From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:39:39 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1993Jan27.132819.1@vxdesy.desy.de>, hallam@vxdesy.desy.de writes:
|> In article <93027.030741MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> > Is anyone else even slightly annoyed by how the military itself is
|> > causing so much trouble over this issue? You can't turn on a TV set
|> > without seeing Colin Powell self-righteously orating on how awful
|> > and bad it would be to let 'em in, or open a newspaper without seeing
|> > yet another leak of confidential memos to the press or statement by
|> > the Joint Chiefs trying to cause confusion and chaos.
|> 
|> I am very surprized that US generals are allowed to make political statements
|> such as this. If a British soldier ever made a speach like Powell they would be
|> up on a serious charge.

Their views on this position were known BEFORE the election of Clinton, when
the policy was favoured by the then administration. It would have been
hypocritical for them to suddenly go silent now. But they HAVE said that the
ultimate decision is for the Pres. and Congress, and that they would implement
it no matter what the President orders them to do.

|> The point is that when you are a soldier you give up a lot of your civil
|> rights. The chiefs of staff are asserting that it is necessary to give upo the
|> right to chose who you sleep with. but the damage done to the country when
|> generals decide to interfere in the legislative functions of the country is far
|> more serious.

The chiefs of staff are not automatons, blindly following the President. They
are sources of policy advice on a variety of issues, from defense cutbacks to
this issue. They are also frequently called up to Capitol Hill to testify on a
variety of issues, and thus DIRECTLY and PUBLICLY impact legislation by 
expressing their opinions to Congress. That is just as much a part of
their responsibilities as is keeping the forces in fighting shape, since
they have a responsibility to Congress, having been confirmed by them. Powell's 
(and the rest of the JCS' forthrightness) is thus hardly unusual. I think that 
Ike also testified in re Truman's desegregation of the armed services (I don't 
know if he was ex-Army by then - that would screw up the analogy).

|> If you take a major office then you are constrained by the responsibilities of
|> that office. For example if Bill Clinton were to start pontificating on church
|> affairs people would rightly get upset. If a person was being accused of

Er.. not really. I remember Bush being asked about some Chruch (probably the
Episcopalians) allowing gay priests, and he commented on it quite publicly. 
Bush and Reagan both addressed religious conventions (I think Reagan made
his "evil empire" speech at one). Didn't upset too many people. At least not
as much as their stances on prayer in public schools, which was seen more
a constitutional issue, rather than as a religious one.

|> some crime and Bill decided to launch into an attack on them as if they were
|> guilty it would be very serious, unless of course the crime was committed by
|> a fellow politician and directly affected the workings of government. Even then 
|> a President should never comment on a trial in progress in case they prejudice
|> it.In the same way the chiefs of staff have no business touting their political
|> opinions.

This is a policy opinion, as opposed to a political opinion (OK, so there's a
grey area there - let's say that you'd have a much more valid point if Powell
had commented on something like say, the Deficit or the Energy taxes that Bill
might want to impose). 

|> > If Congress overrules Clinton, now, that's a different matter. They have
|> > every right to do that (even though I think they're totally wrongheaded here).
|> > But the military has no right to do anything but follow orders.

Well, Clinton ought to try and fire the JCS's if he thinks so. It would be
fun to watch him stumble yet again.

|> > 
|> 
|> Congress can try to overule him but it might be interesting to see them try.
|> Clinton is only commited to keeping his end of the bargain as far as repealing
|> the executive order. If Congress go against him they will be having to explain
|> it to their electors. In this sort of case there are an awful lot more votes to
|> be lost by voting agaisnt than to be won voting for it. Outside the
|> fruitcake-belt a politician attacking another for voting to allow gays in the
|> military would be truly hammered for it.

Er.. you haven't been following the American scene very closely over the past
3-4 days. There is a solid majority in most polls against allowing openly gay
people into the military. The phone-calls coming into the Senators' and other
Congresscreatures' offices are against lifting the ban in lopsided majorities
(like 681-40). Even the office of the lone Socialist (well, self-proclaimed)
in the Congress (Bernie Sanders, of VT) has received phone calls, presumably
from his liberal constituents, with the majority against lifting the policy. In 
the Senate, it is estimated that there is a 70-30 majority against lifting the 
ban. I am pretty sure that a majority exists in the House too. In fact, they have 
promised that overrule him is just what they will do if he proceeds with lifting 
the ban in an impetuous fashion. The Republicans are literally salivating at the
chance to bloody Clinton's nose early on.




-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa