Trump Pardons Three Guilty of War Crimes

Donald Trump continues to destroy American morality as he pardons three U.S. Military members convicted of war crimes.  The pardons came over the protests of the military who said the moves undermined the military justice system.  Sadly, to me, it is representative of Trump's view that if victims are non-white, then it really doesn't matter. Of course, there are also parallels with Nazi Germany where Hitler protected and rewarded those guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, Trump's support among morally bankrupt evangelicals remains firm.  The Washington Post looks at Trump's actions which undermine both military justice and what moral authority America purports to hold in the Middle East and elsewhere.   Here are highlights: 

Trump intervened in three cases involving war crimes accusations on Friday, issuing full pardons to two soldiers and reversing disciplinary action against a Navy SEAL despite opposition raised by military justice experts and some senior Pentagon officials. 

The service members were notified by Trump over the phone late Friday afternoon, according to lawyers for Army Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn and former Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, the SEAL. Golsteyn faced a murder trial scheduled for next year, while Gallagher recently was acquitted of murder and convicted of posing with the corpse of an Islamic State fighter in Iraq.

The third service member, former Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, was expected to be released Friday night from prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. He was convicted of second-degree murder in 2013 and sentenced to 19 years for ordering his soldiers to open fire on three men in Afghanistan.

Golsteyn and Lorance received full pardons, while the president will direct the Navy to restore Gallagher to his previous rank before he retires, the White House said. His demotion marked the only significant penalty he received following his acquittal on the murder charge.

[S]ome senior Pentagon officials [tried] to change Trump’s mind, according to three U.S. officials. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said some commanders have raised concerns that Trump’s move will undermine the military justice system. Their cases have been featured frequently on conservative media, as advocates prepared cases for the president behind the scenes.

The military, he said, has “worked for decades to lay the ghosts” of the Vietnam War and war crimes committed during it to rest, and Trump’s decision risks undermining that.

“Executive clemency like this introduces doubt into the chain of command, and creates uncertainty about accountability for breaches of military rules,” said Carter
The facts of the three cases vary.

In Golsteyn’s, the Special Forces officer went from being regarded as one of the Army’s heroes in the Afghanistan war to under investigation in the 2010 death of an unarmed man in a combat zone.

The case first emerged after Golsteyn, who had been awarded a Silver Star for valor on the same deployment, said during a polygraph test while applying for a job with the CIA that he had killed the man and burned his body. . . . He set an ambush for the man, whom he believed to be responsible for the recent death of two Marines, he said. He reasoned that if the man came in his direction, he was returning to activities with the Taliban.

In Gallagher’s case, the Navy SEAL faced a court-martial this summer after he was accused of mortally stabbing a wounded Islamic State detainee in the neck and obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening other SEALs who reported him.

In Lorance’s case, nine members of his unit testified against him, including some under immunity. They said under oath that Lorance, as their new platoon leader, had ordered them to open fire on three Afghan men riding motorcycles even though their intent was not clear, after issuing death threats to local leaders.

The action follows Trump pardoning another veteran, former 1st Lt. Michael Behenna, in May in the 2008 murder of an Iraqi prisoner suspected of being a member of al-Qaeda.  Behenna was convicted of unpremeditated murder and sentenced to 25 years after stripping a detainee naked, interrogating him without authorization and shooting him twice.

And we wonder why America is hated by so many in the Middle East.

Trump: Pentagon Has Six Months to Create New Transgender Military Ban

Der  Trumpenführer mad many campaign promises.  To date he has delivered on very few of them.  There is one glaring exception to this do nothing situation: the assault on LGBT rights that was made to a who's who of American Christofascists in June, 2016, in New York City.  With the aid of extreme homophobes Jeff Sessions and Betsy De Vos, already protections of LGBT students are  under assault and LGBT protections put in place by the Obama administration have been rescinded. Now, following up on his anti-transgender tweets, Der  Trumpenführer  has issued a directive to the Pentagon giving it six months to formulate a new ban on transgender members of the U.S. military. The Los Angeles Blade has some details on the development (note two things: Mike Pence has been the driving force behind the ban and how the state of California may be positioning itself to oppose the ban).  Here are highlights:

White House guidance on the transgender military service ban President Trump ordered via tweet July 26 is headed to the Pentagon, as soon as Thursday afternoon or possibly Friday morning, a senior White House source told the Los Angeles Blade.

The Guidance has been boiled down to a 2½-page memo that directs Defense Sec. Mattis to come up with a policy in six months, stop spending money on transgender-related medical treatment for active duty trans servicemembers and gauges fitness for service based on “deployability”—whether the trans individual can ably serve in a war zone and engage in military exercises or function a ship for months, officials told the Wall Street Journal. 

That guidance was also watered down from the complete ban Trump ordered to one that would allow active duty trans service members to continue serving after even Republicans opposed the policy change. The weakened policy requires that recruitment and the accessions policy be halted (they are now), enlistment contracts not be renewed, promotions result in discharges, and transgender-specific healthcare be prohibited.

At an Aug. 14 news conference, Mattis indicated support for trans service members, noting the United States Armed Forces is “a widely diverse force. We look at E Pluribus Unum on our coins. Out of many, one. They were simply emphasizing on the battlefield we are one team and that’s the way we stay.”

It has now been widely reported that Mattis quietly intervened to scotch efforts by anti-LGBT Reps. Duncan Hunter and Vicky Hartzler to get a version of the trans ban passed through Congress. Nor did he object when Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said the current policy of open service would remain in effect until it is formally replaced or when Navy Secretary Spencer said “any patriot” should be allowed to serve, echoing other commanders supporting their trans service members.

However, Mattis also noted that the military chain of command requires him to follow orders given by the civilian commander-in-chief.

The White House senior official source — who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity — said Vice President Mike Pence is the driving force behind the ban. In fact, he has been spearheading the trans ban reinstatement since last May, at the behest of conservative leaders such as Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, and scores of retired anti-LGBT military officers.

Trump’s fear of his evangelical base is more powerful than his promises to the LGBT community, justifying the ban by saying: “It’s been a very difficult situation and I think I’m doing a lot of people a favor by coming out and just saying it. As you know, it’s been a very complicated issue for the military, it’s been a very confusing issue for the military, and I think I’m doing the military a great favor.”

Fact check: an estimated 6,000 trans service members have been serving openly without incident since the original ban was lifted by then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter in July 2016, after a year of study and deliberation.

