|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:08 am Post subject: US army fires arab-speaking linguists |
 |
|
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON, July 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The U.S. Army recently discharged a highly regarded Arabic linguist who was the target of an anonymous email "outing" campaign. Former Sergeant Bleu Copas was stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C., and was a member of the prestigious 82nd Airborne Division. A decorated Sergeant who received impressive performance reviews, Copas also performed in the 82nd Airborne Chorus. His dismissal, under the federal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual personnel, brings the total number of Arabic language specialists dismissed under the ban to at least 55. Neither Copas nor his command know who was the source of the email campaign.
"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' has become a far too effective, and convenient, weapon of vengeance in our armed forces," said Sharra E. Greer, director for law and policy for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), which provided legal counsel to Copas. "Anyone with an axe to grind -- a former partner or roommate, or an angry relative, for example -- can end an otherwise promising career simply by employing rumor and hearsay. Service members like Sergeant Copas, who are making important contributions to our national defense, are finding themselves increasingly vulnerable under the law. The only way to protect our men and women in uniform from such insidious outing campaigns is to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' once and for all."
In August 2005, an anonymous individual emailed Copas's unit, alleging there was an online profile of a unit member identifying them as gay. Despite clear instructions that investigations into sexual orientation are only to be commenced when a service member's command has "credible evidence" indicating the service member is gay, Copas's command nonetheless asked him about his sexual orientation and went on to launch a full investigation into allegations about him. The command-appointed investigating officer interviewing Copas asked such questions as, "Do you work off duty with the local community theater?" and "Do you know or are you aware of anyone who believes you are a homosexual?" He also recommended conducting "an inquiry ... into the possibility of further homosexual conduct by member(s) of the (unit)." Despite never learning who made the original allegations against him, Sergeant Copas was dismissed from the Army in January.
|
For me, this is open-and-shut. I don't support the ban of gays in the military, so I think it's especially absurd to be firing people who can speak arabic at a time when so much of the US military's work involves confrontation and co-operation with native arab speakers.
But I would be interested to hear from people who do support the ban on gays. I'm wondering if they think the loss of arabic-speaking soldiers is an acceptable price to pay for enforcing sexual correctness in the military.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=69885 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
The policy is not working because people can still be booted out for what they do in bed and who they do it with. The problem is not with the policy. It is with the troglodytes.
It reminds me of one of my favorite students, John. He graduated high school and went off to the local community college. A couple of months into the semester he showed up at my door at the end of the school day. He said he needed help.
He was taking a logic class and the prof had assigned an editorial for them to read and comment on. The article was about the wisdom of booting gays out of the military because they were security risks. If anyone found out someone was gay, he/she could be blackmailed and were therefore a threat to the security of the nation.
John, who had been boinking his girlfriend since both were sophomores, said he was confused by the logic. "If it weren't illegal, then gays couldn't be blackmailed."
Right, John. Lots of people don't want soldiers boinking their friends, so they make it illegal and punish guys who do that.
"But that doesn't make sense. These are highly trained professionals whose only 'mistake' is giving bjs. Why can't they shoot a gun like anyone else?"
This John, is why you were one of my favorite students. I can't explain to you why some people think who you sleep with and what you do in bed is more important than doing a good job. I'm sorry. It isn't logical to me either. Maybe that is what the prof wants you to see.
"Oh," said John. "Maybe Logic isn't as difficult as I thought it was going to be." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| this happened on an even larger scale soon after 9/11. The army dumped around 20 arabic translators for the exact same reason. Bizarre and really dumb if you ask me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're either serious about winning this war, or you're not.
Um, unless gay sex is involved. I mean that's just gross. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Bucheon on this: it seems inexplicably counterproductive.
Never underestimate the bureaucratic mentality.
On what Ya-ta says...
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
...about the wisdom of booting gays out of the military because they were security risks. If anyone found out someone was gay, he/she could be blackmailed and were therefore a threat to the security of the nation.
John, who had been boinking his girlfriend since both were sophomores, said he was confused by the logic. "If it weren't illegal, then gays couldn't be blackmailed." |
The Soviets did indeed target and blackmail homosexuals with security clearances during the Cold War.
Everyone looks for ways to recruit agents in senstitive positions, sometimes wittingly, sometimes unwittingly, and, in this case, forcefully. Sometimes money was involved. But this was not always so. Sometimes the Soviets would even set up a homosexual target with a plant, and then film or photograph the encounter and use this evidence as leverage.
These homosexual targets could usually be pressured because they were living "double lives," with wives and families. Also, since the 1950s -- since Eisenhower -- if they had security clearances and were homosexuals, then they could also be threatened with exposure and the subsequent humiliation and loss of employment that would come with it. In short, they had a lot to protect and were therefore vulnerable to one degree or another of manipulation.
I do not know how much of that might change if the govt openly allowed gays to serve in the military and/or receive security clearances. I think that is only part of the problem.
I think the larger problem is changing the way everyone thinks about homosexuality. For all of the advances in social thought, it remains taboo. Perhaps that, and not govt policy (which always rides the wave but hardly ever causes it), is the center of the issue.
So I might have explained it to John that way. People are denied military service and/or security clearances based on sexual orientation because many of us, if not most of us, to one degree or another, remain uncomfortable wtih openly admitted homosexuality. This may be in flux and rapidly changing, but it remains true nonetheless, especially in the United States. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the military they're not supposed to discriminate against religion (or lack of), ethnicity, and gender....and generally they don't.
