Do Tell, Don't Ask

[tvashtarkatena]

Court Rules Sexual Orientation

Not a Bar to Military Service for Major Witt

 

Case Brought by ACLU of Washington State

 

TACOMA, WA. Today U.S. Federal District Court Judge Robert Leighton ruled in favor of Major Margaret Witt, a decorated U.S. Air Force flight nurse who had been dismissed on grounds of homosexual conduct, and ordered the U.S. Air Force to reinstate her. After six days of trial, the Court found that Major Witt’s sexual orientation does not negatively impact unit morale or cohesion. ACLU of Washington attorneys have directly represented Major Witt since her case began in 2006.

 

Upon hearing the judge’s ruling, Major Witt said, “I'm thrilled about the decision today. I appreciate the Court's belief in the professionalism of the military. Many people forget that the U.S. military is the most diverse workforce in the world--we are extremely versed in adaptation. Thousands of men and women who are gay and lesbian honorably serve this country in our military. Wounded personnel never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me. I can't wait to rejoin my unit,” she added

 

The first breakthrough in the case came in 2008 when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Air Force must prove that discharging Major Witt is necessary for purposes of military readiness. Although the ruling left in place the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, it sent the case back to the trial court saying that before discharging a soldier under the policy, the military must prove that the individual’s conduct actually hurts morale and unit cohesion. This requirement is now known as the “Witt Standard.” The lawsuit has drawn national attention. At her confirmation hearings, then-Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan discussed the significance of the “Witt Standard” established by the case.

 

“Today we heard the hammer of justice strike for Major Margaret Witt. We look forward to the day when all members of our military can serve our country without invidious discrimination.” To discharge her simply because of her sexual orientation was entirely unfair to her and unwise for the military, which needs her significant skills,” said ACLU of Washington Executive Director Kathleen Taylor.

 

ACLU-WA Legal Director Sarah Dunne said, “The U.S. military integrated different races and women over the last 50 years. There is zero evidence to suggest that gay and lesbian soldiers can’t serve openly. The time for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has ended. American is in a different place and so is the U.S. military.”

A 1986 graduate of Pacific Lutheran University, Major Margaret Witt was a flight nurse assigned to McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma. During her 19-year career in the Air Force, Major Witt served in the Persian Gulf, received many medals and commendations, and always had superb evaluations from her superiors. In 1993, she was selected to be the “poster child” for the Air Force Nurse Corps recruitment flyer.

 

Major Witt served in Oman during Operation Enduring Freedom and received a medal from President Bush, who noted that she had delivered “outstanding medical care” to injured service members and that her “outstanding aerial accomplishments … reflect great credit upon herself and the United States Air Force.” In 2003, Major Witt received another medal for saving the life of a Defense Department employee who collapsed aboard a government chartered flight from Bahrain.

 

From 1997 to 2003, Major Witt was in a committed relationship with another woman, a civilian. In the summer of 2004, Major Witt was notified that the Air Force had begun an investigation into an allegation that she had engaged in homosexual conduct. In November 2004, Major Witt was placed on unpaid leave and told she could no longer participate in any military duties, pending formal separation proceedings.

 

In March 2006, the Air Force informed Major Witt that she was being administratively discharged on grounds of homosexual conduct. The following month, the ACLU filed papers for Major Witt challenging the discharge and seeking her reinstatement. In its 2008 ruling, the Court of Appeals emphasized that generalized or hypothetical assertions about the impact of gay and lesbian service members would not be sufficient.

 

The military provided no evidence that her sexual orientation or conduct has caused a problem in the performance of her military duties. To the contrary, the ACLU had several of Major Witt’s military colleagues testify that her forced absence is harmful to her unit’s morale.

 

Representing Major Witt are ACLU-WA Legal Director Sarah Dunne and Sher Kung, a Perkins Coie Fellow, and ACLU-WA cooperating attorneys James Lobsenz of Carney Badley Spellman and Aaron Caplan of Loyola Law School.

 

In a previous military case, ACLU-WA and Lobsenz represented Army Sgt. Perry Watkins, who was dismissed in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan decided no homosexuals could serve in the military. In 1989, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that, as a matter of basic fairness, the Army could not discharge Watkins since the military had known he was gay when they drafted him in 1968.

 

 

[Nitrox]

They're still not going to take you though because of your age.