News of the ban prompted the California Legislative LGBT Caucus to introduce a Resolution saying California would protect its own trans service members. California is home to more than 190,000 active and reserve service people on three army bases, seven marine bases, 10 navy bases, six air force bases and five reserve and numerous U.S. Coast Guard bases.[A]t the end of the resolution, the Caucus notes what could prove to be a wrinkle in Trump’s plan. “Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of California calls upon the Governor of California to direct the California National Guard, the California Air National Guard, and the other Armed Forces of the state to take no action that discriminates against transgender service members in enlistment, promotion, or any other aspect of their service, on the basis of their gender identity or expression, unless superseded by federal law, regulation, or formal directive from the United States Department of Defense.”

But what happens if and when transgender members of the state National Guard are called up and federalized? Low’s office says they are looking into that. AJR 22 will be heard on the Assembly floor in the coming weeks. 

Every individual who voted for Trump/Pence or stayed home and failed to vote against Trump bears responsibility for this assault of the civil rights of other Americans.  These people will find no forgiveness from me.  They deliberately harmed my community and threaten my civil rights. 

Texas National Guard Capitulates to Pentagon on Gay Spousal Benefits

Despite its early bluster and refinance of Pentagon orders that required all National Guard units to register married same sex couples for spousal benefits, the Texas National Guard has capitulated to the Pentagon and will not proceed like Oklahoma and drop registration of spousal benefits for all couples, gay or straight, rather than recognizes married gay and lesbian couples.  No reason is given, but since the Pentagon provides almost all of the funding and equipment for state national guards, one cannot help but wonder if someone didn't have a "come to Jesus" discussion of possible consequences.  Here are details from the Washington Blade:

After initially resisting a Pentagon directive to enroll the same-sex spouses of troops into benefit programs, the Texas National Guard announced on Tuesday that it has come to an agreement that will allow its facilities to process these applications for gay service members.

In a statement on Tuesday, Texas Military Forces said the Defense Department has approved a new procedure in which the Pentagon will provide federal personnel, funding and the use of federal personnel systems to enroll the spouses of all troops — gay and straight — into the benefit system.

According to Texas Military Forces, which comprises the state’s national guard, this agreement resolves the conflict of the edict from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel saying spousal benefits should be available to gay troops everywhere and Texas’ state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Although Hagel said spousal benefits for gay troops, including health, pension and housing benefits, should be available nationwide in August following the Supreme Court decision against Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Texas initially refused to process applications to grant the same-sex spouses of troops a military ID card, citing state law barring same-sex marriage.

After other states, including Oklahoma, Louisiana and Mississippi, made similar announcements, Hagel issued a second edict saying he’s directed the National Guard Bureau to ensure states comply, threatening unspecified consequences if they continued to refuse.

According to the National Guard Bureau, the decision from Texas to acquiesce means Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana are the only states that have yet to comply.

On Nov. 7, Oklahoma announced that its state-run national guard facilities are getting out of the business of processing benefits altogether and are directing everyone — gay and straight — to federally-run installations within the state. However, Oklahoma isn’t considered a non-compliant state.

An LGBT advocate, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the purported change announced by the Texas Military Forces is a “crock” because federal funds and systems were already being used to enroll spouses in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System. The announced change, the advocate said, is a way for Texas Military Forces to save face as it acquiesced to the Pentagon’s demands.

All But Three States To Comply With Pentagon Gay Marriage Directive

As noted before, all but three states - Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana - intend to comply with the Pentagon policy of treating legally married same sex couples no differently than married heterosexual couples.  Even Virginia intends to comply with Pentagon policy - much to the chagrin of gay haters like Del. Bob Marshall - perhaps for a simple reason: Most of the state National Guards' budgets comes from the Pentagon.  Some readers have said the states can do as they wish because they fund their respective National Guards.  Such is not the case and one can hope that the Pentagon will send  Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana a message they will understand by holding back funding.  The Charlotte Observer looks at the issue and notes that 90% of Virginia's funding for the Virginia National Guard comes from the federal government.  Here are story highlights:

The three states that have defied a Pentagon order to allow all active-duty military personnel to apply for same-sex spousal benefits are – so far – going it alone.

Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi are the only states to decline to process applications for such benefits at state-run National Guard facilities, citing state laws and constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage.

More than a dozen states with similar laws have elected to follow the Pentagon’s policy, including North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, Idaho and Alaska. “It is not in conflict with our state constitution or state laws,” said Lt. Bernie Kale, a spokesman for the Alaska National Guard.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/09/10/4303642/3-states-stand-alone-in-defying.html#storylink=cpy

“The military is not telling any state what the state has to do,” said Evan Wolfson, the founder and president of Freedom to Marry, a gay rights group. “It’s saying for federal purposes, couples who are married should be treated as what they are: married.”

According to Col. Timothy Marsano, a spokesman for the Idaho National Guard, married same-sex couples will be treated no differently from any others.  “It’s going to be no problem for someone who’s legally married in another state to come to us and apply for benefits,” he said. “We’re not going to send them packing.”

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/09/10/4303642/3-states-stand-alone-in-defying.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/09/10/4303642/3-states-stand-alone-in-defying.html#storylink=cpy

For their part, the Pentagon and the National Guard Bureau have clarified that active-duty personnel in those three states may apply for same-sex spousal benefits at any federal base or installation.  “All federal military installations will issue IDs to all those who provide a valid marriage certificate from a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage,” said Nate Christensen, a spokesman for the Department of Defense.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/09/10/4303642/3-states-stand-alone-in-defying.html#storylink=cpy

Every state and territory receives federal funding to support its national guard. In some states, that constitutes most of the guard’s money.  Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell noted last week that his state receives 90 percent of its National Guard funding from the federal government, and though Virginia bans gay marriage, he said the state – home to the Pentagon and several military bases – would comply with the policy.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/09/10/4303642/3-states-stand-alone-in-defying.html#storylink=cpy

Again, the Pentagon needs to simply tell Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana that they have a choice: either comply with the policy or plan on funding 100% of their own operations.  I suspect that overnight they'd have a miraculous epiphany.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/09/10/4303642/3-states-stand-alone-in-defying.html#storylink=cpy

Syria: A War That The Pentagon and Americans Do Not Want

Despite the drumbeat of the Obama administration and some Congressional leaders, a significant majority of Americans want nothing to do with another war in the Middle East.   We have heard the arguments all before and the result was that a gullible public and lazy mainstream media allowed America to plunge into the disaster of the Iraq War.   Some call this public reaction the "Iraq Syndrome"  as if it is some phobia to be overcome.  Other - rightly in my view - call this aversion to a new war common sense and a case of learning from past mistakes.   Andrew Sullivan cites a piece in the American Conservative that makes this latter argument.  Here are highlights:

Larison dismisses the argument that anti-interventionists are suffering from “Iraq Syndrome”:

[T]his is becoming a common way to describe the absolutely justifiable and sane reaction of the public and even many in Washington to the disaster of the Iraq war. Interventionists call this a syndrome because it is supposed to be seen as an affliction or something from which Americans need to recover, as if there were something unhealthy or harmful in becoming extremely wary of waging wars of choice in countries that we don’t understand very well for dubious and often unobtainable goals. On the contrary, the existence of this so-called “syndrome” is proof that the public is very sensibly recoiling from the repeated misjudgments and mistakes of their political leaders.

