Export thread

The 'New' DADT Enforcement Rules Ensare A Sailor Who Wasn't Asked And Didn't Tell | TPMMuckraker

Unfortunately, it seems the new DADT rules have a few holes in them.

For those who didn't click or want a short version:

1) Guy enlists in the Navy and gets posted as a cook on a nuclear sub in April, and brought his cellphone with him (security no-no)

2) CO confiscates the phone, expecting that, per usual, it will be returned (assuming no security violations like photos of the sub are in it) at the end of his shift accompanied by a reprimand/punishment detail and that will be the end of it.

3) Captain sees no security violations, but does see photos of the cook and his boyfriend, and sends the phone to NCIS as he's supposed to, but with a recco that the matter be dropped.

4) NCIS kicks it up to an Admiral, who orders cook dishonorably discharged.

Obviously, the cook is responsible for bringing a phone on board, but it seems pretty clear that just finangling with legal implications of DADT isn't enough if someone can be discharged for being gay while not failing a security review.

Plus, while an Admiral can write pretty much any legal order he wants, wouldn't this be an excellent instance to take the recommendations of the CO and the Captain into account?

I feel sorry for the guy In this case, he brought it upon himself by having a phone (with photo capability) on board. If he didn't do that, he would STILL be in the Navy.

note: I think the whole thing is a sham. His CO and his captain recommend that he stay on board and reprimand for having a phone. The Admiral should have stay with that, but IMO the admiral must not like gays to process anyway

I suspect this is going to be a rallying case next time we get a push for repealing DADT.

He told. This is no different than if he brought a photo montage of him and his boyfriend and posted it in his locker where it was seen during a security check, but otherwise unknown and unseen.

He shouldn't have had evidence of his relationship in a place where it would be seen in the normal course of operation, including security reviews.

It may well be unfortunate that he was discharged, but to pretend that he didn't fall under DADT is ridiculous.

Oh I totally agree. I mean, we don't let straight couples keep pictures of their spouses or loved ones on board with them...... oh wait.

Chibibar said:

I feel sorry for the guy In this case, he brought it upon himself by having a phone (with photo capability) on board. If he didn't do that, he would STILL be in the Navy.

Click to expand...

Did he? He wasn't discharged for having a phone but for being gay.

If this can be considered as 'telling', then gays in the military should be very weary, since if by pure bad luck someone finds out they are homosexuals, they are going to be dishonorably discharged.

In any case, if this is DADT then DADT is bullshit and should be repealed.

DADT is bullshit regardless.

Tinwhistler said:

DADT is bullshit regardless.

Click to expand...

This.

Well now...I think there are important things to consider here. I mean, there are a lot of risks involved in letting gays in the military

Spartan

and I don't see a lot of evidence that there are any real advantages to

Knights Templar

having gays in the military. I mean, ok, there are historical cases of things like this, but show me a modern army

Canadian Army

I mean a large modern army

Russian Army

I mean a large, constantly in action modern army from a country with religious tensi-

Israeli Defense Force

Well whatever, its pretty clear just statistically that they aren't as good though, if 10% of people are gay then you should have seen a lot more gay military leaders

Julius Caeser

Alexander the Great
.....

damnit.

tegid;433346][QUOTE=Chibibar said:

I feel sorry for the guy In this case, he brought it upon himself by having a phone (with photo capability) on board. If he didn't do that, he would STILL be in the Navy.

Click to expand...

Did he? He wasn't discharged for having a phone but for being gay.

If this can be considered as 'telling', then gays in the military should be very weary, since if by pure bad luck someone finds out they are homosexuals, they are going to be dishonorably discharged.

In any case, if this is DADT then DADT is bullshit and should be repealed.[/QUOTE]

I know that he was discharge for being gay BUT it was discovered cause he had his boyfriend's picture AND NSFW on the phone... that is just asking for trouble.

I am totally against DADT. I think it is silly. It was a chain event that lead to his dismissal.

He took some erotic picture of b/f (it was mention there are pictures that show that he was gay)
save said picture
took the phone on a sub which is a no-no. specifically camera phone or any picture taking device.
Said phone got confiscated and review
Pictures were discovered
send up to the chain of command
and dismiss under DADT

now.... if the first 2 didn't happen or the guy unload the picture and clear the memory, then he would have stay in the Navy with a reprimand.

