I don't understand this latest string of developments. DADT is back in effect as a result of a stay issued yesterday. The purpose of a "stay" is to stop the effect of a ruling while it's being appealed. Fine, I suppose. I can understand the logic of doing this in an orderly fashion (even if I don't agree with it).
But how about the reverse? Shouldn't there also be a "stay" on DADT enforcement while it's being reviewed? If the end goal is an orderly end of the policy, wouldn't it be logical to stop firing people for being gay? As the history of DADT enforcement shows, the Pentagon has not applied the policy uniformly over time (hint, discharges drop in time of conflict), suggesting that there isn't really any factual emergency when it comes to gays in the military. And as the testimony of a high level NATO official shows, the whole concern about unit cohesion is totally bogus. So while the judges, bureaucrats and the assholes in Congress are working on this one, why not stop enforcement of DADT?
As for the DOJ appeal of the DADT ruling, I suppose they didn't have a choice. But again, it matters how you do this. Amy Davidson makes some good points on this here, in particular about the wording of the DOJ motion.
As for Obama's insistance that DODT "will end on my watch", I'd like to see where he gets his ballsy certainty from. Will it end on his watch when the newly Republican House and possibly Republican Senate vote to repeal it? What else will they do while they are at it? Pass a climate change bill and an immigration overhaul? Clearly, saying that the Congress will do anything is an empty promise and acting like it's self-evident means that either he is delusional or believes that we must be, and I don't know which is worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment