protest in dcJust came from the protest – Choi did chain himself to the fence along with another soldier. One woman has been arrested and the security began to swarm the crowd as soon as Choi took out the handcuffs. The protest is amazing and still going after i left. One woman screamed at me about God but I wrote her off.  

Awesome as this is…… He just effectively ended any chance of being reinstated, even if DADT is repealed. The Army doesn’t take kindly to this sort of thing, which I’m sure he knew before he did it.

Actions vs. WordsMr. President and Chairman Levin:
Enjoy the object lesson.
Now act.

Dan is indeed a hero, a man worthy of our admiration and our thanks.On the other hand

Neither Griffin nor Solmonese was seen at the White House protest

Joe Solmonese is about as much a gay activist as Franklin Pangborn was.  How much better off would our movement and our community be without ass-kissing pantywaists like him “leading”?

I hope he was was arrestedand appropriately charged.
This is NOT ok and NOT acceptable conduct for soldiers while they are in uniform. It is in fact illegal.
The last thing we need is for the armed forces to be engaged in politics.

Shall we review the definition of civil disobedience?Are we to presume that the current execution of DADT is desirable because it is considered legal?
And this:

The last thing we need is for the armed forces to be engaged in politics.

Ha!
When has the armed forces ever been apolitical?
Thanks for the laughs.  I needed that to get me to the weekend.

Attention, Ladies & Gentlemen…
In case you don’t recognize the person…and motivation…hiding behind the nom de Net “SciFi Geek,” he/she is one of the last surviving members of the Obama Borg, willing to say anything to defend the leader of their personality cult.
So, OF COURSE, he would attack Dan for calling out our Coward-in-Chief on abandoning his promise to ACTIVELY FIGHT to end DADT, refusal to use his legal powers to freeze discharges, and apparent attempt….out of the irrational fear that ACTUALLY fighting for repeal will cost Dems votes…..to run out the clock until midterm elections after which repeal will be impossible.

His/her assertions that Dan’s action is wrong is pure SciFi in more ways than one. Ever hear of the Nuremberg trials? It is a soldier’s DUTY to act when his government is doing something morally wrong…you know, like DADT.
Shame, Your Geekness, but then so many of us have said that before.

SciFiWhen did you serve your country? And who are you to determine what is appropriate conduct for soldiers?  Lt. Choi is a brave outspoken hero who probably just effectively ended his military career.
Shame on you!

Sacrificed his own interests for the causeI consider that a noble act.

Choi Was Out of LineSci-Fi Geek is right.
Keep in mind that any demonstration is purely symbolic. It is always theatre. In this case, what symbols were transmitted? Choi is a West Point graduate, and was a military officer. His argument has been that gay people are fit to serve because our sexual orientation is incidental, and irrelevant to the mission. In other words, that gay officers and enlisted personnel are capable of conforming to the military’s rules and cultural norms.
What did he do at that protest? He wore a military uniform and purposely broke the law. That’s against at least one rule, and probably more. And it’s WAY against military cultural norms, which are to take grievances through the chain of command, and to conduct one’s self in public with restraint and dignity.
Prior to all of this, Choi was a powerful and useful voice for repeal of DADT. Now that he’s decided to get arrested, and especially to do this while in uniform, he has become a liability. He sends the message that gay military personnel are unreliable, self-obsessed loose cannons with little regard or respect for the military’s regulations or cultural norms.
The peanut gallery here can cheer all they want to, but Mr. Choi has not only shot himself in the foot but he’s committed a real disservice to gay military personnel who aren’t as high-strung, unbalanced, egotistical, and disrespectful of legally constituted authority as he is.

“The last thing we need is for the armed forces to be engaged in politics”Tell that to Washington, Jackson, WH Harrison, Taylor, Grant, Eisenhower, and Powell.
If you ever go to lobby Congress for anything, you will find Capitol Hill swarming with officers in uniform– lobbying for military appropriations, benefits, etc. I mean come on, get real.

A quick tour in our time machine:–To the 1770s, and Sci-Fi Geek is right there, telling everyone that the American revolution is wrong because it violates British law (which was the law of the land at the time) and he hopes Washington, Adams, Hamilton and the rest are all arrested and punished because they have dared to defy his beloved leader, George III.
–We adjust the date on our time machine to 1900, and
Geek is right there, hoping that all those women committing civil disobedience in the name of equal suffrage are arrested and punished for daring to defy his beloved President McKinley.
–to 1963: Martin Luther King is arrested in Birmingham, and Sci-Fi Geek is right there, sticking out his tongue and telling the man he’s glad he got arrested because advocating for civil rights in illegal.
We could continue our tour, and at considerable length, but why go on?  Our time-traveling has made the point very clearly.  Isn’t Sci-Fi wonderful?

They Are Within Regs and LawsWhen was the last time you saw a military officer chain himself to the White House fence to protest an appropriations decision that he didn’t like?

Complete IncongruenceA military officer and civil disobedience? Those two things don’t go together. Choi has just disqualified himself to ever be considered for a military command position, even after DADT is lifted.

“Now that he’s decided to get arrested…”Yeah, it’s really awful of him to stop talking and ACT on his convictions.  Just absolutely terrible of anyone to stand up for what they believe in.  The nerve of the man!
Dan Choi did not “decide to get arrested.”  The Obama White House decided to arrest him.  I wish we had a hundred thousand more such “villains” in our community.

At Least Be Honest!When you chain yourself to the White House fence, you are “deciding to get arrested.” There’s a long line of people who’ve done that as a symbolic gesture of civil disobedience.
Choi is exactly the wrong person to stage such an act. Remember, this is all symbolic. Choi’s value is as a military officer, and civil disobedience isn’t something that the military does. They exist to execute lawful orders, not to break the law.
If civilians want to stage acts of civil disobedience, fine. But not members of the military, and especially not military officers. It doesn’t compute, and in fact it undermines any point they think they are making. Choi was great when he stood up and took the bullet, and then made the rounds of the talk shows to argue the case. Now he’s jumped the shark, unfortunately.
Soon enough, he’ll be in some tent city with Cindy Sheehan. Just watch. He is rapidly turning into a self-parody. The problem is that he did achieve some broad notoriety as a gay military officer, so his current (and, I expect, future) “conduct unbecoming” could get noticed more broadly, and undercut the case for DADT repeal.

