on the off chance it's true

[rm]

you heard it here (possibly) first.

http://community.livejournal.com/obama_2008/1810761.html

Anyone want to place their bets?

Comments

[vichan.livejournal.com]

I'm not a betting gal... and I'm also constantly pessimistic.

Wouldn't Congress be the ones to overturn this? They couldn't have pulled this off that secretly.

Sounds too good to be true. :(

[dine.livejournal.com]

intriguing rumour, and while it makes sense not to keep discarding personnel while at war, Bush has never been one to go with good sense, imo.

I'll be extremely tickled if it's true, but feel it's more likely Bush would wait until after the election to sign-off on it (don't wanna piss off the core R voters, many of whom would highly disapprove)

[brightflashes.livejournal.com]

I had similar ideas, too about Bush. It seemed something he wouldn't go for. But I'm not very educated about the role of the president in passing/negating laws. However, I am educated enough to know that Bushians are so for the war it's sickening (I really dislike the idea of non-defensive force and messing so much with the economy). So, while it might irritate some Republicans, I would see the benefits being to boost the war might out weigh that. It's just a thought, though.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Military affairs outside of actual declarations of war (we are not actually in a legal state of war, despite what's going on) and budgeting are not Congressional matters.

[sethg]

Article I, Section 8, listing the powers of Congress, includes "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces".

[affreca.livejournal.com]

Don't ask, don't tell was established by an executive order, so I expect it can be modified/repealed by one.

[brightflashes.livejournal.com]

hmm. Seems possible to me. I really dislike that edit - If Obama wins the election it would be nice if he were credited for putting into action something that would make gay/lesbian life easier. However, anything that happens the sooner the better regarding rights of gay/lesbians is good. So I'm glad this is happening now if it's going to make things easier.

I'm like maybe 70% certain the post came from a valid source and is true.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering if, if it is true if there's a gotcha in there a la, being gay is fine, but if you have actual gay sex or relationships you're out. So you can talk about being gay, you just can't _be_ gay.

Because that's so totally how America fucks shit up.

[tacky-tramp.livejournal.com]

Yeah, real reform would involve revising the UCMJ. Are they ready to do that? We'll see.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Yeah, because that shit affects straight military folk too and is totally ridiculous.

[stardragonca.livejournal.com]

Sounds plausible.
(The CAF has had openly Gay service members for at least ten years, presided over its first same sex marriage four years ago, and had an OFFICIAL presence at the last Pride Day parade in Toronto-as did the Police Association. Non-issue, in other words.)
In wartime, no one gives a damn about old prejudices, if they are getting in the way of getting on with the job.

[karnythia.livejournal.com]

Technically I didn't hear it here first. But I have heard rumblings about this for some time because a lot of people who wanted out have used that policy to get Uncle Sam to cut them loose and there's been a lot of discussion because in some units (including my old one) we all knew who was LGBT and we just didn't care.

[tommx.livejournal.com]

I would love the effect, but the cause of this concerns me.

[gina-r-snape.livejournal.com]

Well, it looks like some in Congress started a ball rolling about this in July. I don't remember any coverage but I just found this.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-07-21-Dont-ask_N.htm

[bodlon.livejournal.com]

Oh, I hope so.

Not holding my breath, but hoping.

[corruptravnclaw.livejournal.com]

Being in the Army myself it's quite funny for them to raise "The Don't Ask, Don't Tell" issue and try to say they are changing regs. I knew and I know my commanding officers had knowledge about the large Gay and Lesbian population on Ft. Hood. And yet they turned their heads so they could have their "numbers". In 8 years I have only known 2 people to be given a discharge. They are ridiculous with it. I don't know why all of a sudden they have to make an announcement to change the regs. There is quite a bit of discrimination in the Armed Services. You would think they would have more gratitude and respect for people, regardless of sexuality, who would lay down their lives for this country. Assholes

::jumps off soapbox::

[sinonmybody.livejournal.com]

WORD!

[sinonmybody.livejournal.com]

agree with above soldier.

but that said... i bet not true.

i know people who have been kicked out, i am aware of specific people {don't know them personally, but have spoken with their sig others} who have been witchhunted then kicked out, and i also know someone who had a FULL stash of lesbian porn, dildos, and strap on harnesses out on her bed in full view day of surprise barracks inspection with no consequence- other than for her room being trashed.

so its enforcement or lack thereof is generally up to command.

even if they're trying to do it, it would never be happening by october. red tape with ANYTHING in the military is ridiculous. and, i sincerely doubt it would be released as information to enlisted soldiers without there being some larger scale distribution of the knowledge to officers, etc.

anyway. i also think if it were true i would've heard some sort of trickle of gossip about it already...

but i hope i'm wrong. it would be awesome if it's true.

[contrarywise]

That would be an awesome thing, and I hope it is true. *waits somewhat impatiently for official confirmation*

[sethg]

IIRC, discharged for homosexuality dropped off during the first Iraq war (i.e., before "don't ask, don't tell" was passed) and ramped right up again afterwards. (If gay troops really were bad for morale and unit cohesion, you'd think the Army would have been more concerned about kicking them out during an actual shooting war...)

So I assume the same thing is going to happen: the written policy will stay the same, but as long as the military needs its troops, nobody is going to be very motivated to enforce it.

Of course, if Obama is elected, the policy is likely to be officially repealed, and if McCain is elected, the military is going to need all the troops it can muster for the next eight (twelve? hundred?) years.

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

!