Most Americans are firmly against making yet another major foreign policy error, and what they keep hearing from Washington and from much of the media is that they are suffering from some kind of malady that needs to be cured with another war.

This truly is becoming a battle between the Washington war-machine and the people it is supposed to protect. And yes, Iraq is relevant. Of course it is relevant. And no, as Daniel argues, this is not a syndrome. It is not a syndrome to look twice before crossing the street, when you have been run over by a truck twice in the last decade. In any case, the parallels are so close as to be almost absurd. The president is trying to get support for a military campaign against a Baathist leader in a murderously divided Middle Eastern country in order to prevent the use of WMDs and to send a message to Iran. I mean: is there any more obvious analogy? Now I know the president has ruled out “boots on the ground”. But there are already boots on the ground, in a covert war the war-machine has already launched.

But it is not just the American public that opposes another intervention disaster.  An op-ed in the Washington Post authored by a retired Army major general and former commandant of the U.S. Army War College makes the case that the Pentagon for once doesn't want this war either.  Here are some highlights:

The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war.

 Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. . . . . After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.

They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.

They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our “responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security.
They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message. 

They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. “Look,” one told me, “if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn’t think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.” But they also warn that Syria is not Libya or Serbia. Perhaps the United States has become too used to fighting third-rate armies. As the Israelis learned in 1973, the Syrians are tough and mean-spirited killers with nothing to lose. 

[T]oday’s soldiers know war and resent civilian policymakers who want the military to fight a war that neither they nor their loved ones will experience firsthand. 

Mississippi Joins Texas in Refusing to Process Spousal Benefits for Gay Troops

Mississippi - another paragon of bigotry, racism and Bible Belt hypocrisy - has joined Texas in refusing to process spousal benefits on state owned facilities, citing that state's animus inspired anti-gay constitutional amendment.   Given Mississippi's near last place ranking in almost any criteria other than perhaps poverty and obesity, one would think that the state would have more important issues to concentrate on.  But no, discrimination is always given top billing in a state that even Alabama looks down on as inferior.  The Washington Post looks at the situation.  Here are highlights:

The Texas National Guard refused to process requests from same-sex couples for benefits on Tuesday despite a Pentagon directive to do so, while Mississippi won’t issue applications from state-owned offices. Both states cited their respective bans on gay marriage.

Texas and Mississippi appeared to be the only two states limiting how and where same-sex spouses of National Guard members could register for identification cards and benefits, according to an Associated Press tally. Officials in 13 other states that also ban gay marriage — including Arizona, Oklahoma, Florida, Michigan and Georgia — said Tuesday that they will follow federal law and process all couples applying for benefits the same.

Mississippi National Guard spokesman Tim Powell said the main factor in determining where same-sex spouses could apply for benefits came down to the property owner. Powell said only National Guard offices on federal property would accept the applications in Mississippi, which also constitutionally bans gay marriage.

“It is our intent to provide benefits and services to our men and women in uniform and at the same time abide by federal and state statutes,” Powell said.

Pentagon officials said Texas appeared to be the only state with a total ban on processing applications from gay and lesbian couples. Spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen said federal officials will process all applications from same-sex couples with a marriage certificate from a state where it is legal.

Alicia Butler said she was turned away from the Texas Military Forces headquarters in Austin early Tuesday and advised to get her ID card at Fort Hood, an Army post 90 miles away. She married her spouse — an Iraq war veteran — in California in 2009, and they have a 5-month-old child.

In Florida, where gay marriage is banned, state Department of Military Affairs spokesman Lt. Col. James Evans said he was unaware of any policy that would prohibit accepting a request for processing benefits.

Requests for benefits for same-sex couples in Oklahoma, where gay marriage also is illegal, will be handled like those from heterosexual couples, said Oklahoma National Guard spokesman Col. Max Moss. . . . “As long as the soldier presents that marriage certificate or license, then we would treat that claim just like we would any other soldier that brings in a marriage license or certificate,” Moss said.

Texas Military Forces Refuse to Process Same-Sex Couples' Benefits

In yet another example of how the far right increasingly sees itself as above the federal laws and rulings of the U. S. Supreme Court, Maj. Gen. John Nichols (pictured above), who oversees the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and Texas State Guard, directed state-run facilities to comply with the anti-gay Texas state constitution, which does not recognize same-sex marriage.  Perhaps the Pentagon should consider cutting off all federal funds that flow to these Texas divisions of the military if Texas believes it can ignore Pentagon directives.  This development underscores that the cowardice of the U. S. Supreme Court and its refusal to rule broadly on gay marriage has only created more chaos.  The Advocate has details.  Here are highlights:

The Texas Military Forces, which includes the state's National Guard and other troops, are refusing to process requests from gay and lesbian couples for spousal benefits, ignoring orders from the Department of Defense that it should extend health care, housing, and other benefits to married gay and lesbian members of the military by today.

The directive creates an additional hurdle for gay and lesbian members of the military, who now must apply for benefits at a federal facility. In Texas, one of the nation’s largest states, applying at a federal installation could require traveling a considerable distance.

The Pentagon confirmed to the Associated Press that Texas is the only entire state that is currently refusing to process benefit requests for same-sex partners, though some state-run offices in Mississippi have also refused to issue applications.

“It’s truly outrageous that the state of Texas has decided to play politics with our military families," said Stephen Peters, president of American Military Partner Association, which advocates for LGBT military families. "Gov. Rick Perry should be ashamed. Our military families are already dealing with enough problems and the last thing they need is more discrimination from the state of Texas."  