SciFi Geek is right.Lt. Choi just violated military regulations prohibiting the wearing of the uniform at a protest/rally/political function such as this.
AR 670-1 (the Army uniform regulation) is quite explicit, stating that wear of the army uniform is prohibited “When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority.”
I commend Lt. Choi for his stance on the issue and for coming out, but it doesn’t change the fact that he violated regulations whether or not he was arrested or charged.  It is not okay to protest in uniform a policy, which while repugnant, is perfectly legal under the laws of the United States.
The military is certainly not apolitical in practice, but it should strive to be.  That is why the uniform policy exists and why leading this protest in uniform is wrong.  Lt. Choi just gave the military a perfectly justifiable reason to kick him out.  That’s unfortunate, because his open presence under DADT while the current debate rages is a far more powerful political act than cheap theatrics at the White House fence.

He was quite rightlyjustified for BREAKINIG THE DAMN UCMJ. This has nothing to do with his sexuality. It is against the law for military officers to engage in that type of political activity WHILE IN UNIFORM.
I don’t give hot damn what he was protesting. His actions were illegal.
Some of us actually have respect for the rule of law.

If one were President and wanted to repeal DADTWouldn’t one allow the protest to continue and gain momentum rather than to quickly quiet protestors and arrest them?  Just wondering.

Thank youIts good to know that no everyone takes the violation of the law as casually as some people here.

Oh, me too.I just think people don’t realize quite how much he’s put on the line, here. He’s violated the law by protesting in uniform, and there’s a good chance he’ll go to jail for this. Which is why this protest actually means something, because he’s knowingly sacrificing any future he may have had in the Army.
OTOH, I also think the rules that he’s breaking are generally speaking good ones, and since he broke them, he needs to be punished to maintain discipline. That’s how the military works. Letting people who violated regulations off just because they did so in what we consider to be a good cause, would set an extremely bad precedent.

Ah, another Obambot clocks in….
…pretending that his only “real” concern is the damage to the fight against DADT.
FAIL!
Black gay civil rights icon Bayard Rustin, who taught Martin Luther King, Jr., the finer points of Gandhian noviolence and was arrested countless times breaking the law in the name of equality, is spinning in his grave at your duplicitous, shameless, transparent defenses of Obama by attacking Dan. As is the first to fight the ban, Leonard Matlovich, arrested at the White House protesting Reagan’s passive gay genocide by AIDS.

If the publicwanted to continue the rally so be it.
However, Choi’s actions were in direct definance of the UCMJ in a way that has nothing to do with his sexuality. The Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces has no business allowing soldiers to casually disregard rules in that way.
If Dan Choi had wanted to protest, he could have done so…just leave the uniform at home.

He Also Violated Military CustomsMilitary members, and especially officers, are expected to be low-key and dignified in public, and to comply with not just military law but civilian law. Choi trampled all over those norms. Civilians here obviously don’t realize the level of circumspection that’s expected of military officers. They are supposed to stay away from controversy in general, and definitely away from chaining themselves to the White House fence.
Choi has been arguing for months that gay people can be effective military members who can operate within the military’s rules and customs. His actions have vividly illustrated that he is incapable of doing so. I very strongly oppose DADT, but Choi has utterly destroyed his value as a spokesman for gay people in uniform. He was great while he lasted, but now he’s thrown it all away, the fool.

Speaking of military cultural norms…Including that “lawful” in “they exist to execute lawful orders” is pretty clearly against military cultural norms — hell, it can get you court-martialed.
More generally, though — if someone is sworn to uphold the ethical principles in the Constitution, then insisting that that person not protest anti-American behavior by the armed services could be the greater transgression.  

Then he can and shouldgo to jail for his actions.  

shhh….The adults are talking.  

Maybe we’ve just seen poor examples.We see commissioned officers regularly call for state violence against anyone who’s not sufficiently Christian and heterosexual, and we see them do so in uniform.  Maybe we’re a bit less impressed with people going apoplectic when someone in uniform protests against violence and exclusion.

Selective enforcement, much?The military has been taking recruits who are members of fascist organizations devoted to overthrowing the government — also a violation of the UCMJ, and one would think a more severe one.  Beyond that, there are conflicting demands within the UCMJ and the oaths taken with commission — why do the unethical demands take precedence?

Matlovich Was DifferentAt the time he was arrested, he was a civilian wearing a military uniform. It was long after his discharge from the Air Force. He wasn’t acting as a spokesman for those wanting gays to be allowed to serve; he was protesting about a different issue. And he was never a military officer, nor was he a military academy graduate.
Remember, demonstrations are symbolic, and Choi’s value has been as a symbol. He has deftly used those symbols — the academy background, the officer’s background — to argue that gay people can effectively serve in the military, which among other things means conforming to military regulations and customs.
By chaining himself to the White House fence, while in uniform no less, Choi has completely demolished all of the arguments he made up until now. It is a spectacular meltdown, calling into question not just his superficial fitness but his mental acuity and stability.
I’m a very strong opponent of DADT, but can also tell you that if there was no DADT that I’d never let Choi back into any military unit.

I wonder…I wonder what the Choi defenders would say about uniformed military personnel attending Focus on the Family / Teabag rallies to protest the repeal of DADT if/when said repeal happens.
If Choi is not yet separated from the service (and I admit I’m not up on the specifics of his current status, but I’m thinking he has not yet actually been tossed out), he opened up a can of worms for himself via his actions – and I don’t believe that any lawyer will be able to deworm him.
Future generations may well hold him up as martyr/savior.
But, I suggest that the Choi defenders bone up on what tends to happen to martyrs/saviors prior to being worshipped.

Didn’t they tell the protestorsthat they would be arrested if they didn’t clear the area?  How could the protest have continued?

I Haven’t Seen Such CallsMaybe you can provide specific examples of these “regular calls for state violence against anyone who’s not sufficiently Christian and heterosexual.” In any case, if that were so, it doesn’t excuse Choi’s conduct. Remember, all demonstrations are symbolic, and the symbols here couldn’t possibly be more inappropriate to the arguments that Choi has been making.

EXACTLY!Some of the folks here like to engage in childish name calling instead of actually addressing the substance of what has been said.
These same people would be VERY angry if right wing military folks started doing this.

Wrong Military personnel do not have to obey unlawful orders, and in fact are taught not to do so. I agree that, in practice, the reality is often different. But not always. The Abu Ghraib abuses, for example, would have never come to light had one soldier not reported unlawful conduct there.
In any case, the military is sworn to obey and defend the Constitution, not “the ethical principles” within it. And no one is insisting that Choi “not protest” anything. I’m insisting that by getting arrested, and doing so in uniform, he broke civilian and military law, ignored long established military customs, and fatally undermined his symbolic value to anyone other than a few kool-aid drinkers such as yourself.

