Can President Obama Suspend Implementation of DADT?
After Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and Iraq War veteran who is fluent in Arabic has announced on national TV that he is gay, he is about to be dismissed from the military.
Over at the Huffington Post, Aaron Belkin,Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Palm Center at University of California at Santa Barbara, contends that President Obama can block this good man from losing his job in our armed forces:
A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can simply order the military to stop investigating service members’ sexuality.
An executive order would not get rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead. Once people see gays and lesbians serving openly, legally and without problems, it will be much easier to get rid of the law at a later time.
He’s right. The more we see gay people serving openly, the easier it’ll be to repeal the ban. And from what I read about Choi, he does seem to be the kind of guy we would want to have in the military.
If this study is accurate, then let’s hope White House Counsel Greg Craig reads it, so he can use it to help draft the rationale for an executive order suspending implementation of DADT. Someone, I think, people will challenge their interpretation of statute and may sue to ensure Choi’s dismissal (and so provide another piece of evidence of the folly of DADT).
Let’s just persuade Congress to repeal this silly law so our military doesn’t waste resources removing good men and women from our armed forces.
(H/t: Glenn.)
19 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
[...] perfectly fair to blame Obama for not having taken action to overturn existing law, as Matt Corley, GayPatriotWest, and Andrew Sullivan do. But that’s what he needs to do: Burn political capital and use [...]
Pingback by Obama ‘Fires’ Gay Arabic Linguist — May 8, 2009 @ 8:34 am - May 8, 2009
As a veteran of the US Army, I find your opinion regarding the DADT policy refreshing. Thewill soon come a day when all those who wish to serve their country can do so with honor without regard to sexuality. I mean really, how many other countries have allowed homosexual members to serve “openly.” It’s only a matter of time before the U. S. catches up on this particular issue. Thanks.
Comment by french62 — May 8, 2009 @ 9:33 am - May 8, 2009
I am anxiously waiting for those two stalwart Democrat Senators, Hue and Cry, to publicly encourage Obama to change the DADT rules. Obama seems to prefer cover for his hopeychangey agenda. Weasels are like that. Perhaps he can get Arlen Specter to lead the crusade in trade for a chairmanship on the Tee-ball rules investigation subcommittee. At this point, Arlen would smell every mongrel rear in the SPCA for a chance to wear his beanie with the propeller.
Comment by heliotrope — May 8, 2009 @ 9:41 am - May 8, 2009
George Bush had done more for gays during his first 100 days in office than Obama has. Bush appointed an openly gay ambassador to Romania, for one, and Colin Powell swore him in with his boyfriend by his side. This appointment revolutionized gay rights in a very conservative, backward nation. Gays in Romania will always think of Bush as almost a savior. Yes, believe it or not, there are gay people in places other than just first-world white countries. The left seems to believe gay rights only apply for them. When gays defend Obama insisting he’s done so much for gays I can only laugh. He has done absolutely nothing, nothing but rhetroic thus far.
Comment by Mark — May 8, 2009 @ 11:09 am - May 8, 2009
#2 – Don’t forget tiny Albania, which was the first post-Iron Curtain country ever visited by a sitting US President. The citizens went wild for GWB.
Of course, the lapdog MSM viewed it through the prism of “how he’s so popular here compared to his own country.”
Scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites all.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 8, 2009 @ 11:44 am - May 8, 2009
While George Bush may have done more for gays during his first 100 days in office than Obama has, he did not take an opportunity to do good for the nation or our Armed Forces. DADT does not benefit the Armed Forces of our country. Case in point, Dan Choi. I say this as a “straight” Marine Corps veteran. Our national security is diminished by the loss of the talent and leadership of Lt. Choi.
To me, the argument isn’t about Gay Rights or any rights, it’s about national security. The Armed Forces is not a vehicle for social change, but rather for killing the enemy and breaking things and at time policing. We are being stupid by letting ignorance dictate what is best for our collective security and the security of freedom loving people around the world.
Comment by HCN — May 8, 2009 @ 12:57 pm - May 8, 2009
PS – I voted for George Bush both time and with the exception of his total mishandling of the credit crisis, this issue and other minor issues, supported his presidency.
Comment by HCN — May 8, 2009 @ 12:59 pm - May 8, 2009
Why is the convenience of Lieutenant Choi more important than following the rules?
Choi demonstrated inadvertently that DADT works just fine and does not preclude talented gay individuals from serving. His problem is that he no longer wants to live under the conditions. That’s his choice; plenty of talented people leave the armed forces annually without this level of gnashing and weeping.
More bluntly, Choi lied. He knew he was gay when he enlisted. He chose to lie to the armed forces, and he exploited that lie to get a free education. Now he’s suddenly and conveniently decided he’s against “lying” and demands that the rules he refuses to keep be changed for his own personal convenience.