Tuesday was the first day these benefits were available to members of the military, following the Supreme Court decision that struck down a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Two thoughts.  First, Texas and Mississippi seemingly learned little from their defeat in the Civil War in terms of the federal law taking priority over state law.  Second, as I have argued many times - and as the majority in United States v. Windsor recognized - the only motivation behind anti-gay laws and state constitutional amendments is hatred and anti-gay animus that seeks to make gays lesser citizens be they in the military or civilians.   And this pervasive evil has one source: religion.

GOP Senator Claims Pentagon Policy Allowing Gays To Marry Harms Straight Couples

One of the worse gay haters and homophobes in the United States Senate is GOP Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe who I suspect in truth would favor establishing a Christofascist ruled theocracy in America after an over throw of the U.S. Constitution in substance.  There seems to be no end to the man's anti-gay batshitery.  Now he is claiming that Pentagon policy allowing gay service members to marry is harming heterosexual couples.  Like most of what comes out of Inhofe's mouth its crazy bullshit.  Inhofe over looks one important fact: unlike gays, straights can marry in every state in America.  It's a huge difference. Think Progress looks at this batshitery erruption.  Here are highlights:

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) blasted a proposed Pentagon policy aimed at giving same-sex couples the time to travel to states where they can legally marry on Thursday. Inhofe, who takes great pride in having no LGBT relatives, wrote to Sec. of Defense Chuck Hagel that doing so would amount to “special uncharged leave benefits” for same-sex partners.

Following the Supreme Court’s June ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Department of Defense has been working to update its systems to ensure it treats same-sex marriages equally, as required by the ruling. Since just 13 states and the District of Columbia have statewide marriage equality, the military is reportedly considering granting a few days of uncharged leave to soldiers and sailors who need to travel to a state where they can legally marry.

Inhofe, the ranking minority-party member of Senate Armed Services Committee, objects to the idea, suggesting it is an illegal benefit and that it would amount to discrimination not to offer the same amount of leave to those entering into opposite-sex unions:

Inhofe’s claim that he supports fair and equal treatment seems to conflict with his record. His official Senate website boasts that he has “consistently supported and defended traditional marriage between one man and one woman as a cornerstone to the strength of our society,” and that he strongly opposes “the Obama Administration’s attack on traditional marriage and attempts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.” Inhofe voted for the unconstitutional DOMA law in 1996 and co-sponsored a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

Of course, if his concern about “disparate treatment” is sincere, the solution is obvious: he should work toward making sure same-sex couples, especially those who serve their country, are free to marry in all 50 states. He could start with his own state of Oklahoma,

Don’t Trust the Pentagon to End Rape

Living in an area with a huge military population one gets to see the failings of the military and the arrogance of senior military personnel with some frequency.   Given the deference given to senior officers - and the fear they can instill in low ranking service members - it's actually little surprise that the U.S. military has a huge sexual abuse problem.  The Christofascists, of course, would much prefer to blame the situation on gays in the military even though the data shows that women are disproportionately the victims of assault.  And their lame excuse to blame the gays ignores the very sick macho culture that can be found in too many members of the military who seem to get their kicks out of sexually debasing guys they deem insufficiently "manly."  A column in the Washington Post looks at the systemic problem which will not be cured if left to the Pentagon and senior military brass.  Here are column highlights:

[T]he chiefs of staff of the military branches will likely admit that there is a serious problem and insist that the solution involves changing military culture. But the challenge goes far deeper. 

The military has a problem with embedded, serial sexual predators. According to a 2011 report from the Pentagon’s Sexual Assault and Prevention Office, 90 percent of military rapes are committed by men with previous histories of assault. These predators select and befriend lower-ranking victims; often they ply their victims with alcohol or drugs and assault them when they are unconscious. 

In my film “The Invisible War,” a retired brigadier general, Loree K. Sutton, describes the military as a “target-rich environment” for serial predators. The training and leadership efforts the Pentagon proposes won’t change this environment. It simply isn’t possible to “train” or “lead” serial predators not to rape. 

There is a way to stop these predators: we should prosecute and incarcerate them. But here the military fails entirely. 

Why? There is a deep institutional bias in the military’s justice system; senior officers can — and often do — intervene to prevent cases from being investigated and prosecuted. 

Victims of sexual assault know this well, which is why fewer than 15 percent of sexual assaults in the military are ever reported. I spoke with hundreds of men and women who were sexually assaulted in the military while I was making “The Invisible War”; every one of them was advised by their peers not to report. Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, acknowledged that victims didn’t come forward because “they don’t trust the command.”

Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and colleagues have recently introduced legislation that would empower military prosecutors and judges to decide whether to investigate and prosecute felony crimes. This would remove the decision-making process from the military chain of command and remove the disincentive to report crimes. The Pentagon is resisting this reform, just as it resisted reforms after the Tailhook episode in 1991, over sexual assaults at a gathering in Las Vegas; sexual assaults on female Army recruits at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland in 1996; and a 2003 investigation of rapes and attempted rapes at the Air Force Academy, near Colorado Springs. 

Now the generals are circling the wagons again, insisting that the legislation’s reasonable reforms would affect commanders’ ability to maintain “good order and discipline.” But, as Ms. Gillibrand noted, a military that suffered 26,000 sexual assaults within its ranks in the last year is already failing to maintain “good order and discipline.” 

This dysfunctional system of military prosecutions affects all of us. With so few predators being convicted, a vast majority are discharged honorably, into an unsuspecting civilian population that unknowingly affords them the opportunity to continue their predation in a new “target-rich environment.” 

The military cannot — and will not — fix this problem on its own. Despite the military’s repeated assurances over several decades that it has “zero tolerance” for sexual assault and will hold commanders accountable, more than 500,000 uniformed men and women have been assaulted since 1991.

I agree 100% with the column's author.

Sexual Assaults Still Pervasive In Military Despite - Victims Fear Retaliation

Lieutenant Elle Helmer at the Vietnam War Memorial, is featured in "The Invisible War". (James Helmer/PBS)

With its huge numbers of  military personnel, the Hampton Roads region of Virginia ought to be concerned about the reports of pervasive instances of sexual assault that are taking place within the U. S. military.  (Unless, of course one takes the approach of the City of Norfolk city fathers and just close one's eyes to lawlessness - at least until something really bad happens).  Men and women serving in our military should not be allowed to undergo assaults and be concerned that they have no recourse.  Yet the system is obviously failing them.  Indeed, the number of unreported assaults is increasing apparently because victims (i) feel nothing will be done and (ii) fear that they will experience retaliation if the report the offenses.  One thing that seems clear is that leaving the military to police itself isn't working and perhaps its time that investigations and trials of those accused of assault be moved outside of the military.  It is also telling that most of the assaults are being committed by heterosexual males.   An article in The Daily Beast looks at this horrific situation.  Here are excerpts:

The film, which will be broadcast on PBS’s Independent Lens, is a searing examination of military sexual assault, an issue so endemic within the armed forces that a female soldier is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than she is to be killed in combat. Its television premiere comes just as the problem has been receiving more attention from the media and politicians—all the way up to President Obama himself—than perhaps ever before.