 

 

[Sherri]

:tup: +

Edited September 24, 2010 by Sherri

[rob]

:tup::tup:

[Off_White]

They're still not going to take you though because of your age.

 

 

Oh, hah hah HAH, I get it, by saying that you're implying that Tvash is gay!

 

 

 

You really are a dull tool, aren't you?

[tvashtarkatena]

And here I thought you couldn't get into the Air Force unless you were gay.

[ivan]

And here I thought you couldn't get into the Air Force unless you were gay.

i thought that was the navy? for the air-force you just need to be a coward, or an adrenaline freak w/ perfect vision who also likes golf

[tvashtarkatena]

British Navy, fo sho.

 

That's what the American Navy says about the Air Force. I think the Army concurs, but they might throw the Navy in as a target as well.

[Nitrox]

Here is a link to some of the back story: http://www.towleroad.com/2010/09/opening-arguments-testimony-heard-in-margaret-witt-dadt-trial.html

 

I agree with the judge, the AF should reinstate Witt as an officer...and then the AF should prosecute her under the UCMJ for adultery (which she admitted to under oath). She was, and is, unfit to be an officer in the USAF for a lot reasons, least of which was her sexual orientation.

 

I think booting her for DADT was a cop out by command because they didn't want to embarrass other officers whose spouses had affairs with her. She deserved to go but not for DADT.

 

 

[prole]

I agree with the judge...

 

Have you sent out a press release?

[tvashtarkatena]

Lesbionage.

[tvashtarkatena]

Yet another excellent idea, Nitrox. The USAF just got its ass handed to it in what is certainly one its highest profile cases in history for failing to prove that Witt's gayosity eroded unit cohesion or effectiveness.

 

Why would the USAF ever dream of passing up an opportunity to blow another several million dollars trying to prove exactly the same thing regarding Witt's discrete, brown-chicken-brown-cow liaisons with USAF wives? Plus there's no better way to cure an officers bringing discredit to the armed services through their secret hawt-tongue-action than to splash every detail of same over the national news for months on end.

 

And all this after Bush issued an order requiring adultery to be dealt with at the lowest possible level?

 

And, finally, if the military DID prosecute adulterers, it would have about 4 members left to keep 'murica safe from all them Eye-rainians.

 

WHAT IS THE USAF THINKING?

 

The real question here is: Why the hell aren't YOU in charge?

[Nitrox]

Yet another excellent idea, Nitrox. The USAF just got its ass handed to it in what is certainly one its highest profile cases in history for failing to prove that Witt's gayosity eroded unit cohesion or effectiveness.

 

Why would the USAF ever dream of passing up an opportunity to blow another several million dollars trying to prove exactly the same thing regarding Witt's discrete, brown-chicken-brown-cow liaisons with USAF wives? Plus there's no better way to cure an officers bringing discredit to the armed services through their secret hawt-tongue-action than to splash every detail of same over the national news for months on end.

 

And all this after Bush issued an order requiring adultery to be dealt with at the lowest possible level?

 

And, finally, if the military DID prosecute adulterers, it would have about 4 members left to keep 'murica safe from all them Eye-rainians.

 

WHAT IS THE USAF THINKING?

 

The real question here is: Why the hell aren't YOU in charge?

 

She admitted to it under oath, the AF doesn't need to prove anything. She either faces adultery or perjury. The military usually prosecute adultery under UCMJ with non judiciary punishment. However, in this case it'd be multiple counts so Maj Witt would more likely be facing Conduct Unbecoming.

 

Its funny how the ACLU glommed onto this shitbird just so they could get a crack at DADT, they certainly didn't pick the exemplary officer in the AF. Probably because an exemplary officer wouldn't be trying to nail the spouses of other soldiers/officers. Witt shouldn't have been an AF officer in the first place, this long drawn out court battle seems to highlight that.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Yet another excellent idea, Nitrox. The USAF just got its ass handed to it in what is certainly one its highest profile cases in history for failing to prove that Witt's gayosity eroded unit cohesion or effectiveness.

 

Why would the USAF ever dream of passing up an opportunity to blow another several million dollars trying to prove exactly the same thing regarding Witt's discrete, brown-chicken-brown-cow liaisons with USAF wives? Plus there's no better way to cure an officers bringing discredit to the armed services through their secret hawt-tongue-action than to splash every detail of same over the national news for months on end.