A Single StandardToo few people will apply standards to themselves along with their adversaries. To me, it’s the essence of integrity to do just that. I agree with Choi’s opposition to DADT, but his method of doing so has taken a disastrous turn. His value as a spokesman for that cause is now “zero” at best.

I’m already living this right-wing uniform crap in my “military-friendliest” state Officers in uniform already show up to such pro-GOP, pro-military funding, pro-this/that functions and rallies and not a damn thing happens to them.
Spare me the hypocrisy.
Choi worked within the system for a while.  
Now he’s finally fighting fire with fire, and we’ve got folks here wanting to throw cold water on the flame.
Take a tour of Onslow County, NC the next time you want a lesson in inappropriate uniform use from the right and nothing done about it.
Next, I suppose you’ll say that DADT or ENDA should have to muster 60 votes in the Senate for repeal, because it’s “against tradition” and “rules” or “regular order” to pass a bill any other way.
Puh-leez

I’m one of those people that recognizesthat sometimes the law serves your interests, sometimes it doesn’t. But if you want it to work in your favor at times then you need to respect it when it serves someone else.

Show Some LinksWhen was the last time a military officer showed up to a rally of any kind, in uniform, and then purposely got himself arrested? Come on, show your evidence. I want to see this.

Depends on who you are, tooThere are definitely times when civil disobedience is the way to go. But not for uniformed authority, i.e., the military or the police. You can’t have these people breaking the law, period.

HRC’s response to Choi action

“Today more than 1000 people showed up at a rally – 500 of which signed up to become more involved in the fight to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ Joe Solmonese along with Eric Alva and others felt it was important to stay and engage those at the rally in ways they can continue building the pressure needed for repeal. This does nothing to diminish the actions taken by Lt. Choi and others. This is the nature of social change and everyone has a role to play.”

Vat a gut German….
…you would make Geek…..circa 1932 through 1945.

What exactly do you call all the flag officers protesting dadt repeal then??The point here is that this is a political issue that has to do with the military and how it affects those in Uniform is at the very heart of the debate. If dadt is driving some to commit civil acts of disobedience then that should be part of the debate. Lt. Choi isn’t just acting out he is challenging and fighting for his freedom and our Constitution which is exactly the pledge he took in joining the military: “To defend our Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic“!

The whole point

then purposely got himself arrested?

…is that nothing happened to them.  They don’t get arrested because it’s deemed OK.
It’s just business as usual for those points of view.
Play by their rules as long as you like.  In fact, Choi did for a long time.
Now that he has logically progressed to what the right-wing has been doing all the time, you chide him.
That’s a fine decision for you to make as an opinion or moral judgement, but to say the action is unprecedented is a lie.

Really, so by your definition ALL civil rights movements are wrong?And as long as we are at it, let’s go back to the Revolution. It would be hard to say which was the greater act of civil disobedience there, the Declaration of Independence or the Revolutionary war as a whole.

Ah, Jake…
Congratulations! Along with Her Geekness, we proudly make you an Honorary Gut German 1932-1945.

And your political analysis is as ignorant as your attacks on Dan and Jim are shameless.
The average American voter and member of Congress has no idea about UCMJ regs re uniforms and political events.
There are “rules” and then there are injustices and the majority of Americans aren’t going to stop supporting the ending of the latter for blind allegiance to the former.
So pull that military baton out of your ass, Mary, and start being a part of the solution and not the problem!

DING DING DING!We have a Godwin’s Law winner, Ladies and Gentlemen!  And it only took 4 steps!

Obambot Asshattery…

Obambot Asshattery…

Lt. Choiis ALREADY engaged in politics by being a GAY SOLDIER IN THE MILITARY.  
Give it up.  Being gay is a political issue and always has been.  He has a right, as a citizen, to speak his mind.  I think it’s ridiculous that just because this man is wearing a fucking military uniform he has no right to the very things he was fighting for for other citizens in the US.  Protecting and serving but not being protected or served or shown any kind of justice or fairness in return.  
It’s BULLSHIT.
And fuck you for saying he should go to jail.  He’s fighting for our visibility and for the visibility of all LGBT servicemembers.  

“a few kool-aid drinkers”…Yeah, because of those of us who believe in standing up and FIGHTING and taking ACTION when the government and military leaders collectively don’t give a shit are “a few kool-aid drinkers”.  How about the people who still support Obama, or the people who assume that if something’s illegal, it must be respected?  I guess no one should have fought at Stonewall because it was illegal for gay people to be seen dancing together.  I guess no one should have ever challenged oppressive laws through history.
GIVE ME A F*CKING BREAK.

“Some of us actually have respect for the rule of law.”…No matter what that rule of law dictates???
How about all the military leaders in uniform who are “engaging in the political activity” of denying gay servicemembers basic dignity and respect??  Oh, but right, that’s not political.

You’re right – it’s NOT politicalMilitary leaders obeying and implementing a lawful regulation imposed upon them by Congress are NOT engaged in a political act.  Even for those of us who despise DADT, it is still the law of the land thanks to the U.S. Congress.  Therefore military leadership is doing it’s job, whether we like it or not.  

Wowww.Your comment reeks of ableism and bashing against people who actually have mental health disabilities.  Are you freaking kidding me that Choi should be attacked for his “mental acuity and stability”???  That is so ridiculous and offensive in so many ways.

By chaining himself to the White House fence, while in uniform no less, Choi has completely demolished all of the arguments he made up until now.

So committing civil disobedience “demolishes” the obvious arguments that gay soldiers should be treated the same and that they’re sick of being ignored and treated like shit while Congress hangs out debating, or actually, trying to avoid debating, what should be done and whether or not they should build separate gay barracks????????
I guess the only person who won’t “demolish” our “credibility” is Mr. Solmonese, because he always plays nice and never causes a stir!  Let’s all become 1950s assimilationist homophiles and have a polite march in a circle with our little signs and suits and dresses!

No Links, ThenAsked for evidence, you come back with nothing.

Agree with you both.Well stated.

The Iraq War wasn’t “within regs and laws”.To pretend that anything associated with the government, with war-making, with foreign policy, etc. is not political is naivete of the highest order.

When was the last time you saw a military officer chain himself to the White House fence to protest an appropriations decision that he didn’t like?

a.) The fact that it’s so rare and that people hardly ever muster up the courage to do such a thing is all the more reason why Choi’s actions were so heroic today.
b.)  There have in fact been other soldiers who have committed acts of civil disobedience, though whether it was tying themselves to the White House fence is kind of besides the point.  There have been Iraq War soldiers who have refused to be deployed again because they found it illegal and unjust.  How about all the would-be servicemembers in Vietnam dodging the draft, staging massive protests, and burning their draft cards?  And the people who actually became servicemembers and then committed civil disobedience?