DADT is stupid, but he did violate the rules, I don't think he should have been dishonorably discharged since that certainly is a stain on your career and life. If you are doing something against the rules, you shouldn't risk outing yourself by violating more rules.

Give me a break. They keep leaving out the parts where the guy was pretty much outing himself before the camera thing even came up. I mean, who serves strawberry crepes with powdered sugar on a submarine? He was either gay or French, and either way he was getting kicked out. I guess at least if he was French, he would have gone without a fight.



DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed by Fun Size do not necessarily reflect those of Halforums, the management, or even Fun Size himself. He doesn't even know any French people that he is aware of, although he once met a guy who liked cheese way, way too much that he didn't particularly care for.

Fun Size said:

Give me a break. They keep leaving out the parts where the guy was pretty much outing himself before the camera thing even came up. I mean, who serves strawberry crepes with powdered sugar on a submarine? He was either gay or French, and either way he was getting kicked out. I guess at least if he was French, he would have gone without a fight.



DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed by Fun Size do not necessarily reflect those of Halforums, the management, or even Fun Size himself. He doesn't even know any French people that he is aware of, although he once met a guy who liked cheese way, way too much that he didn't particularly care for.

Click to expand...

I didn't think the French had a military, I thought it was just a big sign saying "What's mine is yours".

Chibibar;433484][QUOTE=tegid;433346][QUOTE=Chibibar said:

I feel sorry for the guy In this case, he brought it upon himself by having a phone (with photo capability) on board. If he didn't do that, he would STILL be in the Navy.

Click to expand...

Did he? He wasn't discharged for having a phone but for being gay.

If this can be considered as 'telling', then gays in the military should be very weary, since if by pure bad luck someone finds out they are homosexuals, they are going to be dishonorably discharged.

In any case, if this is DADT then DADT is bullshit and should be repealed.[/QUOTE]

I know that he was discharge for being gay BUT it was discovered cause he had his boyfriend's picture AND NSFW on the phone... that is just asking for trouble.

I am totally against DADT. I think it is silly. It was a chain event that lead to his dismissal.

He took some erotic picture of b/f (it was mention there are pictures that show that he was gay)
save said picture
took the phone on a sub which is a no-no. specifically camera phone or any picture taking device.
Said phone got confiscated and review
Pictures were discovered
send up to the chain of command
and dismiss under DADT

now.... if the first 2 didn't happen or the guy unload the picture and clear the memory, then he would have stay in the Navy with a reprimand.[/QUOTE]

Now change the words of B/F to G/F and gay to straight and tell me he would have gotten more than just reprimanded. I double dare you.

Shegokigo said:

Now change the words of B/F to G/F and gay to straight and tell me he would have gotten more than just reprimanded. I double dare you.

Click to expand...

I didn't think DADT applied to straight couples?

I meant for the Phone infraction.

Shegokigo said:

I meant for the Phone infraction.

Click to expand...

But he was discharged for DADT, not having his phone there. It's what the whole thread is about.

Exactly. Had it been a straight Navy person, he would still be employed.

Even if we wanted, sickiningly to use the DADT policy itself. He wasn't "telling", it was as if they read his personal journal and read an excerpt, firing him on that premise.

Shegokigo said:

Exactly. Had it been a straight Navy person, he would still be employed.

Even if we wanted, sickiningly to use the DADT policy itself. He wasn't "telling", it was as if they read his personal journal and read an excerpt, firing him on that premise.

Click to expand...

No, it's as if he brought his personal journal into an area where journals were specifically restricted, knowing that he had filled pages and pages of it with mentions of his relationship and the fact that he was gay. There was no reason to be surprised that his phone was taken, that its contents were examined, or that the relevant officers became aware of his orientation specifically because of his actions.

He may not have explicitly told anyone, but he made the information legally available to them through his own choices.

Again, which doesn't matter, because he was discharged for sexual preference, not for violating the phone code. That's the issue I'm complaining about.

What he keeps in his personal area, and not shared with the people around him, based on the DADT policy, is fine.

Have you read this link from the original post? I'm not clear on the regulations, but it certainly seems to imply that anyone who's found to be gay, via their own actions, information provided under oath, or any other legal means of acquiring that information, will be discharged.

This person, through their own actions and the reasonably predicted consequences of them, was pretty clearly established to be gay, and discharged under DADT.

