Don't Ask. Don't Tell.

[jmarie]

Apparently I have not understood the military's concept of Don't Ask. Don't tell. Can someone explain this to me?

There was an article in the newspaper today and apparently someone not to far from here was dismissed from the Army after 4 years with an honorable discharge that said he was a homosexual. This person was a decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist.

He said that he never told anyone but said he was "outed" by a stream of anonymous e-mails to his superiors.

This just doesn't seem right to me.

[seeteekay]

I have done some papers on it for school. This is the best short description below from Wikpedia I have found.

Don't ask, don't tell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article is about the US military policy. For the 2002 film, see Don't Ask, Don't Tell (movie).

"Don't Ask, Don't tell" is the common term for the U.S. military policy which implements Public Law 103-160, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 654. The policy prohibits anyone who has sexual bodily contact with a person of the same sex from serving in the armed forces of the United States, and prohibits any homosexual or bisexual from disclosing his or her sexual orientation, or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. On the other hand the policy requires that as long as gay or bisexual men and women in the military hide anything that could disclose sexual orientation, commanders will not try to investigate their sexuality.

It was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, who while campaigning for the Presidency had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military, a departure from the contemporary complete ban on those who are not heterosexual. The actual policy was crafted by Colin Powell and has been maintained by Clinton's successor, George W. Bush. The policy is opposed by some pro- and anti-gay advocates alike.

"Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender." — quoted in "The Pentagon's New Policy Guidelines on Homosexuals in the Military", The New York Times (July 20, 1993), p.A14.

More generally, "Don't ask, don't tell" has come to describe any instance in which one person must keep their sexual orientation and any related attributes, including their family, a secret, but where deliberate lying would be undesirable.

[Aubergine]

sounds like homophobia to me, and i am glad to hear that he was given an honorable discharge. there's got to be a lot more to it; he must have crossed some line somewhere, somehow, if even in all innocence. to me the situation implies that there was no blemish on his military record, but that somehow he didn't "fit in." maybe someone with more energy can google about circumstances that warrant honorable discharge...

[Escher]

What's clearly dishonorable was those cowardly emails. People who "out" other people are really quite scummy, IMHO.

[jmarie]

The story has appeared on The Drudge Report. Apparently this was a good soldier and since they were never able to identify the accuser, it just doesn't seem fair to me.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GAYS_MILITARY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-07-27-23-54-06

JOHNSON CITY, Tenn. (AP) -- A decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist was dismissed from the U.S. Army under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, though he says he never told his superiors he was gay and his accuser was never identified.

Bleu Copas, 30, told The Associated Press he is gay, but said he was "outed" by a stream of anonymous e-mails to his superiors in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C.

"I knew the policy going in," Copas said in an interview on the campus of East Tennessee State University, where he is pursuing a master's degree in counseling and working as a student adviser. "I knew it was going to be difficult."

An eight-month Army investigation culminated in Copas' honorable discharge on Jan. 30 - less than four years after he enlisted, he said, out of a post-Sept. 11 sense of duty to his country.

Copas now carries the discharge papers, which mention his awards and citations, so he can document his military service for prospective employers. But the papers also give the reason for his dismissal.

He plans to appeal to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, established in 1993, prohibits the military from inquiring about the sex lives of service members, but requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.

The policy is becoming "a very effective weapon of vengeance in the armed forces" said Steve Ralls, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a Washington-based watchdog organization that counseled Copas and is working to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Copas said he was never open about his sexuality in the military and suspects his accuser was someone he mistakenly befriended and apparently slighted.

More than 11,000 service members have been dismissed under the policy, including 726 last year - an 11 percent jump from 2004 and the first increase since 2001.

That's less than a half-percent of the more than 2 million soldiers, sailors and Marines dismissed for all reasons since 1993, according to the General Accountability Office.

But the GAO also noted that nearly 800 dismissed gay or lesbian service members had critical abilities, including 300 with important language skills. Fifty-five were proficient in Arabic, including Copas, a graduate of the Defense Language Institute in California.

Discharging and replacing them has cost the Pentagon nearly $369 million, according to the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Lt. Col. James Zellmer, Copas' commanding officer in the 313th military intelligence battalion, told the AP that "the evidence clearly indicated that Sgt. Copas had engaged in homosexual acts."