“Ablemism”?What, you think that the military should have officers who are mentally disabled? I don’t.

YES.Thank you.
Funny how Sci-Fi / hir supporters haven’t responded to this.

Congrats, You winI don’t have pics of something I said doesn’t occur.
How did I let that one get by me?

The laughingly called “Godwin’s Law”….
…is simply an attempt by fascists to defeat centuries of accepted use of analogy and metaphor to illustrate valid comparisons. Not all things have to be EQUAL to be relevant.
But thanks for playing, Homo…or is that, “being played.”

I shall offer a response, if I mayIt’s fairly simple.  None of the people engaged in all the historical examples cited were serving military officers protesting in uniform in violation of regulations.
Lt. Choi has 1st Amendment rights which I commend him for exercising in a protest against policies which are unjust and unfair (and which I would really like to see overturned).  However, like ALL members of the military, those rights are restricted while wearing the uniform.  Lt. Choi could have attended the protest in civilian clothes, and his actions would have been legal under military regulations.  As could any member of the military in all the historical examples cited.

He signed on the dotted line.

He has a right, as a citizen, to speak his mind.  I think it’s ridiculous that just because this man is wearing a fucking military uniform he has no right to the very things he was fighting for for other citizens in the US.  Protecting and serving but not being protected or served or shown any kind of justice or fairness in return.

Lt. Choi signed a contract.  The only form of free speech military members are authorized is the right to vote, and attend rallies OUT OF UNIFORM.  Choi is lucky that he hasn’t bee punished more severely for talking to the media in/out of uniform.  That’s a big no no.
The military is not a democracy.  Those rights go right out the window.  The Military is by its very nature under authoritarian rule.

Members of the military are still citizens.And they still have consciences.  Those of them who choose to act on their consciences are heroic.  Vietnam Veterans against the War.  Iraq Veterans against the War.  Lt. Choi and Capt. Pietrangelo.  They deserve our respect and admiration.  Whether you realize it or not (I’d guess not), they are standing up for all of us.

Military leaders who specifically refuse to reconsider DADT and still think it would “hurt troop cohesion”are indeed engaged in a political act.  Do you seriously think the only reason why the military is upholding DADT is because Congress “made” them?

You haven’t seen them?Exactly how airtight, hermetically sealed is that bubble you’re living in?

What Flag Officers Are Breaking The Law?Both they and Choi have the right to express their opinions. But if they chain themselves to the White House fence, they’ve broken civilian law and military regs, and have broken military customs. As soon as you can give us examples of flag officers committing civil disobedience to protest the impending repeal of DADT, we’ll have something to talk about.
By the way, if you come up with such examples, I will oppose those acts of civil disobedience on the right within the military, just as I oppose them on the left within the military. Officers aren’t supposed to chain themselves to the White House fence, period, in uniform or otherwise.

Yes, I Do WinYou originally wrote: “Officers in uniform already show up to such pro-GOP, pro-military funding, pro-this/that functions and rallies and not a damn thing happens to them.”
I asked you for proof, and you didn’t provide it. Now you are claiming you said it “doesn’t occur.” Nice try, ya liar.

Ummm, yes.That’s what they do, because it’s the law.
Hey, I’m not disagreeing with you that those who refuse to consider it are playing politics.  They definitely are, albeit in a more subtle way.  (Not to mention they are completely out of touch with the social norms of their young troops who are actually doing the work in the military!)  But implementing and managing a perfectly legal policy is something else altogether.

AnalogiesThese analogies to the Revolutionary War are completely unrelated.  Lt. Dan Choi wants the rules and regulations to allow him to serve as openly and equally as his heterosexual counterparts.  He broke a rule that would have and should have been applied equally to anyone else who attended a rally and chained themselves to the White House fence.
He’s hardly throwing off the shackles of a imperial colonialist monarchy.
No not all Civil Rights movements are wrong.  Protesting the DADT policy…Fine.  Protesting in Unform, breaking the rules…not fine.  Chaining yourself to the WH fence, in uniform, breaking the law and several rules…definitely not fine…Unless he is protesting the rules to wearing a uniform at a protest, or protesting a law that says he can’t chain himself to the WH Fence, his arrest does not amount to a hill of good for the movement to repeal DADT.

Provide The EvidenceSeriously, I want to see specific examples of these “regular calls for state violence against anyone who’s not sufficiently Christian and heterosexual” made by commissioned officers.
You’ve made the claim. I want the evidence. If you can’t provide it, then you’ve simply made it up.

And they shouldstand in jail where they belong. They most certainly should not be exempt from the law simply becuase you like what they say.

How do you define “fine”?

Challenging Oppressive Laws Is GoodThe question is how. The answer is that it depends on who you are and what means you use.
Choi has traded on his status as a West Point graduate and military officer. He argues that gay people can fit into the military, whose regulations and customs prohibit what he did.
If Choi wants to be effective, as opposed to just strutting his ego, he would comply with the regs and customs of the military that he thinks he’s qualified to be a part of. Prior to chaining himself to that fence, he was doing so. But once he decided to break the law — in uniform, no less — he forever disqualified himself from an officer’s billet.

Definition of “fine”I define it as ok, understandable, this is something I can get behind.  This is the legitimate fight, and reasonably, this is what a military member is allowed to do.

They Are NOT Standing Up For UsThey really aren’t. They are standing up for their own inflated egos.
When they follow the chain of command, and peacefully speak out against DADT, they are effective and plenty heroic. When they violate civilian law, military regulations, and military custom by chaining themselves to the White House fence, they become counterproductive. They send the message that gay people cannot fit into the military.
I disagree very strongly with DADT, but I just as strongly condemn Choi’s actions. The other guy is someone I hadn’t heard of until today. If he’s in the military, then my reaction is the same toward him as it is toward Choi.

Do you expect……to be taken seriously when you use that analogy?  Because you instantly lose credibility when you run to the Nazi/Good German comparison (in my personal opinion only).
I get your point, believe it or not.  I just disagree and think the German analogy is disingenuous.  But as I said, that’s just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

Good point, Geek,And that foul bastard Martin Luther King belonged in jail, too.  So did that fiend Nelson Mandela.  And that godawful Gandhi guy.  And all those evil sodomites who rioted at Stonewall.  And on and on…
Can you name one single bit of social progress in American history–or world history, for that matter–that didn’t happen without brave men and women committing civil disobedience?  I mean, we all understand that you’re not actually in favor of progress.  You’ve made that clear enough here, time and time again.  But you might at least have a stab at providing a few examples of how things would work without the Lt. Chois among us.

