Huffington Post: Obama to Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist
Aaron Belkin
Huffington Post
May 7, 2009
Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.
Some readers might think it unfair to blame Obama. After all, the president inherited the "don't ask, don't tell" law when he took office. As Commander-in-Chief, he has to follow the law. If the law says that the military must fire any service member who acknowledges being gay, that is not Obama's fault.
Or is it?
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.
I spent a day with Dan Choi last month, and he is not someone we want to fire from the military. He loves the armed forces. He served bravely under tough combat conditions in Iraq. His Arabic is excellent, and he used his language skills to diffuse many tough situations and to save lives, both Iraqi and American. All of his unit mates know he is gay, and they have been very supportive of him. But he doesn't want to live a lie.
Obama has been praised for delaying efforts to get rid of "don't ask, don't tell," and some major gay rights groups are actively lobbying to delay consideration of the issue. They seem to believe that Obama should focus on other gay-rights issues first, and that he shouldn't spend his precious political capital trying to ram a repeal bill through Congress.
This misses the point. Obama could sign an executive order today. With roughly three-quarters of the public, including a majority of republicans, in favor of open gay service, a meaningful public backlash is unlikely. A slight majority of service members prefer that the policy be left in place, but polls also show that only a tiny minority of them care strongly about the issue, and that the vast majority of service members are comfortable interacting with gays.
Obama may believe he has nothing to lose by waiting. But what about Dan Choi's career? Is this really the right time to fire military officers who are fluent in Arabic?
05-07-09 By Aaron Belkin, Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Palm Center at UCSB |
24 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.Dino in Washington, D.C. on May 12, 2009 at 12.20 pm
Michael,
Thanks, I am a vet and I will send you a picture. Thank you for keeping the spirit of SSG Leonard Matlovich alive. I looked at your website and it was very impressive.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com on May 11, 2009 at 10.06 pm
Thank you “A” and Dino for your kind direct e-mails.
Also, “A,” if you’d send it to me, I would be very pleased to add your photo in uniform to the LGBT Veterans Gallery section of LeonardMatlovich.com. You, too, Dino, if you’re a vet.
Thank you.
Dino in Washington, D.C. on May 11, 2009 at 09.35 pm
Michael,
Your post was great. Your historical knowledge is very impressive as well. Please don’t think that I don’t view President Truman’s desegration of the US Military as anything less than courageous. I am confident that President Obama will demonstrate the same level of courage sooner or later.
A in San Francisco on May 10, 2009 at 09.49 pm
Michael-
Outstanding post. Thank you for the information.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com on May 10, 2009 at 03.20 pm
One could be cheeky and say, based on your math, Dino, that we won’t see gay integration of the military for another 15 years, but doubts that’s what you meant to infer.
But, seriously, your historical references produce a crop of other conclusions one doubts you intended—or, perhaps, simply did not see.
To a degree, FDR is to blacks as President Clinton is to gays; no president before them had treated a hated minority as well. FDR met with blacks in the White House; Clinton met with gays. But while FDR had some informal black advisors, such as the NAACP’s Walter White who strongly influenced President Truman’s decision to desegregate the military, Clinton had actual gay friends, and permeated his administration with unprecedented open gay appointments, large in number and prestige [many of them being “recycled” by President Obama].
A more direct analogy is that FDR issued Executive Order 8802 which banned racial discrimination in civilian federal hiring and “defense industries” while President Clinton issued Executive Order 13087, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in federal employment, reversing Eisenhower’s half-century old Executive Order 10450.
But unlike anything FDR did to equally benefit blacks, Clinton also issued Executive Order 12968 which forbids denial of government security clearances to gays. [In another example of the Upside Down World of DADT, it applies to gays in the military, too, and, stranger still, homosexuality uncovered in a security clearance investigation cannot be used to trigger discharge—though it sometimes takes legal action to enforce it.]
While inclusion of civilian gays in federal hate crime legislation has yet to pass, Clinton issued another executive order to add a hate crimes sentence enhancement to the Universal Code of Military Justice. Despite the failure of his attempt to integrate out gays, “don’t ask” remains a minor success, regardless of how often it is breached. He appointed the first out gay US Ambassador, Consul General, and federal judges, and was the first to hire a special administration liaison to the gay community. And, in his last two years in office, he issued gay pride month proclamations [One is allegedly being drafted for President Obama.] Clinton paralleled Truman, the first president to address a meeting of the NAACP, when he spoke at a national fundraiser for HRC.