While investigators were never able to determine who the accuser was, "in the end, the nature and the volume of the evidence and Sgt. Copas's own sworn statement led me to discharge him," Zellmer said.

Military investigators wrote that Copas "engaged in at least three homosexual relationships, and is dealing with at least two jealous lovers, either of whom could be the anonymous source providing this information."

Shortly after Copas was appointed to the 82nd Airborne's highly visible All-American Chorus last May, the first e-mail came to the chorus director.

"The director brought everyone into the hallway and told us about this e-mail they had just received and blatantly asked, 'Which one of you are gay?'" Copas said.

Copas later complained to the director and his platoon sergeant, saying the questions violated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

"They said they would watch it in the future," Copas said. "And they said, even specifically then, 'Well, you are not gay are you?' And I said, 'no.'"

The accuser, who signed his e-mails "John Smith" or "ftbraggman," pressed Copas' superiors to take action against him or "I will inform your entire battalion of the information that I gave you."

On Dec. 2, investigators formally interviewed Copas and asked if he understood the military's policy on homosexuals, if he had any close acquaintances who were gay, and if he was involved in community theater. He answered affirmatively.

But Copas declined to answer when they asked, "Have you ever engaged in homosexual activity or conduct?" He refused to answer 19 of 47 questions before he asked for a lawyer and the interrogation stopped.

Copas said he accepted the honorable discharge to end the ordeal, to avoid lying about his sexuality and risking a perjury charge, and to keep friends from being targeted.

"It is unfair. It is unjust," he said. "Even with the policy we have, it should never have happened."

---

[LakeMartinGal]

What's clearly dishonorable was those cowardly emails. People who "out" other people are really quite scummy, IMHO.
For once, I agree with you! ;)

[Aubergine]

excuse my french, but there is no such a thing as friggin "anonymous" email, esp. where the US Gov't is concerned.:rolleyes::rolleyes: c'mon, this is horsecr@p. everyone's email carries an identifier to the specific computer. i really feel for this guy, but it sounds like he carried himself with dignity.

darn, this story makes me so mad...

[oceanjasper]

I had no idea that such a policy existed in the U.S. military. I had to check to see if something similar exists in Canada, but it doesn't. Apparently there was a restriction in the past, but it was removed over 14 years ago. The policy doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It is still discrimination.

[honeygirl1971]

It sounds like his superiors clearly violated the policy by repeatedly asking him if he was gay. And I don't see how anonymous emails could be considered "open" admission of homosexuality. Clinton was forced into the compromise, but the policy is seriously flawed since it obviously is pretty impossible to implement. Under the "equal protection clause" it should be unconsitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation, no matter what the job is, and I don't see why the military should get a free pass on this issue.

[doggerham]

...asked if he understood the military's policy on homosexuals, if he had any close acquaintances who were gay, and if he was involved in community theater.

snort! Yeah, that community theater stuff is highly reliable gay-dar!

[jmarie]

and if he was involved in community theater.

Oh, yeah....I wondered about this, as well.

[Gilgamesh37]

. Under the "equal protection clause" it should be unconsitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation


Should be unconstitutional, but isn't. Sexual orientation is not a protected class under federal or most state law (it is included in some states & municipalities)--which means you can be fired or denied housing just because you're gay.

[Aubergine]

...asked if he understood the military's policy on homosexuals, if he had any close acquaintances who were gay, and if he was involved in community theater.

snort! Yeah, that community theater stuff is highly reliable gay-dar!

omg, how troglodyte is that????--->going to watch whatever is on LOGO, in silent support.

[MKSquared]

What's clearly dishonorable was those cowardly emails. People who "out" other people are really quite scummy, IMHO.

Oh, for a minute there, I thought you were talking about the Ohio governor's race...

(From DailyKos) In the most explicit example of incorrigibility yet by the Blackwell campaign and the people who support him, a paid operative sent an e-mail to donors utilizing blatant lies and rumor-mongering with a very explicit intent: of serving as the impetus for a belief that the Democratic candidate for governor and his wife are gay. ... The individual who sent the e-mail was originally hired by the Blackwell campaign during the Republican primary race. After Blackwell outlasted his opponent Jim Petro, the Ohio GOP signed him up.

[honeygirl1971]

Should be unconstitutional, but isn't. Sexual orientation is not a protected class under federal or most state law (it is included in some states & municipalities)--which means you can be fired or denied housing just because you're gay.

That's why I said SHOULD instead of IS.