You can argue all day that it's unfair, unjust, and wrong, and I'll agree with you. But you're trying to argue (or at least seeming to) that it was because of his phone, or unlawful discrimination, and it wasn't. It was because he was in violation of a (hopefully soon to be repealed) regulation.

And he was.

So, does DADT mean that if anyone find out your sexual preference in any way (unless it's illegal) you're out?!

Per that same link, DADT is a "17-year-old law that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military."

So yes. If they keep it secret they can stay, if not they're out.

@Li3n said:

So, does DADT mean that if anyone find out your sexual preference in any way (unless it's illegal) you're out?!

Click to expand...

If by sexual preference you mean engaging in an explicit sexual act with a member of the same sex then yes.

If you're going to insist on DADT being enforced to the letter, no exceptions, then you sure as hell better insist on the UCMJ being enforced to the letter, no exceptions, right? According to Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a straight man with blowjob pictures of his wife should be dishonorably discharged. A guy bragging about getting anal from the chick he picked up in a bar should be dishonorably discharged.

Now, keeping in mind Article 125 of the UCMJ, please go back and answer Shego's question and tell us a straight guy with some blowjob pics would be dishonorably discharged. Or would he get a *wink wink nudge nudge* and simply be reprimanded for having the phone?

Sara_2814 said:

If you're going to insist on DADT being enforced to the letter, no exceptions, then you sure as hell better insist on the UCMJ being enforced to the letter, no exceptions, right? According to Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a straight man with blowjob pictures of his wife should be dishonorably discharged. A guy bragging about getting anal from the chick he picked up in a bar should be dishonorably discharged.

Now, keeping in mind Article 125 of the UCMJ, please go back and answer Shego's question and tell us a straight guy with some blowjob pics would be dishonorably discharged. Or would he get a *wink wink nudge nudge* and simply be reprimanded for having the phone?

Click to expand...

*sad laugh*

and people don't get why homophobic places can have so few reported hate crime cases.

Edit:

@Vrii: If makes you happy I don't care if the whole case is legally okay, fuck those law-abiding homophobic bastards.

I never understood the "Don't Ask" part of the regulation... Because it seems that they are on a witch hunt ever since it became policy.

So, to sum up...

- Did the guy violate DADT by the letter of the law? Yes.
- Did anyone involved in the situation do anything legally wrong? No.
- Is this a good example of DADT being ridiculous and discriminatory? Yes.
- Is this fair at all? No.
- Should this be used as an example of DADT being discriminatory and stupid? Absolutely.

Shegokigo;433693][QUOTE=Chibibar;433484][QUOTE=tegid;433346][QUOTE=Chibibar said:

I feel sorry for the guy In this case, he brought it upon himself by having a phone (with photo capability) on board. If he didn't do that, he would STILL be in the Navy.

Click to expand...

Did he? He wasn't discharged for having a phone but for being gay.

If this can be considered as 'telling', then gays in the military should be very weary, since if by pure bad luck someone finds out they are homosexuals, they are going to be dishonorably discharged.

In any case, if this is DADT then DADT is bullshit and should be repealed.[/QUOTE]

I know that he was discharge for being gay BUT it was discovered cause he had his boyfriend's picture AND NSFW on the phone... that is just asking for trouble.

I am totally against DADT. I think it is silly. It was a chain event that lead to his dismissal.

He took some erotic picture of b/f (it was mention there are pictures that show that he was gay)
save said picture
took the phone on a sub which is a no-no. specifically camera phone or any picture taking device.
Said phone got confiscated and review
Pictures were discovered
send up to the chain of command
and dismiss under DADT

now.... if the first 2 didn't happen or the guy unload the picture and clear the memory, then he would have stay in the Navy with a reprimand.[/QUOTE]

Now change the words of B/F to G/F and gay to straight and tell me he would have gotten more than just reprimanded. I double dare you.[/QUOTE]

Shego: Changing from B/F to G/F and he won't be violating the DADT code. I'm sure many service people had some picture of their hetro couple picture even some compromising picture. Heck, my friend (who was in Army Ranger) told me about playboy magazine he owns and such (not sure if that is against the rule but you get the idea)

The DADT is a stupid stupid rule in my book and I feel that the guy got the shaft cause he kept pictures that show that he is gay on it. Is it stupid since he didn't tell anyone and still got discharge? yes. Is it right? no? do I think it is fair? no. Did he broke the current DADT rule in place? yes.