It started last Sunday, with the arrest of Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Krusinski, the head of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention program, on charges of sexual battery after he allegedly groped a woman in a Washington, DC, parking lot. Two days later, the Department of Defense released its annual report on sexual assaults within the ranks, announcing that there were nearly 3,400 reported incidents of sexual assault in 2012 alone, up six percent from 2011. But the report also included the results of a survey—conducted every two years—which found that the actual number of assaults was far greater: an estimated 26,000, up from 19,000 in 2010.

Congressional outrage doesn’t necessarily result in real change—at least, it hasn’t in the past. “I don’t want to appear jaded,” she [Jackie Speier, a Democratic Congresswoman from California] said on Friday, “But going up against the military-industrial complex is not an easy task.” She cited a pattern that extends back decades, where high-profile scandals like those surrounding the Tailhook convention in 1991, the Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1996, and, more recently, at Lackland Air Force Base, prompt alarm, followed by Congressional hearings, and, inevitably, promises to enforce a “zero tolerance policy” from the military’s top brass. Yet despite countless pledges to root out the problem once and for all, sexual assaults, according to the Pentagon’s own figures, only continue to escalate.

[T]he percentage of those who chose to report their assaults dropped by some 30 percent—hardly a sign of confidence in the existing system.  The explanation for that, according to many, is a simple one. The report—which this year clocks in at 1,494 pages—found that 62 percent of victims who did report their assaults faced retaliation as a result.

Stories of retaliation, and re-victimization, are ones that director Kirby Dick and his producer Amy Ziering heard repeatedly as they were making The Invisible War. “Every single person that we spoke to, whether they reported it or not, they were all advised by their peers not to report,” Dick says. “Basically you’re risking your career to report.”

Cynthia Smith, a spokeswoman for the DoD, called the film outdated, citing the efforts that Panetta, and now Hagel, have made to address the issue—including a directive to establish Special victims units in each of the branches, and, most recently, the appointment of nine people to a new “Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel,” which in July will begin an independent review of the system.

But skeptics fear that such measures will amount to little more than just another set of empty promises. And as for the notion that the film is no longer relevant, Dick’s response was unequivocal. “They’re right, it is outdated,” he said. “The number of sexual assaults has gone up 35 percent since I finished making the film. They’ve lost this invisible war very, very badly.”

Virginia Will Get Hammered as Pentagon Moves to Freeze Hires and Slash Spending

The irony here in Virginia is that no state is more dependent on federal spending and will suffer more than Virginia if the Congressional Republicans continue to refuse to strike a rational budget deal to avoid sequestration.  Yet it is Republican members of Congress like Scott Rigell, Randy Forbes and Bob Wittman who are among those apparently only too happy to push the nation into sequestration.  One has to wonder how happy their delusional supporters are wen they find themselves placed on furloughs or suddenly unemployed as military spending is slashed in Hampton Roads and across the country.   Northern Virginia will be hard hit as well.   Frankly, there is some sweet irony that some of these GOP voters may soon be about to reap what they have sown.  Unfortunately, many others will be impacted by the extremism of those sent to Congress from this region and other parts of Virginia thanks to GOP gerrymandering.  The Washington Post looks at the Pentagon's plans to slash spending.  Here are highlights:

The Pentagon will impose a freeze on hiring civilians, slash operating costs on military bases and take other immediate steps to trim spending in preparation for the possibility that Congress will fail to reach a deal to avert billions of dollars in additional cuts, defense officials said Thursday.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said he ordered the cutbacks as a precautionary measure because he has grown pessimistic that Congress and the White House will reach agreement. If they do not, the Pentagon would be subject to $52 billion in cuts this fiscal year — about 10 percent of its non-war-fighting budget.

He said the armed forces would exempt combat operations in Afghanistan — which are largely funded by a separate war budget — as well as pay and benefits for the troops. To compensate, however, cuts would have to bite deeper for other programs, such as ship maintenance, military training programs and the purchase of new weapons.

The Pentagon had largely resisted making plans for the “fiscal cliff.” Defense officials had simply stated that such an outcome would be financially disastrous for the military and wanted to avoid the impression that it could be absorbed in stride.

Panetta said he previously assumed that the potential cutbacks were “so nuts that it wouldn’t happen,” but that now he frets they could become a reality. “Frankly, my fear in talking to members of Congress is that this issue may now be in a very difficult place.”

A memo released Thursday by the Pentagon instructs the armed forces and defense agencies to curtail spending on training, travel, office expenses and conferences. It also gives officials the authority to fire temporary workers.

The hiring freeze alone could have a significant impact on the economy in the Washington region. The Defense Department employs about 800,000 civilians worldwide, but many are concentrated locally.
 
The Pentagon has proposed keeping up to 10,000 U.S. troops to help train Afghan forces and conduct counterterrorism operations. But White House officials have pressed for fewer. On Tuesday, Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, told reporters that one option would be to pull out all U.S. troops after next year — a suggestion that induced heartburn among many senior military leaders.

Of course, by some estimates, simply pulling out of the fool's errand in Afghanistan would save enough money more than cover the  the sequestration cuts otherwise facing the Pentagon in the coming year.  And it would stop the needless waste of young American lives in a war that will never be won.

As for Hampton Roads, the region has for too long embraced backwardness and relied on military spending to support the region.  Now, it will find itself hard put to attract modern, progressive business as the Virginia GOP continues to hold the state under anti-equality and Medieval social policies.

The Pentagon Says LGBT Sites Are Blocked For "Operational Security Reasons"

As readers may recall, it recently was shown that the Pentagon has been blocking LGBT sites on government and military computers even thought far right wing political sites are freely accessible as are other less than main stream sites.  Now, the Pentagon is trying to claim that LGBT sites and blogs have been banned for "operational security reasons."  Apparently, Tea Party and quasi-Nazi and near white supremacist sites are fine.  Obviously, the storyline doesn't add up.  Think Progress looks at the Pentagon's ludicrous explanation.  Here are excerpts:

AMERICAblog has been raising awareness over the past week about a problematic Internet filtering problem at the Pentagon, and rightfully so. Apparently, a preponderance of LGBT news sites have been blocked by the DOD, including AMERICAblog, Towleroad, Good As You, The Bilerico Project, Pam’s House Blend, The Advocate, and the Human Rights Campaign’s blog.

