Integrity News

The following is based on my notes taken yesterday while watching the House hearing on Don’t ask, Don’t tell. The italicized or bold words, are my thoughts at the time while listening to the testimony. Following that, I have some suggestions for future hearings. This is raw data, readers, so please excuse any misspellings, grammatical errors, etc. I tried to clear them up, but I’m sure there’s a few still in there.

Elaine Donnelly (from the Center for Military Readiness) is irritating the Congresspersons in attendance, and also said some things which weren’t too kind about DoD. For example, that the military would take it to an extreme, ie, that the military cannot control itself and act with moderation.

Rep. Vic Snyder specifically told her that her comments about AIDS/HIV were out of place. And of course, it helped that the other members referred to him as “Doctor Snyder.” She also repeatedly brought up transgenders in the British military. I think her strategy revolves around misrepresenting MREA - without actually mentioning the bill of
course. If you do this, then you will have to do that. It’s the whole slippery slope argument. She is obscuring the facts - MREA will not change the current regulations surrounding AIDS/HIV or the medical requirements that prevent transgenders from serving.

Elaine also talked about “San Francisco factions” and employed other “loaded language” which Ellen Tauscher later criticised her for using. Elaine sounds more like a pundit than a serious scholar or policy analyst. She and SGM Jones repeatedly criticised the polls but never actually gave any methodological errors that would make the polls invalid. In other words, they’re wrong because we say they’re wrong!

Both Elaine and SGM Jones were repeatedly repeating the same lines over and over again. Joan Darrah, MG Coleman and Eric Alva sounded much more “real.” They may have repeated certain themes, but didn’t use the same exact language repeatedly, making them sound more sincere, and frankly, more intelligent. I also believe that Elaine’s favorite word is “dissembling” - I didn’t count how many times she said it, but it was a lot. (And then she gave us lots of examples of what it means!)
The representatives, I think, were taken aback at the way Elaine and SGM Jones talked about people - especially people sitting right beside them. They were repeatedly chastised by various members for saying things that might denigrate the service of the others. Both Elaine and SGM Jones insisted they respect the service of Joan Darrah and Eric Alva. So Christopher Shays asked, “How do you respect their service when you want them out?” (Somewhat parallels what many who support the war say to those against the war: If you support the troops, then you have to support the fight.)
To answer him, Elaine violated one of the most sacred tenets of true conservatism - “we don’t make laws based on individuals, we make them for groups of people” - when she said that my disgust for her turn up another notch and a half.
Reps. Murphy and Borda each took back their time from Elaine because she was ignoring their questions and wanted to repeat her repetitive rhetoric. Borda went on to have SGM Jones clarify his remarks about “selfless service” because she thought he was being disrespectful by implying that gay people are not being selfless. She started to ask Elaine about a comparison to the black civil rights movement and Elaine kept dodging so Rep. Borda reclaimed her time AGAIN.
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter asked Elaine when she chose to be heterosexual. Elaine dissembled and tried to talk about something else.
And, in one of my favorite moments, Vic Snyder pointed at that SGM Jones’ wife is a former Army officer and her bio says that she has one year of combat experience. Snyder went on to say that SGM Jones and Elaine ought to discuss that one a little bit after the hearing, given Elaine’s positions on women in the military. It was such a wonderful moment!

SGM Jones focused on his experience. He really didn’t present any other “qualification” - not that I want to question his experience - but in his repetitive way of repeating himself he said over and over again, “in my experience.” (All of us have limited experience, so his evidence was entirely anecdotal, just like most of the evidence I would provide. How many retired SGMs are out there? Everyone of them has a different experience.) He brought up two incidences involving Polish and Italian troops in order to discredit any comparison between the US and foreign militaries. What bothered me is that both of these sexually-related stories were heterosexual and had nothing to do with
homosexuals. (Does he think we ought to kick all the straight people out? He keeps giving us evidence in favor of that.) He was trying to illustrate that foreign militaries are not as concerned about the sexual behavior, old fashioned values, etc. of their troops. One of the members called him on it - since these were all incidences of heterosexual misconduct - but I didn’t write down who it was.
He again tried to imply that by allowing gay people to serve it would create “a wide open army” leading to lack of discipline and even greater retention shortfalls. (Do they not know what sabre-rattling is? Sometimes countries will make a lot of noise getting ready to fight in order to scare the enemy into forfeiting. People who don’t like gay people aren’t going to not enlist simply because there might be a gay person there. It would jeopardize the safety and security of America, and they aren’t going to let that happen. How ridiculous!) He also mentioned twice first aid for frostbite: stripping down and climbing into the same sleeping bag together. When he said, “there can’t be any arousal,” I almost lost it! (I’m freezing and I’m horny, gee, what a way to go! But is the “stiffness” due to the cold temperature, the rigor mortis or….?) He also stated that as a leader, he took care of EACH soldier. (What about the gay ones?)
Carol Shea-Porter brought up a good point: We have Ugandan contractors guarding gates in Iraq, but why aren’t we questioning them? Why won’t we allow gay AMERICAN soldiers to guard those gates?
Snyder also pointed out that in his committee, they have held hearings and learned that openly gay DoD civilians, civilians from other agencies and embedded reporters all use the same facilities - showers, barracks, dorms, etc. - as the military personnel. So should we keep all gay people out of Iraq? SGM Jones tried to disagree with him, but Snyder asked him if he was suggesting that Snyder or anyone who testified before his committee was lying.
Rep. McHugh of New York - a Republican - actually didn’t seem bothered by the idea of gay Americans serving openly and honestly. But some of his questions and statements remind me of Ron Paul. They view DADT as a protection, and that if we do away with DADT, something else has to replace it. (Another program! I thought Republicans were in favor of SMALLER government? WTF?) The only Republicans there were McHugh and Shays.

HOW CAN WE MAKE IT BETTER NEXT TIME?

1.) There was a fair amount of discussion about how the military already has regulations to address misconduct. I think it would have helped if someone had a copy of AR 600-20: Army Command Policy. In that reg, it specifically addresses a number of issues: sexual assault, sexual harassment and homosexuality. Under sexual harassment, it is defined to include both opposite sex and same sex occurrences. I think it provides pretty good evidence that the military (at least the Army)
has already begun to consider the repeal of DADT and wants to make it clear that they are prepared and will police the troops regardless.

2.) There definitely need to be troops who were discharged under DADT in future hearings. After watching this hearing, it wasn’t really necessary, but the people and the Congress need to hear from us. It’s pointless if they don’t. They need to know what someone does to get caught - usually nothing sexual - and why someone would turn in a statement outing themself. I get asked all the time: Why? Why would you do that? People need to hear our stories.

3.) Be careful not to go too far beyond what the Congressperson asks. They were very strict with Elaine and SGM Jones about straying off-topic. Even if they allow friendly witnesses to stray, it would work against us to abuse such privilege. It would allow Elaine to claim she was railroaded and that the Congresspeople were hostile to her.

4.) Strike while the iron it HOT! If we wait too long and wait for everything to be just right, well, that’s going to leave us behind. DADT will become an outmoded law, and like a lot of outmoded laws it will remain on the books. Congress won’t be motivated to change it because they believe it doesn’t affect anyone any more.