Depends on the peopleTell me QScribe, when did the police and military effect change through civil disobedience? What are you going to say if, once DADT is repealed, you have right-wing military officers chaining themselves to the White House fence in opposition?
Here’s what you’ll say: court martial them. You will have one standard for your friends, and another for your adversaries.

I agree that it was inappropriate for Choi to wear his uniform.But, at the same time, I’m a little turned on by that picture of him chained to the fence in it, so…  Maybe I’m not thinking clearly.
There.  I said it.

Hear, hear!Thanks for the addition to the discussion that made me chuckle, lw!

Again, your military sex fantasies are irrelevant…
1. The vast majority of Americans haven’t a clue about military regs re uniforms and political demos so you are running a red herring into the ground and breaking it off. Give it up! You started sounding like a four-yr. old screaming, “Poo Poo! Poo Poo! I said POO POO!!!” several posts ago.
2. I don’t doubt he pissed off a lot of military peeps who do know the regs and, unlike you for nondemonstrable reasons other than anal retentive echolalia, I don’t give a flying fuck because, nota bene, THEY don’t get to decide about whether DADT is kept…THEY don’t get to even consider, “Well, we were GOING to stop discharging people but Dan Choi fucked it up.”
…as much as they are trying to control the issue, as much as Obama is letting them…the military reports to CIVILIANS and not the other way around….which brings us back to why this act of civil disobedience combining chaining themselves to the White House fence with Dan violating the UCMJ in two ways…was necessary.
So calm down. You be better spent washing the sticky off your GI Joe doll [pun intended].

My statements were consistentWhen I say “not a damn thing happens” and the thing “doesn’t occur” I intended the same meaning.
I don’t have evidence of right-wing protestors in uniform being arrested, because it is ignored by authorities, therefore, they are not arrested.
I fail to see the confusion.

The Vietnam War was ended….
…in large part by servicemembers refusing to fight, demonstrations by recent veterans, and draftees refusing to go.
And all the while, Good German Queens like you denounced them for it.
Then, of course, there were the many members of the Wehrmacht, including von Stauffenberg, who conspired to kill Hitler, were executed for it, and are now universal heroes.
That, as bad as it is, DADT is nothing like the crimes committed by other members of the Wehrmacht, wrong is wrong is wrong is wrong.
And NO regulation, military or civil, makes it acceptable. Not then. Not there. Not now. Not here.

“I Don’t Have Evidence,” You SayWell why the fuck didn’t you just say so, then? Took ya long enough to admit that you just made it up, ya liar.

Oh, Sgt. Mary…
…that you close your Good German asshattery with a quote on liberty by Thomas Jefferson wins YOU today’s Shameless Cake.
Geek, sorry, we have a new winner.

This Isn’t the Vietnam WarChoi is trying to get gay people into the military, not end a war. He is saying that gay people are qualified to serve. Funny way of demonstrating it, by showing his own manifest lack of qualification.

Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!Do you ever get tired of yourself?

As I understand it (correct me if i’m wrong), Choi didn’t coordinate this with HRCso it sounds like Solmonese may have been taken by surprise.  Not sure it is then fair to blame him for not blindly following.  

Michael, please take a step backEveryone who disagrees with you is not a Nazi.  Seriously, take a breather.
Thank you,
Lurleen, Barista for Pam’s House Blend

QScribe, cease flamingArgue your points but lay off the personal attacks.
Thank you,
Lurleen, Barista for Pam’s House Blend

Hey JakeDo you think that you could take your anger and direct it to the people who seek to deny LGBTs their equal rights, rather than taking it out on members of our own community? Just something to consider.

Why do you people keep responding to Scifi Geek?Sorry for the off-topic, but this guy is only looking for trouble. Do not feed the trolls.

I am proud of what he didand he needs to be court martialled.
What he did needed to be done for the personnel of the armed forces.
He needs to be disciplined for the same reason.
He would have known this going in. Which makes me all the more proud of his example.

The gesture that Lt Choi made is powerful and pricelessand I am glad that he made it.
I will be sadly in agreement with court martialing him next, though.
Still, the gesture is nothing less than heroic when you consider the cost.

There have been military officers at Palin eventsWhether or not they are active duty or actually retired is unknown, but they have been visible.

Contract? Free speech? Wut?If there are pockets of religious kooks who want to practice X, Y or Z, they’re allowed, right?  That’s considered a freedom and they’re permitted to have that, on base, with military-provided chaplains.  I honestly don’t see how this is ANY different.  Fuck the contract.  The military chews people up and spits them out and doesn’t even give them their due nine tenths of the time — if they aren’t doing what they’re supposed to, then why should Dan follow their bullshit, arbitrary contract?

In Uniform?Link to a picture. Given that people have been lying their asses off in this thread, I want some proof.

Gays Don’t Have To Follow the Contract?If that’s what you’re saying, then that’s a damn good argument for excluding gays from the military on grounds that they are “incompatible with good order and discipline.”

Late to this but Miss Geekshe so crazy!

On CNN’s news tickerThey will develop the story.  Lt. Choi was the right person to do this for national news and changing hearts and minds.

See above

Agreedand his actions will lead to tremendous personal sacrifice.  I don’t see him as an egotistical person.  I see him as someone who has come out of the closet, knows that it would be damaging to hide his true self again and continues to grow. Sounds like a mentally healthy and stable person to me.  Anyone who knows what it’s like to be closeted in an oppressive atmosphere knows that there is no going back once you have freed yourself.  We are with you, Lt. Choi and you have our respect.  

It is perfectly fair to criticize himfor not following, when he has provided NO leadership on this (or any other LGBT  issue) himself.  He doesn’t want to lead; he doesn’t want to follow.  What does that make him, then?

So you would equate right-wing military officers who support an unjust policy with people standing up for civil rights.  Thank you for finally clarifying, at last, with no ambiguity, exactly where your mind is.
I notice that you didn’t answer my question to Geek.  You’re the one who keeps demanding links and examples.  Go to it.

he’s not a trollHe’s a member of the community with a point of view; and also seems capable of defending himself.

Then why are you defending him?
And yes, he’s a troll who’s looking for attention and everyone should just ignore him, period.