While racism and homophobia themselves are very similar, and there are legal parallels with blacks during the Roosevelt/Truman years [individual employers and non-defense industries could discriminate on the basis of race just then as any in 30 states now can on the basis of sexuality, and blacks, then, like gays now in 45 states, could not marry the person of their choosing], there is a huge chasm both between public attitudes toward racial integration of the military in 1948 and gay integration now, and between their attitudes toward gay integration in 1993 and today.
Truman acted in 1948 despite the fact that 63% of Americans IN AN ELECTION YEAR opposed racial integration, Pentagon leaders and the majority of the rank and file were rabidly opposed, there was no bill in Congress for integration, and no history of academic research supporting him.
Clinton failed in large part because the religious and right wing Antigay Industry formed a thundering unholy alliance with bigots in Congress and the Pentagon to exploit the fact that only 40% of Americans then favored gay integration.
Today that number is at least 56%, at least 61% among voters 18-34. A growing number of active duty troops support integration, few recent duty top brass express opposition, the Antigay Industry is weakened and the Republican party is in disarray, the chief architect of DADT is dead and his two conspirators “open” to repeal, there is the proverbial mountain of research, the bulk of it paid for by the Pentagon and a bill in Congress supporting it, and a mainstream media asking more loudly every day, “Why not?”
In short, your trip down memory lane only serves to amplify the same question 16 years after President Clinton laid a much stronger groundwork than you posit that FDR did and 61 years after President Truman defied the Pentagon, Congress, and the majority of Americans [including close friends who referred to blacks as “niggers” and his own mother who had refused to even sleep in the Lincoln bedroom] to show the world what a true man of conscience and courage could do.
I eargerly await President Obama doing the same.
Dino in Washington, D.C. on May 10, 2009 at 12.42 am
Let’s have some historical perspective as well. In 1932, African-Americans overwhelmingly elected Franklin D. Roosevelt as President of the US. He promised to work for racial equality. He somewhat delivered on his commitment but VERRRRY slowly. He was president for twelve years (1933-1945). His small baby steps enabled future civil rights actions to take place. His sucessor President Harry S. Truman was able to desegrate the US Armed Forces in 1948 because of incremental things his predecessor had done. I know “be patient” is not a well liked thing to say, but it is the reality of our time. I am sure that many African-Americans of the Roosevelt era and the early Truman Administration were saying what you are saying James. Where is the action we voted for???!!!!
A in San Francisco on May 09, 2009 at 04.19 pm
Mr. Frances-
Perhaps you misunderstood. I am not attempting to read anyone’s “heart and mind” as it were. I am not an apologist. I think the delay is unconscienable, however, the years have made me somewhat pragmatic in my approach to change. I said PRAGMATIC, not cynical. I would also advise you to watch your tone, as it only serves to alienate those of us who are ultimately on the same side. There is nothing childish about my dedication to repealing this law. Shame on YOU.
Were you discharged under DADT? Would you sign up again if it were repealed?
And I’m not sure I understand your use of my quote to refer to President Lincoln.
Eschew - to avoid habitually especially on moral or practical grounds.
In effect, I stated that criticism and pressure on Pres. Obama is a necessary tool in effecting repeal. In other words, I AGREE WITH YOU. Care to explain what seems to me to be a specious appeal to blatant sentimentalism?
Leland Frances on May 09, 2009 at 04.02 pm
I don’t eschew your criticism of Pres. LINCOLN’S delay on SLAVERY; I think it is a necessary and fundamental procedural element in accomplishing a comprehensive review of this anachronistic and hurtful policy.”
“Where in all of this do you get the concrete sense that Pres. Obama supports DADT?”
There is nothing more “concrete” than the fact that Obama is doing nothing to stop the discharges of Lts. Choi and Tsao, and the 1-2 other servicemembers that have been discharged EVERY DAY since he swore to defend the Constitution whose names we don’t know.
ENOUGH of this childish defense of his cheap words. His INactions speak far louder except to those whose willful denial renders them deaf. Enough of this childish attempt at reading his mind and heart.
The closest thing to ANYTHING positive one can say about him is that he thinks it’s a necessary evil for now. What a hero!
To quote another famous man of color: you’re either a part of the solution or a part of the problem, and right now Barack Obama is a part of the problem.
SHAME ON HIM and shame on any of the members of his personality cult who choose to defend him over gay and lesbian servicemembers.
