he would accept it.

HuffPost White House correspondent S.V. Dáte remarked: “And there you have it. If Palestinians want their own state, they need to come up with a half billion dollar luxury jet to give Trump. Same with Zelenskyy, if he wants US help.”

Before the announcement that the U.S. has formally accepted the jet, U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a former constitutional law professor, wrote: “I’ve introduced an amendment to block Trump from accepting his $400 million Bribe Force One from Qatar, a jumbo global scandal. It’s unconstitutional to take a foreign present ‘of any kind whatever’ from a foreign state, but House Republicans won’t even give me a vote. They don’t give a flying Emolument.”

Critics blasted and mocked the President.

“Someone’s getting testy about his Flying Bribery Palace,” wrote civil liberties and national security journalist Marcy Wheeler.

“Donald Trump has put a ‘for sale’ sign on the White House,” charged U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA). “He’s accepting a $400 million jet from Qatar – rubber stamped by AG Pam Bondi, a registered foreign agent for Qatar. He’s accepting $300 million from a company tied to the PRC and TikTok. This is corruption, plain and simple.”

[Bondi is a former registered foreign agent for Qatar.]

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Full MAGA Lobotomy’: Rubio Rebuked by Senate Dem — ‘I Regret Voting for You’

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

News

‘It’s a Nightmare’: Trump’s ‘Beautiful’ Bill Slashes $500B From Medicare, Dems Say

Published

on

President Donald Trump and his White House have repeatedly vowed to protect Medicare and block any cuts to the vital health care program that serves 67 million Americans—most of them seniors. But according to top Democrats citing a report from the Congressional Budget Office, his so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” would force Medicare to be slashed by roughly $500 billion.

“I have breaking news for you tonight that literally just came out in the last few minutes, as I’ve been sitting here,” U.S. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA), the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, said on MSNBC late Tuesday night.

“The nonpartisan congressional Budget Office, the official authority on these figures, has now confirmed this bill, in addition to Medicaid cuts, in addition to Obamacare cuts, includes $500 billion worth of cuts to Medicare,” Boyle said. “That is now in this bill, as well.”

READ MORE: ‘Shameless Liar and Insane Conspiracy Theorist’: RFK Jr. Slammed by Democratic Senator

President Donald Trump, less than one month after being sworn in this year, told Fox News, “Medicare, Medicaid — none of that stuff is going to be touched.”

Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill” — the GOP budget, or reconciliation bill, reportedly includes cuts of over $800 billion from Medicaid, and $500 billion from Medicare.

U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), the Ranking Member on the House Rules Committee, asked Congressman Boyle about the $500–$535 billion cuts to Medicare during Republicans’ middle-of-the-night hearing on Trump’s budget legislation.

READ MORE: ‘Full MAGA Lobotomy’: Rubio Rebuked by Senate Dem — ‘I Regret Voting for You’

“Well, here we are tonight,” Boyle told McGovern, “because, as you explained, because of the size of the deficits, because of the PayGo, or ‘Pay As You Go Act,’ that would trigger sequestration of Medicare, and it would total over $500 billion. The official figure that CBO confirms, is $535 billion in cuts to Medicare.

“This Republican budget bill is one of the most expensive—and dangerous—bills Congress has seen in decades,” Ranking Member Boyle said in a statement. “The nonpartisan CBO makes it clear: the deficit will explode so badly it will trigger automatic cuts, including over half a trillion dollars from Medicare.”

U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM) at 4:00 AM called the legislation, “the biggest transfer of wealth from the poorer, working families and middle class to the wealthiest.”

“Americans might have just woken up and they don’t know what’s happening, but let me tell you, it’s a nightmare,” she warned. “Republicans are taking from the poor and giving to the rich.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Vulgar Trump Boast Claims Credit for Olympics—and Blames ‘Rigged’ Race for Comeback

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.