Source: AP News via Antiwar Newswire
Credits: Anne Flaherty (AP News)
Dated: 2010-11-12

[ Emilie says : If the report actually did conclude "that allowing gays to serve openly would pose little harm to the military" then it seems to me that the minority of the "public" that perceives the blatantly unconstitutional discrimination against gays by the US military as being needed to prevent great "harm to the military" need more than swaying, they need some lessons in law, logic and tolerance - and maybe a clue that almost all homophobes are that way due to their own sexual insecurity. Meanwhile anyone imagining that integrity comes into any American political process other than as a soundbite is almost certainly clinically delusional and in dire need of more effective anti-psychotic medications than their current dosage. Geoff Morrell should take note of this. ]

Pentagon investigates leak on gay study

Defense Secretary Robert Gates orders leak investigation into disclosure of gay study

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered an investigation into the leak of details from a draft study about gays in the military. The report, not slated for release until after Dec. 1, concluded that allowing gays to serve openly would pose little harm to the military.

Details on the 370-page study were first reported Wednesday by The Washington Post and subsequently confirmed by other news organizations, including The Associated Press.

None of the information was classified. Opponents of repeal accused the Pentagon of leaking selective details to sway public perception.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement Friday that "anonymous sources now risk undermining the integrity of the process."

Source: LA Times
Credits: James Oliphant, David Cloud and Lisa Mascaro (Tribune Washington Bureau)
Dated: 2010-11-11

[ Emilie says : And, as I was saying... ]

Chances of 'don't ask' repeal fading in Congress

The lame-duck session will focus on spending and taxes, and Republicans who oppose repeal can bide their time.

Chances appear increasingly remote that Congress will lift the military's ban on openly gay service members this year, even though a Pentagon report is unlikely to conclude that repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would disrupt the armed forces.

Lawmakers return next week to a lame-duck session with an agenda crowded with spending and tax issues, and indications are that the measure to lift the ban will be pushed further down the to-do list.

Republicans opposed to the repeal know that they simply need to wait until the new session of Congress, which begins in January. At that point, with the GOP in control of the House and wielding some leverage in the Senate, there will be little chance of repeal.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates this week reiterated the Obama administration's call for repeal, the latest indication that the Pentagon report, due Dec. 1, would not pose an obstacle to ending the ban on gays.

A number of senators had cited the Pentagon report as a reason for putting off a decision, saying they wanted the study's assurances that repeal would not jeopardize military readiness. But some have continued to oppose repeal, even though Pentagon officials have emphasized that the study would represent a road map for how to change the policy.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the top Republican on the Senate Armed Forces Committee, led a GOP filibuster against repeal in September. In recent days, McCain has been in talks with the committee's chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), about the defense authorization bill, which contains the repeal.

"Among other concerns, the senator remains opposed to the inclusion of the provision repealing the 'don't ask, don't tell' law," said Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for McCain.

Levin's office would confirm only that talks were continuing on the bill, not whether stripping the repeal provision was under consideration. If the repeal is removed from the bill, which routinely attracts wide bipartisan support, it is less likely to pass.

Levin also is being pressed by his own flank. Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) released a letter this week pushing for an end to the ban.

Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which advocates ending the ban, said he was hopeful Senate leaders would find another piece of "must-pass" legislation to which the repeal could be attached if McCain succeeds in splitting it from the defense authorization bill.

"The key players are still trying to find the best vehicle to make it happen," Sarvis said.

Adding to pressure on Senate Democrats is the impending shift in control of the House from Democrats to Republicans. The House passed a repeal measure in May, but that provision will die if the Senate fails to act by the end of the congressional session.

Before the Pentagon study is sent to Gates, the chiefs of each of the four military services will meet with him and with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael G. Mullen. The Washington Post reported this week that most military personnel did not oppose a change in policy.

Mullen, speaking Wednesday at UCLA, said it would be better for Congress than the courts to repeal the law. In September, a California judge overturned the ban, holding it unconstitutional. But her ruling has been stayed while an appeal is heard by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

All four military service chiefs have expressed varying degrees of concern about repeal. Gen. James Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, said this week that he was concerned about a possible loss of unit cohesion and combat readiness if the ban was overturned.

"There's risk involved. …This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness," Amos told reporters in San Diego.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Credits: Bob Egelko (Chronicle Staff Writer)
Dated: 2010-11-12

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Friday to block the military from discharging openly gay service members while the Obama administration appeals a federal judge's ruling that declared the "don't ask, don't tell" law unconstitutional.

The justices, without comment, left intact a Nov. 1 ruling by a federal appeals court in San Francisco allowing the government to enforce the law while the case is pending. The decision means "don't ask" will remain as the military's policy during the appeal process, which could last a year or more, unless Congress repeals the law.

Log Cabin Republicans, the gay-rights group that sued to overturn "don't ask" in 2004, said it was disappointed but not surprised.

"With the likelihood of Congress repealing 'don't ask, don't tell' fading with each passing day, judicial relief continues to be perhaps the most viable avenue for ending this unconstitutional policy," said the group's lawyer, Dan Woods.

He said he would ask the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to accelerate its schedule in the case, which now calls for written arguments through early March. No date has been set for a hearing.

The law, passed in 1993, requires that military commanders discharge gay or lesbian service members who disclose their sexual orientation.

President Obama has called the law discriminatory and damaging to national security and has asked Congress to overturn it, but is defending it in court. A Republican filibuster in the Senate has stalled legislation to repeal the law.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips of Riverside struck down the law Sept. 9, saying it violates service members' privacy and freedom of speech and reduces military effectiveness by discharging skilled personnel.

Phillips issued an injunction Oct. 12 halting discharges under the law, but the appeals court suspended her order eight days later. On Nov. 1, it issued a 2-1 ruling that extended its stay of the injunction throughout the appeal.

The Pentagon is studying the effect of changing the policy and is scheduled to report its conclusions Dec. 1. News reports have said a majority of troops polled as part of the study did not believe repealing "don't ask, don't tell" would cause serious problems.

The Supreme Court case is Log Cabin Republicans vs. United States, 10A465.