 Though the filtering itself is a problem, the Pentagon’s response has been that much more troubling.
On Friday, the DOD released a statement on its Facebook page completely obfuscating the situation:

We’ve received some questions/comment recently about DOD’s web access policies, and wanted to provide this statement:

The Department of Defense does not block LGBT websites. The pages referenced in several recent articles were denied access based on web filters blocking the “Blog/Personal Pages” category, not the specific sites themselves. While individuals on a DoD system may visit portions of the main websites (i.e., www.towleroad.com, www.AMERICAblog.com), certain additional links/pages – to include personal blogs – are blocked. Personal pages and blogs are blocked in accordance with DoD policy allowing military commanders the option to restrict access to personal pages for operational security reasons.

As AMERICAblog’s John Aravosis points out, this statement does not withstand scrutiny on multiple counts. First of all, the filtration software specifically identifies the sites as “LGBT” as a reason for being blocked. Secondly, this doesn’t explain why plenty of anti-gay conservative blogs and personal pages are not blocked, including RedState, Breitbart, the Family Research Council’s blog, the National Organization for Marriage’s blog, and Ann Coulter’s and Glenn Beck’s personal sites. There is also no explanation how LGBT content could threaten national security, .  .  .  .

It also seems that there is little consistency throughout the system, with different divisions being controlled differently. Aravosis has identified that the DOD uses a filtration software known as Blue Coat, the same software used by a number of oppressive regimes and LGBT-unfriendly countries, including Syria, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar. Blue Coat has also problematically blocked LGBT sites in many school districts, including anti-bullying and anti-suicide resources like The Trevor Project.

It remains unclear then why the software includes a filter for LGBT content at all, except for use by those who are anti-LGBT.

Over the weekend, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little issued another statement that improves a bit over the first, promising to investigate the claims of censorship:

Recent reports have suggested that the Pentagon is blocking access to LGBT related websites. The Department of Defense does not block websites based on LGBT content. [...]   No filter is perfect and some sites may have unnecessarily been blocked. The Department Chief Information Officer will work with relevant components to address these situations.

Still, neither statement addresses the way progressive LGBT content is uniquely blocked when conservative anti-gay content is not, nor explains the validity — past or present — for such filtering. If the only answers ever offered are suggestions that LGBT content threatens national security, then the only conclusion left will be that the Pentagon is itself anti-LGBT. 

 

Lets be candid.  Many in the senior ranks of the Pentagon ARE anti-gay.  There is no other legitimate reason for the targeting of LGBT blogs and sites is occurring.  Especially given the fact that incendiary far right blogs and sites are not filtered.

Pentagon Threatens Lawsuit Over Navy Seal Book about Bin Laden

Knowing a number of past and present Navy Seals, it has been disheartening to see some of that group rush to make money or - like local Scott Taylor, a failed GOP candidate who lost the nomination to hate group endorsed Scott Rigell - or shore up their bona fides with far right elements of the Republican Party.  Worse yet is the fact that the truth seems to lose out to whatever best fits the author's or spokesman's personal agenda be it cash or political advantage.  Thankfully, the Pentagon appears to have perhaps had enough of the partisanship and greed and is threatening legal action against at least one of these, in my opinion, less than honorable individuals. Politico has coverage on the development.  Here are excerpts:

The Defense Department is threatening to go after an ex-SEAL author and his publisher over a new book that challenges the administration’s official account of last year’s raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

The Pentagon late Thursday released a letter from its top lawyer, Jeh Johnson, to publishing giant Penguin and “Mark Owen,” the pseudonym of an ex-SEAL special operator who has been identified as Matt Bissonnette. In the letter, Johnson said Bissonnette had breached non-disclosure agreements he signed while on active duty in 2007.

According to official Navy records obtained Thursday by POLITICO, Bissonnette served in the Navy from 1998 until April of this year. Johnson wrote that the NDA he’d signed remained in effect “even after you left the active duty Navy.”

“In the judgment of the Department of Defense, you are in material breach and violation of the non-disclosure agreements you signed,” Johnson wrote to “Owen,” in keeping with DOD’s policy not to identify some special operators. “Further public dissemination of your book will aggravate your breach and violation of your agreements.”

Johnson closed by informing “Owen” and Penguin that the Defense Department “is considering pursuing against you, and all those acting in concert with you, all remedies legally available to us in light of this situation.”

The Pentagon could ask the Justice Department to try to prosecute Bissonnette or seize the royalties raised by the book, which is officially due out Monday but has already gone on sale in some places.

These opportunists truly need to be shut down and I'm glad the Pentagon seems to be prepared to take action

Pentagon OK's Chaplains Performing Gay Weddings

One can almost hear the hyperventilating and sound of flying spittle that must be emanating from Elaine Donnelly, Maggie Gallagher, Tony Perkins and similar professional gay-haters. Why? Because now military chaplains on bases in states where same sex marriage is legal can perform weddings for sames sex couples. It's yet another blow against the special privileges too long afforded to far right Christian religious beliefs that have been allowed to trample on the religious freedom of other citizens. Be assured that there will be shrieks that such weddings are a threat to religious freedom, but in truth the Christianist (and Catholic Church) version of religious freedom is the freedom to inflict one's beliefs on all of society. The Washington Post reports on the new policy. Here are some highlights:

The Pentagon will permit military chaplains to perform same-sex marriage as long as such ceremonies are not prohibited in the states where they reside, it said Friday.

Defense Department guidance issued to military chaplains said they may participate in ceremonies on or off military bases in states that recognize gay unions. Chaplains are not required to officiate at same-sex weddings if doing so is counter to their religious or personal beliefs, the guidance said.

And regardless of the Pentagon guidance, military chaplains will still need to take cues from their religious order, said Gary Pollitt, spokesman for the Military Chaplains Association.