Regardless what I feel on the matter, the current rule allows his superior to discharge him for being gay under DADT rule. Until that law is repealed, many good service men and women will be judge under that rule.

Sara_2814 said:

If you're going to insist on DADT being enforced to the letter, no exceptions, then you sure as hell better insist on the UCMJ being enforced to the letter, no exceptions, right? According to Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a straight man with blowjob pictures of his wife should be dishonorably discharged. A guy bragging about getting anal from the chick he picked up in a bar should be dishonorably discharged.

Now, keeping in mind Article 125 of the UCMJ, please go back and answer Shego's question and tell us a straight guy with some blowjob pics would be dishonorably discharged. Or would he get a *wink wink nudge nudge* and simply be reprimanded for having the phone?

Click to expand...

Very, very good post.

Let me tell you a little story.

When I was in the Marines I got a Chapter 11 (basically a work write-up) because I had a girl in my barracks room. Where I was stationed you had a 2 or 3 man little apartment. At the time it was just me because my roommate got promoted and had to go to a difference set of quarters. Anyway, I got written up because there was a girl in my room at 3 pm on a Friday. I was asleep on one bed and she was actually sleeping in the other.

A week later the same First Sergeant that wrote me up walked in on my old roommate and his girlfriend actually having sex in his new room...and he apologized and walked out.

So the military has NEVER done these things fair and equitably.

Yeah, you got written up. A gay couple would have been completely discharged. That's a bit worse than un-fair.

Shegokigo said:

Yeah, you got written up. A gay couple would have been completely discharged. That's a bit worse than un-fair.

Click to expand...

I totally get your point. But I was illustrating that rules aren't done on an equal basis.

So here's another story.

Sergeant and his wife had a threesome with another corporal in our unit. The Sergeant bragged about it. The brasses' reaction? HIGH FIVE!! Why? If it was totally fair and handled the same way the wife and the other chick (who was SMOKING HOT) would have been kicked out. But nothing would have happened to the husband, which makes sense only in the letter of that law.

I think gays should be allowed to marry, I think they should be allowed to serve and I think that the fact we are allowing religious intolerance to bias our governmental decisions is unconscionable.

Dave said:

I think that the fact we are allowing religious intolerance to bias our governmental decisions is unconscionable.

Click to expand...

You can say that again.

Chris Rodda: U.S. Soldiers Punished for Not Attending Christian Concert

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Dave;433878][QUOTE=Shegokigo said:

Yeah, you got written up. A gay couple would have been completely discharged. That's a bit worse than un-fair.

Click to expand...

I totally get your point. But I was illustrating that rules aren't done on an equal basis.

So here's another story.

Sergeant and his wife had a threesome with another corporal in our unit. The Sergeant bragged about it. The brasses' reaction? HIGH FIVE!! Why? If it was totally fair and handled the same way the wife and the other chick (who was SMOKING HOT) would have been kicked out. But nothing would have happened to the husband, which makes sense only in the letter of that law.

I think gays should be allowed to marry, I think they should be allowed to serve and I think that the fact the USA are allowing religious intolerance to bias their governmental decisions is unconscionable.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Also Vrii and Shego must fight to the death now.

If I can get over my thickheaded issues of homosexuality, the military bloody well can. The military is an antiquated 'boys' club grasping on to glory days that never actually existed.

Why exactly is DADT there in the first place? Are the straights afraid the gays are going to spontaneously rape them in their sleep?

Given that it's all about hiding gay military personnel, perhaps it's so that they can never tell where and when the spontaneous sleep-rape will occur?

CONSTANT VIGILANCE!

Vrii said:

Per that same link, DADT is a "17-year-old law that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military."

So yes. If they keep it secret they can stay, if not they're out.

Click to expand...

But what does openly mean, if i'm keeping it a secret and someone finds out somehow but i still deny it how is that "openly"...

It means whatever is convenient to the parties wishing to dismiss them.

Dave;433868][QUOTE=Sara_2814 said:

If you're going to insist on DADT being enforced to the letter, no exceptions, then you sure as hell better insist on the UCMJ being enforced to the letter, no exceptions, right? According to Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a straight man with blowjob pictures of his wife should be dishonorably discharged. A guy bragging about getting anal from the chick he picked up in a bar should be dishonorably discharged.