…All of this support for a court-martial is sad. Basically, the argument is that he’s not allowed to commit an illegal act while in uniform. I wonder how many of these militaristic people would suggest a court-martial for driving four miles over the speed limit (a crime in Texas) or burning an encrypted DVD (also a crime) while in uniform.
The fact is is that this was a harmless, symbolic (if illegal) act done in defiance of an unjust law specifically related to that military uniform which makes it at least somewhat appropriate. The law violated was also related to the uniform since White House is the residence of the commander-in-chief of the military. Saying that the integrity of military law is paramount when he’s a key speaker trying to overturn what is effectively a (bad) military law is just moronic. Sometimes legal avenues just don’t work. I would have thought that the fact that he’s a gay person who’s violated “Don’t Tell” would have made that clear.
And what’s sad is that these people are also defending this law as completely valid. Any sensible person can see that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is not equal treatment under the law.

Yes, I Would Equate ThemBoth groups are Americans with opinions, and if they’re in the military are governed by military regulation and custom when it comes to the manner in which they express their views. I apply a single standard of conduct to everyone, not separate standards to people I like and people I don’t like.
As for your question, I don’t feel any need to answer what you asked of someone else. If you have a question for me, then ask it to me. And if you make a claim, be prepared to document it, because a lot of lies have been told in this thread by people who don’t even bother to try to back them up.

Typical Stalinistic Reply Everyone you disagree with it a “troll.” Why don’t you actually try responding to someone’s argument, or are you too lazy?

No on Speeding, Yes on Stealing a DVD“No” meaning, don’t go after him under UCMJ for that. But on stealing DVDs, absolutely go after him for it if he’s caught.
I wonder how many people commenting in this thread have any military experience, and in particular any experience as an officer. It’s interesting to see all this agitation to end DADT from people who show no sign of understanding the military, or of really caring about it.
Choi also seems to have turned his back on the military. No military officer, or anyone who wanted to be one, or anyone who had really absorbed the customs, would do what Choi did. I consider him an attention seeking egomaniac, and counterproductive to the cause his pretends to advocate.

I disagreeHe made a military decision, to expend a valuable asset in order to accomplish the mission.
It’s actually easier when you’re the valuable asset being expended.
He should be charged, plead guilty, be convicted, and punished under the UCMJ. Then, before his dishonorable discharge after he’s served his sentence, granted a Presidential Pardon, and reinstated with no loss of rank or seniority. Justice demands that.
We cannot allow serving members in Uniform to break this law with impunity. But it is the duty of all citizens to break unjust laws, and to take the punishment for that without protest, as the price for highlighting the injustice.

HmmAll of the infighting here has been stressing me out immensely. This situation is just scarily volatile.
What you propose seems silly and nieve, I will be honest, but it gives me hope. Sometimes we need to be reminded of our duties.

“Kool-aid drinker”Great term for someone who suggests that maybe promoting additional extralegal punishment for people who commit minor non-violent crimes as acts of civil disobedience is a bit shady.  I mean, really — when a right-wing authoritarian general spouts of while wearing a uniform, do they get arrested and held without the ability to make even a phone call?  And yeah, sure, you’re willing to insist that “military customs” are respected — but are you willing to do so when the proud and extensively-practiced “military custom” of brutal terrorist violence against LGBT people is the “custom” in question?

It’s not a questionof exemption from the law — it’s a question of disproportionate retribution, unequal enforcement, and comments like yours approving of extrajudicial punishment in addition to that allowed by law.  People commit acts of civil disobedience when they judge that they’d rather accept the legal consequences of their actions rather than remain silent.  How does that justify amplifying the punishment for an act when the person acting is doing so in opposition to the right-wing mainstream?

Wow, way to weaken the concepts of “peace” and “violence”.By the rubric you give us here, only obedience to the right-wing chain of command (which continues to demand violence against civilians when it suits them) can be “peaceful”.  How, exactly, does that work?

not usually a problemI don’t usually have a problem with your comments, but have a little respect for others concerns.  Debate the premise, not whether or not I’m a Nazi, please.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Too many commenters alreadywasted their time and energy responding to his “arguments”; 118 comments to be precise.  

A final commentPart of committing civil disobedience is that you know it’s against the law.  I haven’t been trying to say that it’s not against the law, but that HE’S A HERO FOR DOING IT.  This creepy “Yeah, you STAY in that jail, you bad gay!” shit is what is disturbing.
Also, what was he gonna do instead?  Go back to his unit quietly when they called him back and train with them until he was formally discharged?  He’s not Lt. Solmonese, thankfully.
Speaking of illegal…. denying someone a phone call is pretty freaking illegal!

What “Right” To A Phone Call?You’ve been watching too much television. There is no legal right to make phone calls from jail.

Back At YaI think DADT is an unjust law, and that he shouldn’t be punished for violating it. But there is nothing at all “unjust” about the law that prohibits someone from chaining themselves to the White House fence.

Another StalinistRather than discuss the matter, Kokas airily waves his/her hand and declares the subject off limits without so much as offering any rationales. Typical of kool-aid drinkers of all stripes.

Be Real HereOne of the services, I believe the Air Force, recentnly delivered a gay basher to the NYPD. The military member is going to be punished both by a civilian court and within the military, last I read. As for the “right wing authoritarian general” who “spouted off,” I will ask you what I’ve been asking others here who make this or that accusation: Provide some proof. If you don’t then it means that you, like others here, are making it up.

Lost Again, Huh Qscribe?You can’t even respond any more. You make shit up and refuse to provide back up, and then when outclassed in a debate you give up.  

Be CoherentI never wrote, nor did I imply, that “only obedience to the right wing chain of command …” blah blah blah. Come on, start making sense. It’d do you some good.

no UCMJHe’s not on Federal military status. He was arraigned in a DC court. Different jurisdiction if he was in the Federal army, on active duty. Art. 2 UCMJ.

That’s A TechnicalityFor starters, we don’t know his complete status. If he’s still part of the NY Guard, the UCMJ would apply only if his unit was federally activated. That’s something we don’t know. We also don’t know what the NY Guard’s own regulations are.
But that’s for lawyers to argue about. What counts here is that Choi has been trading on his military rank and background. Even if he’s not legally liable, the basis of his being a public advocate on DADT is that he’s “Lieutenant Choi,” the West Point grad with the military haircut, uniform, and military bearing. That’s why he’s been on TV, and it’s why anyone at all is paying attention to him now.
So, if he’s going to play soldier on TV, then he ought to walk the walk and not engage in behavior, aside from anything connected to DADT, that would undermine his credibility as a military officer and his message, which is that other than being gay, he’s just as qualified to be in the military as any other officer.
Well, no, he isn’t. Not when he tramples on military regs, civilian law, and military custom. Choi is demonstrating his lack of fitness to be an officer, apart from his (and my, and your) beef with DADT. That’s the problem here. If he’s going to act like an officer, then he should act like an officer.