The decision validates a move made by the Navy in May that earned the ire of conservative critics and Pentagon observers, because Navy officials acted on their own instead of in tandem with other military services. The guidance also irked Republican lawmakers who were still attempting to block plans to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

For those who want to inflict their religious views on everyone, I'd suggest they convert to Islam and move to Iran. The mindset and level of intolerance of the Christian Taliban is really no different than their Islamic counterparts. A copy of the Pentagon memo is set out below (click the image for a larger view)

More Lives Needlessly Squandered in Afghanistan

As regular readers know, I have opposed the continuing military disaster in Afghanistan for years - it's a situation that will never yield success, yet the USA continues to throw billions and billions of dollars down the rat hole and lives continue to be lost on a fools errand. The truth is that Afghanistan has been a largely lawless land of war lords and instability for thousands of years yet the USA military leadership, after watching the Soviets spend 10 disastrous years trying too subdue the area, is so filled with hubris that it still believes it can do what no one has been able to do for well over 2,000 years. Now, with the shooting down of Chinook helicopter an Saturday, 38 more lives have been thrown away, 22 from units stationed in the Hampton Roads area. Those lost were husbands, sons, and fathers - living breathing individuals, not just more statistics for those at the top who really don't give a damn despite their mealy mouthed lip service to the contrary.

*

Don't get me wrong - I support the rank and file members of the military who merely go where they are ordered to go and try to achieve their ordered mission even if its impossible to achieve. The hubris and idiocy are at the top ranks of the Pentagon and military brass who will always claim to be making progress and claim that the task can be completed with more troops and more squandered money. The American people never seem to learn that war is a game to those at the top and that there's never a war that should not be fought. Now, local family and friends are mourning lives that were wasted on a fools errand. Here are highlights from the Virginian Pilot:

In the deadliest day for U.S. forces in the nearly decade-long war in Afghanistan, insurgents shot down a Chinook transport helicopter Saturday, killing 30 Americans - including Navy SEAL commandos from the broader unit that killed Osama bin Laden - and eight Afghans, U.S. and Afghan officials said.

The helicopter, on a night-raid mission west of Kabul, was most likely brought down by a rocket-propelled grenade, one coalition official said.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, and they could hardly have found a more valuable target: U.S. officials said that 22 of the dead were Navy SEAL commandos from two different special teams, including Virginia Beach-based SEAL Team 6. Other commandos from that team conducted the raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed bin Laden in May. The officials said that those who were killed Saturday were not involved in the Pakistan mission.

Saturday's attack came during a surge of violence that has accompanied the beginning of a drawdown of U.S. and NATO troops, and it showed how deeply entrenched the insurgency remains even far from its main strongholds in southern Afghanistan and along the Afghan-Pakistani border in the east. U.S. troops had recently turned over the sole combat outpost in the Tangi Valley to Afghans.

Early accounts of the crash suggested that the helicopter was hovering near the target location when an insurgent fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the Chinook and it went down, killing all aboard.

The casualties are believed to be largest loss of life in the history of SEAL Team 6, officially called the Navy Special Warfare Development Group, or DEVGRU. The team is considered the best of the best among the already elite SEALs, who number 3,000 personnel.

It makes me physically sick to think of the families who have lost loved ones. We'll hear a lot of disingenuous blather about how they died serving their country. In truth, they died because of the hubris of their senior commanders. And yes, I personally know members of the SEALS and their families.

Obama and Pentagon Certify ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal

This afternoon President Obama, the Secretary of Defense Panetta, and Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all signed off on and certified, the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. Now we begin a sixty (60) day count down to the full relegation of DADT to the trash heap of history. Needless, to say I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth among the Christianists. DADT has been a huge tool for anti-gay religious extremists who have heretofore been able to point to DADT as a vaidation of their anti-gay views. Elaine Donnelly must truly be having the vapors like some southern belle of yesteryear whose corset was laced far too tightly. The spittle must be flying by the bucketful as well at Family Research Council and the American Family Association, two registered hate groups who have lost a huge battle with the demise of DADT. Here are highlights from the Washington Blade on the developments this afternoon:
*
President Obama and Pentagon leaders gave the green light on Friday to start the 60-day time period for when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be off the books and openly gay Americans will be entirely free to serve in the U.S. military.
*
After consultation during a Friday meeting at the White House, Obama — along with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen — issued certification to Congress that the armed forces are ready for open service.
*
[N]ow that repeal has been certified, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be off the books on Sept. 20. Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the “final countdown to repeal begins today” as a result of certification.
*
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said certification of repeal means gay service members can “breath a huge sigh of relief.” “While we still must wait 60 days for this change to formally take effect and for the law to officially be off the books, this step is nothing short of historic,” Nicholson said. ”This is the final nail in the coffin for the discriminatory, outdated, and harmful ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law.”
*
September 20, 2011 will be huge day for gay and lesbian service members in Hampton Roads who have had to live in fear. For my many gay friends in the military it must feel as if a huge weight is about to be removed from their shoulders. I hope activist remember that the legislation that set repeal in motion arose only because the LGBT community raised hell and demanded that the Democrats and Obama cease the pretty words with real action. The same needs to now be done with DOMA.

Lawsuit Says Military Is Rife With Sexual Abuse

Elaine Donnelly and other rabid anti-gay professional Christians and faux experts would have the public believe that allowing gays in the military would undermine good order and open the door for sexual misconduct. It's a lie, of course - like just about everything that comes out of the mouths of the Christianists. Worse yet, it ignores the fact that sexual misconduct by straight service members is already rampant and the fact the the good old boys in charge like to turn a blind eye to the ongoing misconduct. Apparently, especially when women are the victims of sexual abuse. Now, a lawsuit has been filed seeking redress of the outrages that have been permitted which one would hope would expose those in the senior brass who have turned a blind eye to misconduct under a "boys will be boys" mindset. From some of the male chauvinist military brass I've encountered locally, the claims of the lawsuit ring true. It's long past time that the macho cowboy mindset of those in command be reined in. Here are highlights from the New York Times:

*
WASHINGTON — A federal lawsuit filed Tuesday accuses the Department of Defense of allowing a military culture that fails to prevent rape and sexual assault, and of mishandling cases that were brought to its attention, thus violating the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
*
The suit — brought by 2 men and 15 women, both veterans and active-duty service members — specifically claims that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and his predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld, “ran institutions in which perpetrators were promoted and where military personnel openly mocked and flouted the modest Congressionally mandated institutional reforms."
*
There was severe maltreatment in these cases, and there was no accountability whatsoever. And soldiers in general who make any type of complaint in the military are subject to retaliation and have no means of defending themselves.”
*
The plaintiffs’ stories in the complaint include accounts of a soldier stripping naked and dancing on a table during a break in a class on preventing sexual assault, physical and verbal harassment, and the rape of a woman by two men who videotaped the assault and circulated it to the woman’s colleagues.
*
Though the suit, which was filed in Federal District Court in Virginia, seeks monetary damages, those involved with the case said their goal was an overhaul of the military’s judicial system regarding rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment. “You should not have to be subjected to being raped or sexually assaulted because you volunteered to serve this nation,” said Susan L. Burke, the plaintiffs’ lead lawyer.
*
Don't expect a word out of the mouths of the gay haters in defense of women. Ms. Donnelly would no doubt claim that women asked for assault by joining the military in the first place.

