Clarifying the Record
Some of you have called or emailed with concerns about recent remarks by President Bill Clinton regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Last week, while on the campaign trail with Senator Hillary Clinton, the former President was asked about the law, and responded by saying that his intention in 1993 was to allow service personnel to "be free to live their lives, as long as they didn't go marching in gay rights parades or go to gay bars in uniform . . . in uniform . . . and talk about it on duty, they would be all right." Former President Clinton then went on to note that the law became a way for anti-gay forces in the military to retaliate against, and dismiss, lesbian and gay personnel. (You can watch the full video, from CNN's Situation Room, online here.)
As some of you have pointed out, there are disturbing factual inaccuracies in President Clinton's remarks. And I believe it's important to clarify the record.
Regardless of the intention behind the law, the reality is that it has not served the best interests of service members, our country or national security. Since its implementation, nearly 12,000 men and women have been dismissed under the law. Since 2001, that number has declined significantly, as it historically does during a time of war. During the year 1994-2000, a total of 6,741 service personnel were dismissed under the law. Between 2001 and 2006, that total declined to 4,988. Still, an average of two people are fired under the law every day . . . which is two too many.
President Clinton, and all Americans, should be aware of the realities involved in serving under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." President Clinton's comments are at odds with the day-to-day reality of serving under the law. That reality is that military members cannot be out to anyone, at anytime, while serving under the law. Statements to friends, family members or anyone else are grounds for dismissal from the armed forces, as they have been since day one. The law, indeed, practically prevents any gay American, who is out in any way, from serving in the military. And, as Senator Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates have said, the law does not work, and should be repealed. (Former President Clinton himself has acknowledged that there is "no evidence to support" the law.) Our next commander-in-chief should work with Congress to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
SLDN has, of course, made all of the candidates aware of our views on the law, and the reality of serving under it. In this particular case, we have already made sure that Senator Clinton's campaign is aware of our concerns regarding the President's inaccurate remarks. And, as always, we are committed to making sure that the facts about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and the very compelling reasons to support its repeal, are before our elected officials and other key stakeholders.
All of us at SLDN look forward to working with a new administration to end this law. Fourteen years of evidence has clearly shown there is no justification for maintaining "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
- Aubrey SarvisLabels: 2008, Bill Clinton, in the news
01-24-08
1 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.Anonymous on December 31, 1969 at 02.00 pm
DADT is dead, unless by some catastrophe we get another Republican president in 2009. Any Democratic president will end it.<BR><BR>Comments about DADT are usually written from the perspective of today’s political climate. That is not the correct perspective to make a historical judgment about it. Historically, it must be compared with what it replaced, and with what would have happened if DADT had not been passed.<BR><BR>Before DADT, no one who admitted being gay was allowed to enter the military - exactly the same as after DADT was passed. The difference was that before DADT, anyone in the military who was discovered to be gay received a dishonorable discharge. and that stigma followed him for the rest of his life. And further, any suspicion, rumor, or accusation of being gay was followed up by a proactive investigation. Any gay in the military had to be especially secretive because of the very serious consequences of being detected.<BR><BR>Another important factor was the climate in congress. Clinton campaigned in 1992 with a promise to end the ban on gays in the military. This change could be made by a new policy issued from the president. But the opposition in Congress would have then passed legislation banning gays in the military, and that would have removed the decision from both the military and from the president as commander in chief. DADT was a compromise between Clinton and Congress to prevent an outright ban from being enacted into law by Congress.<BR><BR>The role of DADT in context is this: it was a step forward from what existed previously; it was better than what Congress would have enacted otherwise; and finally, it has outlived its purpose and become an albatross harming the military, and is opposed by an overwhelming majority in the nation. Good Riddance!
——-