A in San Francisco on May 09, 2009 at 03.42 pm
Sir-
I don’t think you will find anyone who is for the repeal of DADT who will disagree with you that ending discrimination is right, therefore it should be done. Whether anyone claims Pres. Obama is a realist or a bigot, the fact remains he is a politician, and politicians play by a set of rules far removed from the idealism of a civil rights movement. That in and of itself is a heady dose of realism, and one that we should keep in mind even as our goals and intentions remain idealistic.
I don’t eschew your criticism of Pres. Obama’s delay on DADT; I think it is a necessary and fundamental procedural element in accomplishing a comprehensive review of this anachronistic and hurtful policy.
I’m somewhat confused though. Where in all of this do you get the concrete sense that Pres. Obama supports DADT? He has stated unequivocally that he will end DADT. A comment like that made in the public forum of the People of the United States of America is not empty rhetoric and false promise unless We the People, allow it to be. Only time will tell, to use a cliche, and we will keep fighting for our rights as long as we must. Of that I am sure.
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on May 09, 2009 at 09.55 am
A & Dino: I disagree with your arguments in two respects. First, I think your underlying premise—that Obama is not a bigot, he’s just a realist—is false. Obama is no different than David Duke—except that David Duke doesn’t lie about his bigotry. Obama’s a bigot. Period. He’s against Gay marriage, and he supports DADT. Thus, while there certainly are other bigots (both Dems and Repubs) out there, we should target Obama for our criticism because 1) he’s got the most power of any individual in this country to do something, and 2) he’s a moral coward and thus the most likely to be shamed into action. Second, whatever the political situation is or whatever the political ramifications will be, is irrelevant. If it’s right, it should be done. Ending discrimination is right, therefore it should be done. Let the evil men worry about what THEY are going to do in response.
Dino in Washington, D.C. on May 08, 2009 at 08.45 pm
What’s more, think about the other Democrats who ran for president last year. Would John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson or Joe Biden be any better on this issue? My guess is that they would be taking the same approach on DADT as President Obama is now. Or imagine a McCain/Palin Administration (actually i’d rather not). Need I say more? Want to vent your anger? President Obama is just a convenient target, just like President Clinton in 1993. Let’s call out the REAL bigots like some members of congress that are holding up the repeal of DADT. There are some present day Sam Nunns sitting in Congress and they are the ones upon whom to vent.
Dino on May 08, 2009 at 08.04 pm
James,
If you saw someone getting mugged on the street of course the right thing to do would be to come to that person’s aid. But what if there was only one of you and four muggers, and the muggers all had guns, and you were unarmed? Of course we would all like to be superman and try and save the day, but we have to deal with what is real, and in that situation you would have to call the police at the nearest phone and hope that they would arrive asap. President Obama I am sure would like to end DADT right away but he has to do it the right way.
Leland Frances on May 08, 2009 at 04.16 pm
Mainstream media attention mounts, if not with equal amounts of optimism:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/05/08/will-don-t-ask-be-back-on-the-agenda.aspx
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/08/MN9L17GJM3.DTL&hw=gays+military&sn=002&sc=839
Hug-filled but hollow official Obama response in 10, 9, 8, 7 ....
A in San Francisco on May 08, 2009 at 03.47 pm
Mr. Pietrangelo-
I sincerely hope you do not mistake me for an Obama apologist because my lips are not red from the kool-aid. You are talking to someone who was discharged from the United States Army under this discriminatory policy, not some wanna-be political know-it-all who is still wet behind the ears. The political reality of this fight is asymmetric; the linear model of thinking that you are adopting does not take into account the complexity of the power struggles taking place over this issue. I am not saying you are wrong, and I salute you for your fight to take this all the way to the Supreme Court. It is obvious that you are well intentioned, and we need people with your fervor in this movement for civil equality for all people.
We are talking about strategy and tactics here. We are talking about how we affect the repeal of DADT and institute equality of LGBTQ people in the military and across the nation. While it is expedient to have the President issue the executive order, I ask you again to read my questions in my first post.
What would be the fallout from such an order? Would progress continue to be made on HR1283? Would it delay the repeal of DADT to issue the order?
These are honest questions. I don’t know what the fallout from an executive order would be. Perhaps it would galvanize Congress and get the MREA09 passed. All I’m saying is that we need to consider the possible scenarios that might arise from this more forceful approach to repeal by the executive branch. Our military is the most professional and capable military in the world and even LGBTQ troops balance their dedication to their mission with their decision to come out, or remain closeted in order to continue serving.