DADT Discharges May End, But Discrimination Might Not

The demise of DADT is a huge issue in this area of Virginia with its huge number of military service members in all branches of the U.S. military, but especially the Navy. While things seem to be on track - albeit far to slowly in my view - there are still numerous concerns as to (1) a lack of enforceable anti-discrimination protections and (2) questions as to how the partners (and in some cases, legally married spouses) of service members will be treated. Unfortunately, with DOMA in place and still being defended by or faux "fierce advocate" in the White House,LGBT service members may still remain second class citizens even if allowed to openly serve in the military. Of course, behind all of the continued bigotry is the - in my view - unconstitutional special rights given to conservative Christian religious beliefs in this nation. Equality Matters has a piece that looks at the likely continued problems that will face LGBT service members. Here are some highlights:
*
President Barack Obama and Defense Department officials are preparing to provide lesbian and gay service members the space to serve openly without risking expulsion while simultaneously affording them absolutely no legally enforceable anti-discrimination protections once they are visible.
*
Sure, they may not be at risk for being discharged after implementation, but they will have no means of sustainable legal recourse if they are discriminated against in any other way (or if the political environment shifts) on the basis of their sexual orientation
*
President Obama could make all this go away with an executive order that categorically prohibits discrimination against gay service members. When I asked a White House spokesperson why the president would not issue that mandate, he said on DOD had developed "clear policy guidance"the matter.

*

Somehow Obama's assurances that DOD has adopted "policy Guidance" gives me little comfort that LGBT service members will receive full equality. Yes, DADT repeal is a good step, but there's still much to be done.

Pentagon Continues to Dog Discharged LGBT Servicemembers

LGBT service members continue to be discharged under DADT as the Pentagon draws up "education" plans for the implementation of DADT repeal. Adding insult to injury, the Pentagon is harassing and pursuing those already discharged under the patently unconstitutional law for reimbursement of training and other costs which would not have been "wasted" but for the religious based bigotry of DADT. All of this, of course, is why the appeal in Log Cabin Republicans v. United Sates, needs to proceed and drive a final stake through the heart of DADT. Meanwhile, our faux "fierce advocate" has not issued a stop loss order pending the completion of the half-assed repeal legislation nor has he directed the Pentagon to stop the purely discretionary effort to collect reimburse from service members discharged under DADT. This perverse situation is yet another reason I continue to view Obama with skepticism and mistrust. His actions simply do not comport with his claimed pro-equality positions and goals. Towleroad has coverage on this and information provided by Former Petty Officer 2nd Class and Hebrew linguist Jason Knight (pictured at left). Here are some highlights:
*
The military has a long tradition of recouping money from service members who are discharged under the law known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. If discharging GI Jane or Joe because they happen to be different, telling them they need to repay the government because of they are different is insult to injury, as well as reinforcing negative stereotypes. From tuition of ROTC students, military sign-on bonuses to unfulfilled contracts, the military is getting their money's worth for employing lesbian, gay and bisexual service members.
*
In 2005 I was discharged from the military for the first time because I annulled my marriage after discovering my sexual orientation. Regardless of misplacing the DADT discharge paperwork, recalling me back to service and serving a year in Kuwait and continues communications with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to rectify the situation, I am still forced to repay my $13,000 sign-on bonus I received in 2001. After zeroing my account when I was discharged in 2005, I refused to pay this grievous loop-hole the government circumvents to continue to persecute LGBT veterans. So for the last six years, all of my tax returns have gone toward repay this "debt" including my 2010 tax return of $1959 that included a $1000 tax credit for being a full-time student.
*
So Dan Choi, be prepared to receive a letter in the mail that your tax return has been recouped to pay the debt the government has so willingly given you for being a gay man.
*
Americablog has posted a petition to Defense Secretary Gates to stop sending bill collectors after former service members discharged under DADT. I have signed the petition and I urge readers to do so as well.

DADT Repeal Implementation Plan To Be Released Friday

The Army Times is reporting that the Pentagon will release a plan Friday that is expected to give the U. S. military services about three months to train troops before DADT will be fully implemented. I can just hear the shrieks emanating from the delusional Elaine Donnelly and similar professional gay haters. With DADT gone, one has to wonder what Ms. Donnelly will do with herself. Imagine, she might even have to get a real job - the horror!! Frankly, given that thousands of gays are already serving in the military - the local troop ranks are full of them - the only training that would seem to be needed is making it plain to bigots and Christofascists that gays can serve in the military whether the haters like it or not and that either they get on board with repeal or they, not the gays, need to get out of the military. Here are some story highlights:
*
The plan, they said, will outline the personnel, recruiting and other regulations that must be changed. It will describe three levels of training for the troops, their commanders and the key administrators, recruiters and other leaders who will have to help implement the changes.
*
Under that training schedule, full implementation of the law could begin later this summer. Once the training is complete, the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won’t hurt troops’ ability to fight. Sixty days after certification, the law would take effect.
*
The changes affect how troops are recruited, trained and discharged, as well as how same sex partners will be treated in terms of various health and other benefits. Some will be easy to implement. For example, recruits will no longer be turned down because they are gay.
*
But others involving benefits, housing and the execution of the training program will be more complex. According to officials, the training will be broken into three categories. One will be for administrators and other leaders who will have to be able to answer detailed questions about the new policy. The second will be for senior commanders who will have to enforce the policies and also be on the lookout for signs of unease or problems among service members.
*
The third group will be the general training for the troops. That is the one that is expected to be the most difficult to complete because service members are scattered around the world, and many are in various phases of deployment to war or heading home.
*
Advocates for gays have called for quick action. “For years, experts have said that a swift repeal process, accompanied by strong leadership, is the best way to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ ” Aaron Belkin of the Palm Center, a California think tank, said Wednesday. “In promising ... to implement the repeal of the ban this year, President Obama has demonstrated leadership and committed to the path that has been proven to be best not only for gay service members, but for all of those who currently serve.”