Despite the slogan, ours is not a one-man army. It is a group of individuals who are more than capable of stepping up and filling the gap produced by the departure of individuals like Choi. There is zero reason to change a policy supported by the vast majority of military personnel to accomodate a tiny, tiny, fraction of a minority within a minority that has ample opportunity to serve their country in innumerable other ways.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 8, 2009 @ 1:46 pm - May 8, 2009
“North Dallas Thirty” stated in a different thread that he supports the exclusion of gay people from the military on the basis of sexual orientation. I think it’s important that people understand where he’s coming from.
As for Choi “lying,” I quite strongly doubt this is the case. He was a first lieutenant, a junior rank. One feature of DADT was the elimination of the sexual orientation question. Therefore, Choi didn’t “lie” on his enlistment forms. Any “lying” he did was in the day-to-day interactions on the job, where like many other gay people he was forced to lie by omission to keep his job.
There always have been, and there always will be, gay people in the military and in every other walk of life. If we are formally excluded from some situations, then we are forced to lie to get and keep those positions. Choi and others want to end that state of affairs, while “North Dallas Thirty” wants to preserve it.
“North Dallas Thirty,” are you gay? If so, do you hate yourself, or what?
Comment by Magic Dog — May 8, 2009 @ 1:54 pm - May 8, 2009
“North Dallas Thirty” stated in a different thread that he supports the exclusion of gay people from the military on the basis of sexual orientation.
Yup.
That’s because the gay community is quite openly bigoted and hateful towards the military on the basis of sexual orientation, and in fact supports and endorses groups like the Obama Party that call our own troops “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.
If Choi cares so much about the military, you’d think he would attack the gay community for its hatred and bigotry towards it. But instead, he turns against his own comrades and demonstrates that his sexual orientation and need to support the anti-military gay community is more important.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 8, 2009 @ 2:45 pm - May 8, 2009
“North Dallas Thirty,” are you gay? If so, do you hate yourself, or what?
Yes and no.
I am gay; unfortunately, I don’t hate myself enough to need whether or not I can serve in the military to validate me, as do most gays. Instead, I look at it from the perspective of a concerned and rational American, who recognizes that we don’t force women in the military to sleep and shower with men because of the sexual tensions and potential damage to our readiness and group cohesion that that could cause, and who fails to see why the same rule shouldn’t be applied to gays — especially when one considers the absolutely miniscule number of gays who are affected and the rampant antimilitary bigotry of the gay community.
Besides, why should the military be forced to accept people who, by virtue of their sexual orientation
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 8, 2009 @ 2:51 pm - May 8, 2009
Back to the topic at hand. I read over on Hotair, that the CinC can, by the stroke of a pen, suspend the investigation. Is this true? ColoradoPatriot, you’re my only hope.
Comment by The Livewire — May 8, 2009 @ 2:54 pm - May 8, 2009
Wow, so “North Dallas Thirty” wants people like himself excluded from the military on grounds of suspect loyalty. I guess he’s not aware that the first casualty in the Iraq War was a gay Marine who lost his leg. What have you done for your country lately, “North Dallas Thirty?”
Comment by Magic Dog — May 8, 2009 @ 3:56 pm - May 8, 2009
Blackfive has some interesting discussion of the topic.
Comment by The_Livewire — May 8, 2009 @ 4:16 pm - May 8, 2009
Hmm… this sounds legally dubious to me, but I’m not a lawyer so if it does have merit I suppose it should be explored further. Far better would be to repeal DADT this year, but the Dems are ignoring that promise of course. I expected nothing less from them.
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 5:29 pm - May 8, 2009
And PeeJ totes out the ChickenHawk argument
*Yawn* can’t TalkingPoints sent out new material?
Comment by The_Livewire — May 8, 2009 @ 6:43 pm - May 8, 2009
I agree with many of the posts. I am also confused why so many openly gay military men and women come out bashing the US military. What is this saying to people? Maybe they are reinforcing the stereotype that you cannot trust gays to serve their country. I’m starting to wonder myself….
Comment by Jude — May 8, 2009 @ 10:38 pm - May 8, 2009
It is my understanding that such policies are subject to Congressional approval. I therefore doubt any claims that the Presidential “stroke of a pen” are valid.
While I usually respect and support many conservative initiatives, I strongly suspect this one is off the reservation.
Has anyone yet consulted the folks over at Volokh Conspiracy?
Comment by Casey — May 10, 2009 @ 2:12 am - May 10, 2009
I understand where you’re coming from Casey, but, in my understanding, as the CinC he can just order an investigation dropped.
Comment by The Livewire — May 11, 2009 @ 8:53 am - May 11, 2009