Now, keeping in mind Article 125 of the UCMJ, please go back and answer Shego's question and tell us a straight guy with some blowjob pics would be dishonorably discharged. Or would he get a *wink wink nudge nudge* and simply be reprimanded for having the phone?

Click to expand...

Very, very good post.

Let me tell you a little story.

When I was in the Marines I got a Chapter 11 (basically a work write-up) because I had a girl in my barracks room. Where I was stationed you had a 2 or 3 man little apartment. At the time it was just me because my roommate got promoted and had to go to a difference set of quarters. Anyway, I got written up because there was a girl in my room at 3 pm on a Friday. I was asleep on one bed and she was actually sleeping in the other.

A week later the same First Sergeant that wrote me up walked in on my old roommate and his girlfriend actually having sex in his new room...and he apologized and walked out.

So the military has NEVER done these things fair and equitably.[/QUOTE]

Of course the girl in your room was the First Sergeants mother, so....you know. UNFAIR!

Fun Size said:

It means whatever is convenient to the parties wishing to dismiss them.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...



So it's basically "no-gays, but we're not going to look for that specifically when you enlist, so maybe you can get away with it".

Disconnected said:

Why exactly is DADT there in the first place? Are the straights afraid the gays are going to spontaneously rape them in their sleep?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Also, the logic is that straight soldiers hate gay soldiers, and therefore the unity and morale will be destroyed. Which, by the way, was the same argument used against allowing black soldiers to serve with white ones.

I know it, I just don't like believing it.

A soldier's worst nightmare:

Disconnected said:

Agreed. Also Vrii and Shego must fight to the death now.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with the idea behind what she was saying. I just figured I'd mention that she was ignoring the relevant laws and regulations and knocking down straw men in order to make her point.

I also agree that regulations would ideally be enforced evenly and fairly across the board, and that there shouldn't be discriminatory rules in place, but that doesn't change the fact that this person was in violation of DADT and was discharged for that reason.

Vrii said:

I actually agree with the idea behind what she was saying. I just figured I'd mention that she was ignoring the relevant laws and regulations and knocking down straw men in order to make her point.

Click to expand...

I don’t think Shego’s question is about straw men at all. DADT does not exist in a vacuum. As Dave pointed out, there’s already inconsistent enforcement of Article 125, just as there is inconsistent enforcement of DADT (there are gay people already serving relatively openly in the military, and their supervisors choose not to enforce DADT). Was it even a violation of DADT, since it was actually the “ask” that got violated, not the “tell”: those pictures were on a private device, not DoD equipment.

I think the key here is the actions of the guy’s Commander and Captain. I would think that if the guy’s sexual orientation was going to be a problem, the Captain and Commander would be looking for any excuse to get this guy off their boat and out of the Navy. But they didn’t. They recommended that he stay and just be hit with the reprimand for the phone. So why is an Admiral over-ruling the personnel decisions of his officers, when it’s been proven time and again that these “morals” policies are not set in stone? Is it because he’s a hard-nose about strict policy enforcement who would have dishonorably discharged a straight guy with blowjob pics of his wife in the same situation? Or is it because he’s latched on to a dubious violation of a policy that is currently up for review and may be struck down anyway, and is putting his personal feelings about homosexuality above the recommendations of his officers regarding their own boat?

Sara_2814;434199][QUOTE=Vrii said:

I actually agree with the idea behind what she was saying. I just figured I'd mention that she was ignoring the relevant laws and regulations and knocking down straw men in order to make her point.

Click to expand...

I don’t think Shego’s question is about straw men at all. DADT does not exist in a vacuum. As Dave pointed out, there’s already inconsistent enforcement of Article 125, just as there is inconsistent enforcement of DADT (there are gay people already serving relatively openly in the military, and their supervisors choose not to enforce DADT). Was it even a violation of DADT, since it was actually the “ask” that got violated, not the “tell”: those pictures were on a private device, not DoD equipment.