Oh boy…Now you’re posting under two different names?? Is your ego that fragile? But hey, thanks for the entertainment, Scifi Geek/Jake Jackson.  

Two Different PostersWow, another lie in this thread. Scifi Geek is someone else. If the blog administrator comes here, she can confirm it from IP records. It’s just amazing how much shit you people make up.

Let’s see…You set up a dichotomy:  people who “peacefully speak out” are contrasted not with those who use violence but with those who “violate civilian law, military law, and military custom”.  Was the word “peaceful” there just the remains of an earlier phrasing where there was some actual question of violence?  As written, the implication is that failure to “follow the chain of command” is inherently non-peaceful.
(And let’s not even get into the insistence that to “violate…military custom” deserves legal punishment.  Fortunately, most courts don’t recognize custom as taking precedence over law.)

Looking through the links…It seems the one who’s been most prominent over the last few years was Gen. William G. Boykin, who appeared in uniform while serving in the military to deliver speeches declaring the U.S. occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq matters of holy war by a “Christian nation”, providing Al-Qaeda with some of their most popular propaganda material.
Now, to be fair, he has since been reprimanded for this improper use of the uniform and misappropriation of state power to further a totalitarian religious agenda.  However, he was not arrested and held without being able to contact his lawyer in excess of standard procedures for responding to similar offenses.  He was not imprisoned and removed from the service — even political actions in uniform and claiming the authority of the state which supported a set of false claims used by a major terrorist network were not considered that major a UCMJ violation.
Likewise, officers who engaged in the promotion of a reactionary authoritarian version of Christianity while appearing in uniform at “Christian Embassy” events were disciplined at most in line with, not in excess of, standard procedure regarding the regulations in question.
It’s not a matter of whether acts of civil disobedience while in uniform are illegal — acts of civil disobedience are illegal (that’s part of the definition), and members of the military are specifically banned from engaging in certain political activities while in uniform (at least during active service).  Unequal enforcement of a law based on the political positions of those subject to it, though, is an ethically untenable position.  Even if the difference is enacted in the form of punishments less severe than the statutory maximum being assigned only to those of approved political positions rather than the punishments for those of unapproved positions being given punishment in excess of the statutory maximum, it’s a matter of appropriating state power to inappropriately enforce the supremacy of one political position over another.

The preferred Godwin equivalent of red-baiters…No, not everyone whose style of debate one disapproves of is a Nazi — but they’re not all Stalinists, either.  It’s unproductive hyperbole either way.

St. Sebastian, I presume?A persistent image and metaphor in gay male imagery. Just google St. Sebastian imagery — the Wiki entry is as good a portal as any — and you’ll see.
I agree that it’s a compelling icon. I wonder if Lt. Choi was channelling that somehow?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…  

I Can See ThatWhen I’ve watched Choi on TV, even before the ridiculous stunt at the White House, there was always an air of amateur theatre of some sort. Who knows, maybe there’s the full martyrdom thing going on, and that’s why he did the chains ‘n fence thing. The line between fantasy and reality blurring as the screws loosen? Who knows? In any case, that dude’s got no business calling himself a qualified military officer. Not now, and probably not for a long time, judging by his promotion record.

Hey ExfundieDo you think you can go and lecture the community members who’ve been engaging in the worst sort of ad hominem attacks against Jake as well? As far as I can see, he’s being much more civil and rational than a lot of those “arguing” with him.

The difference between what Choi did and what Boykin did…Is that, while Boykin did violate regulations, he didn’t do so while in commission of an act that would otherwise be illegal. Soldiers are allowed to preach in church, attend political rallies, whatever, as long as they don’t wear the uniform or claim to have official endorsement from the chain of command. Chaining yourself to the Whitehouse fence, though, is illegal for anyone. Had Dan not done that, he probably would only be facing the same sort of slap-on-the-wrist reprimands that they did. And keep in mind that right now, he’s only facing the civilian justice system. You really can’t fairly compare the 2 cases.

Can you please point out…Where Jake, or anyone else, said anything in favor of disproportionate retribution, unequal enforcement, or extrajudicial punishment? Near as I can tell, he’s only saying that ANYONE, regardless of their motive, who violates the law as Dan did, should be punished equally. Which, much as I approve of Dan’s actions on the moral level, I agree with. Like you said, that’s how civil disobedience works. Take away the punishment willingly provoked, and all it becomes is a theatrical gesture. Dan goes to jail, and it actually means something.

The difference is…… They are doing so within the bounds of what the currently existing regulations allow. Regardless of whether you feel those regulations are justified, it is an incontrovertible FACT that Dan Choi violated them.

All those officers-turned-politiciansgot into politics after the left the service. Engaging in political grandstanding WHILE in the Army (Like General MacArthur did) is a good way to end your career, and for good reason. He wanted us to nuke China. Who here thinks his schmoozing was a good thing?

I was with you…… Up until the “reinstated”. If for no other reason that he’s never going to be able to command troops or work with his fellow officers again. No one will really be able to trust him, the way an officer needs to be trusted. That’s just the way that military culture works.

No, it actually isn’t.You don’t have a right to a phone call, per se. You have a right to contact a lawyer or otherwise arrange for legal representation. Most jurisdictions find it more convenient to let you do that over the phone, rather than doing the work themselves, but the “One phone call” is custom, not law.

It’s disproportionate in either system.Choi is currently facing a disproportionate response from the civilian legal system (compare: a right-winger drives a truck into a crowd on the sidewalk at a pro-immigration-reform rally and isn’t even arrested).  A response to his off-duty non-violent acts more severe than the response to someone who actively claimed the authority of the state in order to provide support to a totalitarian Christian claim of authority over the U.S. will suggest a second disproportionate response.

The Iraq War WAS In Fact Within the Regs and LawsIt was specifically authorized by Congress, and by the United Nations. The fact that you or I might have opposed it does not make it illegal.

I am not your librarian, JakeDo a search, ought not be at all hard to find

You made the accusationSo you prove it. You and others have been telling one lie after another in this thread. Come on, back it up, or you just made it up.