 

And all this after Bush issued an order requiring adultery to be dealt with at the lowest possible level?

 

And, finally, if the military DID prosecute adulterers, it would have about 4 members left to keep 'murica safe from all them Eye-rainians.

 

WHAT IS THE USAF THINKING?

 

The real question here is: Why the hell aren't YOU in charge?

 

She admitted to it under oath, the AF doesn't need to prove anything. She either faces adultery or perjury. The military usually prosecute adultery under UCMJ with non judiciary punishment. However, in this case it'd be multiple counts so Maj Witt would more likely be facing Conduct Unbecoming.

 

Its funny how the ACLU glommed onto this shitbird just so they could get a crack at DADT, they certainly didn't pick the exemplary officer in the AF. Probably because an exemplary officer wouldn't be trying to nail the spouses of other soldiers/officers. Witt shouldn't have been an AF officer in the first place, this long drawn out court battle seems to highlight that.

 

 

While you're out there whining, opining, speculating, and pontificating about an imaginary world full of wonder and promise, we're out there winning court cases. In the end, you kind of have to suck on that, whether you like it or not.

 

I thought our higher agenda of ending DADT was just a wee bit obvious to everyone. Guess not.

 

Apparently, we picked the right Major and the right case cuz, like, we won.

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

You'll also be comforted to know that Congress has been waiting for this decision as an instruction on how to move forward with or without DADT, so this case will have immediate, far reaching ramifications.

 

Which is why we choose to pursue it, duh.

Edited September 26, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Finally, although its neither hear nor there regarding this principles of this case, the AF might have considered not decorated Witt...twice...if they thought she was such a shitbag.

 

We're all entitled to our own opinions, however discounted yours may be, but not our own facts.

 

And that, my friend, is why our side wins stuff like this and your side loses.

[Stonehead]

And to think, you thought that nothing good could come from Tacoma.

[tvashtarkatena]

My niece!

[Nitrox]

Finally, although its neither hear nor there regarding this principles of this case, the AF might have considered not decorated Witt...twice...if they thought she was such a shitbag.

 

We're all entitled to our own opinions, however discounted yours may be, but not our own facts.

 

And that, my friend, is why our side wins stuff like this and your side loses.

 

Strange bit of narcissism considering it was "your side" that enacted DADT and "your side" that hasn't done anything legislatively to stop it. And to think, I was never in favor of DADT. I guess I've really lost on this one.

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Speaking of shitbags, I'm noting just a wee bit of representation of the facts on your part (see my previous statement re: opinions v facts)...not that your credibility will, or could suffer, any more than it has already.

 

Clinton famously tried to rid the military of all sanctions based on sexual orientation as one of his first acts as president. Your bigot buddies in the Rfuck camp howled bloody murder...DADT, a compromise policy, was the fucked up result.

 

I wish you were a better opponent. It would make for a better overall discussion.

 

You're not.

[tvashtarkatena]

You have managed to get Billcoe to permanently attach his sycophantic gob onto one of your testicles, I will give you that much.

Edited September 26, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Nitrox]

Speaking of shitbags, I'm noting just a wee bit of representation of the facts on your part (see my previous statement re: opinions v facts)...not that your credibility will, or could suffer, any more than it has already.

 

Clinton famously tried to rid the military of all sanctions based on sexual orientation as one of his first acts as president. Your bigot buddies in the Rfuck camp howled bloody murder...DADT, a compromise policy, was the fucked up result.

 

I wish you were a better opponent. It would make for a better overall discussion.

 

You're not.

 

Ever the one dimensional excuse maker, at least you're consistent.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

In any case, as everyone (else) has probably already ascertained, this case is a 'major' victory for tens of thousands of uniformed folks who serve their country. It's not really about Witt at all.

 

It never is.

 

And sure, it has obviously pissed off the bigots amongst us, who tend to be pretty adept at self-identification.

 

So much sweeter the victory.

 

Edited September 26, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Stefan]

These people put their life on the line for American citizens--and they do it by their own choice. I never understood why you would stop someone from serving becuase of sexual orientation. Like I said these people want to serve, and we won't let them becuase of sexual orientation? I heard it is morale...but I don't know.

[ivan]

i don't like gay people near me when i'm killing kids, okay!?!