I agree 100% with your assessment that there is nothing complicated about doing what is right. President Obama should, as he promised, put the full weight of his administration behind the repeal of DADT, and the silence emanating from the Oval Office is troublesome.
My own personal view, knowing what I know, is in concordance with your own. The sky will not fall. It will be less of a big deal to implement this change than the reactionaries think. The Center for Military Readiness’ claim that repeal would “break the all-volunteer force” is absurd in the extreme. Not only is it absurd, but the only real data that exists on this subject shows conclusively that troops who have knowingly served with LGBTQ soldiers are twice as likely to have no problem with their homosexuality and therefore with no negative impact on unit cohesion, whereas troops who have not served knowingly with LGBTQ troops are twice as likely to assume there would be a negative impact in the unit due to homosexuality. The science is on our side. That in and of itself, in an Obama administration is a powerful tool for us.
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on May 08, 2009 at 03.46 pm
Leland: My email is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). I’m seriously thinking about going to DC and opening some type of new civil rights movement—although I’m not sure how. Success starts with one person sometimes. Any chance you or anyone else reading this blog would be willing to do the same? OUR words are only so effective as well—we may have to transition to action on the ground.
Leland Frances on May 08, 2009 at 03.31 pm
Dino, Dino, Dino. If you insist on making excuses for your miracle-less Messiah, have at least the integrity not to distort the facts.
1. In that note to 2nd Lt. Sandy Tsao, Obama did NOT say he was going to “repeal” DADT but referred to “changing” it….just as “repeal” was erased for “changing” on the White House site until SLDN and others complained. Danger, Will Robinson.
2. Despite his “assuring” her and “offering her words of support,” as Commander-in-Chief he’s still the one ultimately discharging her. In fact, her letter to him may be what triggered that discharge. With “compassion” like that who needed George Bush?
3. Your use of the cliche “will fall under its own weight” is naive at best. Buildings do but bigotry NEVER HAS [which is not to call Obama a bigot for I haven’t].
4. Yes, bravo to Tsao and Choi, but the decades of individuals dribbling out one at a time has only succeeded in the military responding, “Sure, gays can be great soldiers. We’re saying they’re still fags and dykes, we hate fags and dykes, and we’re in control so the ban is about nothing more than protecting our bigotry. Tough.”
5. All your “what ifs” are irrelevant. What isn’t is that fact that the President has yet to explain his inACTION, not even in one of his famous letters to the gay community that he used so effectively during the campaign to get the gullible weeping, rolling on the floor, and speaking in tongues.
What is he afraid of?
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on May 08, 2009 at 03.15 pm
Also, as for calling Obama a “bigot,” why shouldn’t we? I call a spade a spade (no racial connotation is meant). George Wallace was rightly called a bigot because he supported segregation, Obama is rightly called a bigot for supporting discrimination against Gays. Anyone—Black or White, Republican or Democrat, etc.—who supports discrimination is a bigot. The definition of a bigot is that: someone who supports discrimination based on an immutable characteristic.
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on May 08, 2009 at 03.10 pm
Of course by “doing it right” versus “actually doing it” I meant that they never actually stood up against or challenged the wrong at issue—segregation or the Holocaust—they merely just waited around for the “perfect time” to do right which is never, since doing right always involves upsetting someone and making sacrifices. The sky won’t fall if DADT is ended. The sky didn’t fall when segregation was ended, and the sky didn’t fall when Britain ended it own Gay ban.
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on May 08, 2009 at 03.06 pm
If I see someone being mugged on the street, I intervene and defend the innocent victim immediately. I don’t wait until they’ve been beaten senseless and robbed, and then go up to them and say, “are you alright,” it’s ok,” gee, I’m sorry that happened to you,” “I support you,” “I’m against mugging don’t you know.” And yes, I have actually intervened to save someone in such a situation and I did so knowing I might be injured. I did it because I live my principles and believe in courage over fear, action over words. Words mean nothing when action could be done to actually prevent harm. Why is it that Obama’s apologists are willing for 30 million Americans to be in second-class citizenship for even a second longer. There is nothing complicated or risky about doing what is right. “All that evil men need to succeed is for good people to do nothing.” Racial segregation went on for 100 years and the Holocaust happened because people wanted “to do it right” instead of actually doing it.
Dino, Washington, D.C. in Washington, D.C. on May 08, 2009 at 02.16 pm
Thanks A from SF for some sensible words. The attacks on President Obama as well as Mr. Solomonese are ridiculous and obviously do more harm than good. Regardless of what the White House and Congress does, there will be more Dan Chois and the number of people with courage and integrity to speak out and be counted is growing steadly. It is I really believe only a matter of time that DADT will fall under its own weight. By the way, our “bigot” President recently wrote a hand-written note to a out lesbian Army Lieutenant offering her words of support and assuring her that he does plan to repeal DADT sooner or later.
A in San Francisco on May 08, 2009 at 01.42 pm
I’m thinking more along pragmatic lines I guess, but I offer my heartfelt thanks and gratitude to Lt. Tsao and Lt. Choi for coming out right now and bringing pressure to bear on this administration and Congress. It must have been a difficult and painful decision to make knowing full well the consequences for such an action. Hooah. Hopefully this spurs some action and gets HR1283 through committee with the least amount of foot-dragging possible.
Anyone is free to say what they want about the current administration, but we can look to LGBTQ history in the armed forces for examples of this kind of political reckoning time and time again.
In Conduct Unbecoming, Shilts relates a story: During the occupation of postwar Europe, Gen. Eisenhower attempted a purge of lesbians in the WAC, and when he was told that 95% of them were gay, he called off the purge. These women, one of whom was his secretary, served on his staff with distinction. He obviously didn’t have concerns about their sexuality then, yet years later when elected in 1953, one of the first things then Pres. Eisenhower did was sign Executive Order 10450 which made the link between subversiveness/security risk and homosexuality the official policy of the US government. Why? For votes. Period. For politics.
I truly don’t want to start a flame war here with Mr. Frances and Mr. Pietrangelo, and as I said before, I understand and feel your anger; Calling the President a bigot does nothing for our cause, and marginalizes your voice in this fight. The political reality of what needs to be done is not simple. It can be done, and soon, as Rep. Sestak pointed out in his interview on the same program with Lt. Choi, but it needs to be done the right way, or we’re going to find ourselves in a similar bind again down the road. Yes, he could issue an executive order. Yes, he could stop the military from firing homosexuals. But where does that leave us as a nation? What if he were to do so? Would that enable even more foot dragging on this issue while we sit and wait for full equality? What if that action caused HR1283 to stall in committee because “something is being done about it” ? Doesn’t that represent the same delaying tactics employed so far? What would happen to those of us who want our records changed so we can serve again?
We must do this the right way. The point of repeal is not having to live a lie; The point is not to be able to remain in the military at the cost of our dignity. Half-measures and second-class citizenship are not the way to address this issue. With respect, I sincerely hope you will consider that.
Leland Frances on May 08, 2009 at 10.52 am
PS: Is it not fair to say that Choi might only be the first gay Arabic linguist fired under Obama that we KNOW of? Only a small fraction of those gays who are discharged go public, and even the most conservative estimates would conclude that at least 100 gays with a variety of duty assignments have been discharged since Obama took office.
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on May 08, 2009 at 10.27 am
Thank you Aaron and Leland for having the courage to say that the emperor (Bigot Obama) has no clothes on. Obama’s shameful firing of Dan Choi, and Obama’s shameful refusal to neutralize DADT by executive order on January 20, 2009 (something I’ve been saying for months he could do), aren’t just isolated incidents. Obama’s a bigot, plain and simple. The first Black president is a bigot. He believes, and has always believed, in discrimination against Gays. MLK, Jr. is turning over in his grave. Yesterday, in US Supreme Court case no. 08-824, Pietrangelo v. Gates—a case challenging DADT as unconstitutional—Obama filed a brief supporting DADT and saying that it is absolutely constitutional. None of the Gay media carried that news because they are all Obama kool-aid drinkers, but it still happened. Obama’s presidency will be forever stained by his bigotry and cowardly support for discrimination against Gays. No matter what he does during the rest of his presidency, history will always know he supported discrimination.
Leland Frances on May 07, 2009 at 10.20 pm
Yes, Dan Choi, like so many talented and loyal gay and lesbian servicemembers before him is being thrown under the bus driven by another self-described champion of equality who has lost the courage of his convictions.
Meanwhile, Obama pissboy Joe Solmonese is still feasting on a $300,000+ a yr. salary paid for by donors for someone to fight for our equality not worry about whether or not he remains on the White House cocktail party invitation list.