I think the key here is the actions of the guy’s Commander and Captain. I would think that if the guy’s sexual orientation was going to be a problem, the Captain and Commander would be looking for any excuse to get this guy off their boat and out of the Navy. But they didn’t. They recommended that he stay and just be hit with the reprimand for the phone. So why is an Admiral over-ruling the personnel decisions of his officers, when it’s been proven time and again that these “morals” policies are not set in stone? Is it because he’s a hard-nose about strict policy enforcement who would have dishonorably discharged a straight guy with blowjob pics of his wife in the same situation? Or is it because he’s latched on to a dubious violation of a policy that is currently up for review and may be struck down anyway, and is putting his personal feelings about homosexuality above the recommendations of his officers regarding their own boat?[/QUOTE]

The points still being true, he told, his device is no longer private when he 'illegally' brings it on the ship, they had a right to search is pictures to ensure that he wasn't photographing anything. Now if this would have happened when he was on shore just going in and out of an office there would be a big difference.

This is of course one of those stupid things because rules are never enforced equally, and I am surprised that the admiral would supersede two people in kicking the guy out. It makes me think there had to be some other motive, either the admiral is really big homophobe, or something because I would understand if all the people were on the same page, or even if only 2 out of the 3 were for kicking him out, but 1 against 2 seems strange to me.

Here's the thing I'm trying to make clear:

Legally ceased or not. They were searching for pictures of the ship. They happened across the relationship pictures. They were the only ones privvy to this information. It was still not "told", it was "taken". It's not "Don't Ask or Get Taken" Where's the "tell" in this situation? He didn't tell anyone anything. That's my point. The policy itself, as ridiculous as it was, doesn't apply to this situation. The officers who found the pictures "told".

Shegokigo said:

Here's the thing I'm trying to make clear:

Legally ceased or not. They were searching for pictures of the ship. They happened across the relationship pictures. They were the only ones privvy to this information. It was still not "told", it was "taken". It's not "Don't Ask or Get Taken" Where's the "tell" in this situation? He didn't tell anyone anything. That's my point. The policy itself, as ridiculous as it was, doesn't apply to this situation. The officers who found the pictures "told".

Click to expand...

I totally understand. I believe that if the guy had a picture in his wallet and one of the other Navy buddy found it and turn it in to his superior, the guy would still be discharge but if the picture happen to be hetro couple making out, then it would have been ok.

Edit: Is it right? Oh HELL no, but with the current "homophobes" in the military, they would do anything to kick them out if they found out.

The only cool thing is that his commanding officer just wanted to reprimand the guy for the phone incident, but the Admiral override the commanding officer and go with discharge this tells me that at least some officer can handle it (but file it per reg which was probably a bad idea to begin with)

I am also willing to bet that his rating didn't help if he was in a nuke related field and had 2 of his officer stand up for him I don't think it would have been so easy. Although I do know that the translator had gotten kicked out too and that is a high demand field.

Shegokigo said:

Where's the "tell" in this situation? He didn't tell anyone anything.

Click to expand...

He didn't walk up to an officer, open his mouth, and say "I'm gay." Granted.

He did, however, bring a phone into an area where they were restricted, knowing that when it was found that same officer would be looking through its contents. In effect, he was volunteering whatever information and pictures were on that phone.

By the same token, walking up to another man on the street and making out with him isn't telling anyone what his orientation is. But it definitely makes it clear to anyone who sees, and I'm assuming that the officers involved in this situation would have handled something like that in the same way.

Amorous Eyes;434411][QUOTE=Vrii said:

I'm assuming that the officers involved in this situation would have handled something like that in the same way.

Click to expand...

I thought that the CO and the Captain didn't handle it the same way as they didn't discharge him, the Admiral did. Are you saying the two officers were wrong and should be reprimanded for not following protocol?[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that they would have done the same thing in my hypothetical situation as they did in the real one. Nothing more, nothing less.

What happens if you ask?

from what I understand asking means nothing, telling means everything, thus another ridiculous side of the policy.

Hence it becomes a loaded question:

Admiral: "Hey Johnson, are you one of them nancy boys?"
Johnson: ...

If Johnson does not answer the admiral becomes suspicious and will by nature want to find out the truth (but he can't handle the truth!)
If Johnson lies and says no, he is now uncomfortable for his entire military career being dragged to whore houses and stripper bars*
If Johnson says yes he is ousted.

Who can Johnson report his admiral too if he is asked?
I've yet to hear of someone being discharged for asking.