“Lost”? Oh, I get it.Silly me. I’ve always thought that discussions like this were important, that they affect all of us.  It turns out that the LGBT movement is nothing more than a children’s game to be “won” or “lost,” like ring-around-the-rosie.
What an interesting mindset you reveal.  Now wonder every time you post a comment I…I..I…ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Boykin, et. al. Were ReprimandedIf they’d chained themselves to the White House fence and made their comments, they’d have been arrested. Choi was arrested by civilian authorities for breaking a civilian law.

You “Lost” An ArgumentAnd you “lost” it because you won’t back up your assertions with evidence. You keep making statements here and then refuse to provide backup evidence. This tells me you’re just making shit up, which is a way of saying that you’re lying. That’s why you have “lost” the argument.

You Are Playing Word GamesI contrasted “peacefully speaking out” with breaking the law. I suppose I could have said “lawfully speaking out,” but that’s a distinction without a difference here.
I haven’t ever said, or implied, that Choi deserved to be arrested for violating military custom. That’s a legal technical issue that would revolve around his current military status and whether the UCMJ applies to him.
The reason that violating military custom is an issue here is that Choi’s value as a poster boy hinges on his persona as an otherwise qualified military officer. To the extent that he’s not otherwise qualified, he’s a liability because he’s contradicting the basis of his value in the DADT debate.
By protesting in uniform, purposely violating civilian law, and grossly violating military custom, he has fatally undercut his qualifications for military service — apart from anything pertaining to DADT. In short, he’s a fool who will have (and deserve) no respect within the military.
If Choi wants to keep it up, he should at the very least do it entirely as a civilian. I still think that’d be foolish, but at least he wouldn’t be holding himself out as an otherwise qualified military officer, which he is not.

You Are Playing Word GamesI contrasted “peacefully speaking out” with breaking the law. I suppose I could have said “lawfully speaking out,” but that’s a distinction without a difference here.
I haven’t ever said, or implied, that Choi deserved to be arrested for violating military custom. That’s a legal technical issue that would revolve around his current military status and whether the UCMJ applies to him.
The reason that violating military custom is an issue here is that Choi’s value as a poster boy hinges on his persona as an otherwise qualified military officer. To the extent that he’s not otherwise qualified, he’s a liability because he’s contradicting the basis of his value in the DADT debate.
By protesting in uniform, purposely violating civilian law, and grossly violating military custom, he has fatally undercut his qualifications for military service — apart from anything pertaining to DADT. In short, he’s a fool who will have (and deserve) no respect within the military.
If Choi wants to keep it up, he should at the very least do it entirely as a civilian. I still think that’d be foolish, but at least he wouldn’t be holding himself out as an otherwise qualified military officer, which he is not.

Wow. You sure have my number, all right.Everything I’ve written in my comments about MLK committing civil disobedience–I made it all up.  And it’s all “shit.” And Gandhi–I made that up too, and it’s “shit” as well.  Everything I said about progressive movements that never made real headway until brave men and women put themselves on the line by committing civil disobedience–all fabricated, all “shit.”  Yessirree, you sure nailed me there.  Foxy old you.
Perhaps you might go back to grade school, and pay attention in history class this time. Either way, I’m through trying to have an intelligent exchange with you.  Go find another grownup to annoy.

You Can’t Back Up Your ClaimsYou and some others in this thread have gotten real mad. You’ve kicked and screamed and stamped your little feet. You made claims without providing evidence. This is what little children do. You need to go to your rooms and stay there until you are prepared to act like adults. That applies to your “hero,” Mr. Choi, as well.
Meantime, you should stand back and let the adults work on DADT, because nothing you do is helping. You don’t understand or care about the military or the people who serve in it. DADT repeal is just a box to check for you. Other people have a stake in it, and you should let them handle it.

Hey chaotic-nippleI gently requested that Jake consider directing his anger elsewhere- no lecture, please re-read my comment.  Oh, and by the way, I was addressing Jake Jackson, not chaotic nipple. Jake called people “kool aid drinkers” , liars, etc.  Don’t be surprised when people react after being called names themselves. We’re all adults here, aren’t we?

Education is a worthy thingEducate yourself.

So let’s get this straight…It’s not okay to break the law while in uniform because the integrity of the military, through consistent application of its laws, is paramount. Except that some laws are more equal than others; certain traffic laws don’t count! Where can I find this manual of exceptions, Jake?
Let me indulge and hazard a guess: you speed and, of course, your own standard just doesn’t apply to yourself. Either that, or you consider speeding laws unjust and worthy of repeal (and while you’re waiting for that, you’ll just break the law while denouncing another lawbreaker).
And burning an encrypted DVD does not necessarily entail theft. If you buy a DVD and circumvent the encryption of a DVD that you paid for to make a backup copy without authorization (which one often doesn’t have), you’ve just committed a crime. Ah, but send the poor guy to jail. I mean this is a heinous financial loss to companies who don’t get to see you purchase the media twice to obtain a backup! Physically endangering other drivers while in uniform pales in comparison to this ugly crime or the even uglier crime of, God forbid, pirating a DVD!
Anyway, I digress. Right now I’m wondering how many commander-in-chiefs and Congressional military regulators didn’t have any military experience and are therefore unqualified to comment on, much less regulate and command, our military. I mean, the military should be in charge of regulating itself and concerned American citizens should have no say over the people their taxes are paying unless they sign over several years of their life to the military first; God forbid we try to check our own executive branch.
Wait, we can just ask retired members for their advice since their having served in the military means that their statements have more weight than those who haven’t. Where’s Sheehan when we need some evidence of the failed Dutch experiment? Personally, I don’t believe him, but then I don’t really understand these things as a poor civilian and definitely since I’m not an officer.
But… Experienced and active military commanders know best: gays irreparably damage unit cohesion unless the commander-in-chief is named Obama in which case that magically goes out the window. The military opposing release of their own photographed abuses accompanied with bans on photography? Well, that was just experienced military personnel showing us that they know what they’re doing and that we should just let them run things themselves.
–
Well, I think you get the point (or probably not). I’m not particularly predisposed to those who have decided that they are part of an elite culture that no one else can understand (and raising the bar to “officer” at that even though our top officers have repeatedly shown themselves to be incompetent or willing to take unethical actions) and that those outside the culture have inadequate standing to interfere with it. Essentially, you’ve indicated that your mind is closed to us uncaring civilians.

Well,…Actually, it would have been “unjust” if he just hadn’t been wearing a uniform, at least, according to your logic. Either that or the uniform was just a red herring and it’s “just” either way.

The crowd applaudedso it sounds like Solmonese may have been taken by surprise.  Not sure it is then fair to blame him for not blindly following.  windows 7 home premium key