*not actual fact

Disconnected said:

Who can Johnson report his admiral too if he is asked?
I've yet to hear of someone being discharged for asking.

Click to expand...

You don't get discharged because you asked or told. You'll get discharged if, after an investigation, the military determines you are not allowed to serve due to your homosexuality.

DADT is policy, but breaking it is not automatic grounds for discharge, as homosexuality is.

In other words, while DADT applies to the ban on homosexuals in the military, the two are separate policies with different consequences for breaking them.

.. I think that Penny Arcade strip sums up how ridiculous this anti gay sentiment in the army really is.

If that comic o nthe previous page is correct, I think you're actually looking at it the wrong way, Shego.
See, the officers cheking the pictures on the cam HAD to look through all pictures to check for espionage stuff and whatever. That seems logical. They would've seen the supposedly clearly gay pictures. -> Those officers <- were the ones who told - they had to! And them saying they've seen pictures of private X going down on a guy is considered proof enough...So...There you go.
He himself didn't "Tell" - by misfortune, the people who had to search his phone happened upon those pictures, and they told. DADT also applies if your best friend or school teacher or whatever accidentally Tells, after all.

That aside, DADT is a horrible, repulsive law that just proves how hypocritical some parts of Western civilization are. We're the Land of the Free, Freedom to Do Your Own Thing - as long as you're not some queer-ass nancy cockmuncher, by God! <_<

Bubble181 said:

DADT also applies if your best friend or school teacher or whatever accidentally Tells, after all.

Click to expand...

Actually, this is no longer true. 3rd-party info can only be used if the 3rd party is under oath, and hearsay can no longer be used.

The changes include:

-- Only a general or flag officer may separate an enlisted member believed at the conclusion of an investigation to have engaged in homosexual conduct. Under previous policy, a colonel -- or for a captain in the Navy and Coast Guard – could order separation.

-- A revision in what’s needed to begin an inquiry or a separation proceeding. Information provided by a third party now must be given under oath, “discouraging the use of overheard statements and hearsay,” Gates said.

-- Certain categories of confidential information -- such as information provided to lawyers, clergy and psychotherapists -- no longer will be used in support of discharges. Information provided to medical personnel in furtherance of treatment, or to a public-health official in the course of seeing professional assistance for domestic or physical abuse also is excluded, as well as information obtained in the process of security-clearance investigations, in accordance with existing Pentagon policies.

Click to expand...

Not that it helped this guy, obviously.

Disconnected said:

from what I understand asking means nothing, telling means everything, thus another ridiculous side of the policy.

Hence it becomes a loaded question:

Admiral: "Hey Johnson, are you one of them nancy boys?"
Johnson: ...

If Johnson does not answer the admiral becomes suspicious and will by nature want to find out the truth (but he can't handle the truth!)
If Johnson lies and says no, he is now uncomfortable for his entire military career being dragged to whore houses and stripper bars*
If Johnson says yes he is ousted.

Who can Johnson report his admiral too if he is asked?
I've yet to hear of someone being discharged for asking.

*not actual fact

Click to expand...

You're not supposed to ask, and DADT is a actually protective measure... it's like "no gays in the army, but it's ok as long as we don't officially know about it"... "see, we're not homophobic, gays can serve, as long as it doesn't affect morale, and people knowing about it does"... "but it's totally not about you being gay, it's about everyone else not trusting you because you are".

Hahahahaha... looks like it's not just the army that has DADT as a policy: GameSpy: Man Banned From Xbox Live for Including His Hometown in Profile - Page 1

To be fair, they DID fix it and are updating training to reflect it.

AshburnerX said:

To be fair, they DID fix it and are updating training to reflect it.

Click to expand...

After escalating it. The rep should have just look it up and verify.

Hell, I still don't believe it. I ain't googlin' that just so's yalls can laugh at me!

Chibibar;435725][QUOTE=AshburnerX said:

To be fair, they DID fix it and are updating training to reflect it.

Click to expand...

After escalating it. The rep should have just look it up and verify.[/QUOTE]

As stupid as it started, that actually doesn't sound close to the worst customer service I've ever heard. At least it escalated up to the point where someone did something about it. I wonder how long the whole process took.

SpecialKO said:

At least it escalated up to the point where someone did something about it. I wonder how long the whole process took.

Click to expand...

Getting the local government involved against a private company isn't really a point in their customer service's favour.