So I just don't understand the discrimination against sexual orientation thing.
Once upon a time they gagged at the thought of having to integrate minorities and women.
They can get over this too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was wrong. It was only 6 men, all of whom were being trained at the time. There were 3 others as well, but they were studying Chinese and Korean.
| Quote: |
LOS ANGELES � Nine soldiers being trained as translators at a military-run language school have been discharged for being gay despite a shortage of linguists for the US war against terror, officials and rights activists said Friday.
The nine were discharged from the army's Defense Language Institute in Monterrey, California over the course of this year, said Lieutenant Colonel Wayne Shanks, a spokesman for the army's Training and Doctrine Command.
They included six who were being trained as Arabic speakers, two in Korean and another in Chinese, he said. "All the servicemembers had stellar service records and wanted to continue doing the important jobs they held, but they were fired because of their sexual orientation," said Steve Ralls of the Servicemen's Legal Defense Network. |
Nov. 18th, 2002 article |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This may be in flux and rapidly changing, but it remains true nonetheless, especially in the United States. |
I agree that it is larger than just the government policy, but my impression is that society is changing faster than the policy. For example, the lack of brouhaha about Lance Bass coming out. The speed of change in attitude in Korea is boggling.
Just an observation: There seems to be a remarkable number of gays in the Arabic translator school. I wonder if there is a heretofor unnoticed connection to the British navy. Hmmm...maybe I should pm IGTG and see if he has any info on that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
I was wrong. It was only 6 men, all of whom were being trained at the time. There were 3 others as well, but they were studying Chinese and Korean.
| Quote: |
LOS ANGELES � Nine soldiers being trained as translators at a military-run language school have been discharged for being gay despite a shortage of linguists for the US war against terror, officials and rights activists said Friday.
The nine were discharged from the army's Defense Language Institute in Monterrey, California over the course of this year, said Lieutenant Colonel Wayne Shanks, a spokesman for the army's Training and Doctrine Command.
They included six who were being trained as Arabic speakers, two in Korean and another in Chinese, he said. "All the servicemembers had stellar service records and wanted to continue doing the important jobs they held, but they were fired because of their sexual orientation," said Steve Ralls of the Servicemen's Legal Defense Network. |
Nov. 18th, 2002 article |
I can't speak on the current issue, but I can speak on this one, as I was there and knew a number of the "gay" soldiers involved. Two of those soldiers (at least) were serious about serving their country and just had the bad luck to get caught in the act. I think very poorly of the one of those that I knew, for reasons having little to do with the topic, but there is no question in my mind that he was a sincere and dedicated soldier.
At least some (and to my understanding all) of the other soldiers involved basically turned themselves in and were summarily discharged. (The current policy allows for a no questions asked discharge if you can convince the athorities that you are gay.) It strikes me as highly coincidental that these individuals went through 1 and a half years of expensive training in very marketable languages at the government's expense before suddenly deciding that they "couldn't live the lie" anymore. The more so since the ones I was familiar with were pretty openly gay, and didn't catch any flak about it at all that I heard of.
I don't feel real sorry for any of the many many people I've known who went in with the full knowledge of what they were getting into, took what they wanted, and pulled an excuse to get out. Even assuming that they were truly homosexual, which in my experience (not regarding the above mentioned individuals) is often not the case.
I do think that the policy is foolish and unjustifiable, and should be done away with though, and I also think it provides a mighty convenient loophole for slackers and malcontents who decide they want to get out. For either reason and both, I think it is high time this law was repealled.
I'm not a GI anymore, but I can tell you right now that if I were recalled, I would be a lot more concerned about the abilities and character of the soldier fighting alongside of me than with either what was between their legs or what they chose to do with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, I heard rumors of that (they wanted to get out for financial reasons). Thanks for the lowdown on that one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| ...my impression is that society is changing faster than...policy. |
I agree that it almost always unfolds this way.
It may be worthwhile to note one glaring exception to this: civil rights and integration in the U.S. was spearheaded, and rather aggressively so, in the 1950s military establishment. Way ahead of the curve. And many remain, justifiably so, pretty proud of it. The Marine Cops, for example, makes a big deal about stressing "all Marines are green."
| jinglejangle wrote: |
It strikes me as highly coincidental that these individuals went through 1 and a half years of expensive training in very marketable languages at the government's expense before suddenly deciding that they "couldn't live the lie" anymore. The more so since the ones I was familiar with were pretty openly gay, and didn't catch any flak about it at all that I heard of.
I don't feel real sorry for any of the many many people I've known who went in with the full knowledge of what they were getting into, took what they wanted, and pulled an excuse to get out. Even assuming that they were truly homosexual, which in my experience (not regarding the above mentioned individuals) is often not the case. |
This adds a dimension to the debate often overlooked by critics (and probably, once articulated, obstinately rejected by them, too).
When I served in the Marine Corps, by the way, they still asked you to clarify whether you were homosexual at MEPS. And your enlistment was conditional to a "no" answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jinglejangle wrote: |
I can't speak on the current issue, but I can speak on this one, as I was there and knew a number of the "gay" soldiers involved. Two of those soldiers (at least) were serious about serving their country and just had the bad luck to get caught in the act. I think very poorly of the one of those that I knew, for reasons having little to do with the topic, but there is no question in my mind that he was a sincere and dedicated soldier.
At least some (and to my understanding all) of the other soldiers involved basically turned themselves in and were summarily discharged. (The current policy allows for a no questions asked discharge if you can convince the athorities that you are gay.) It strikes me as highly coincidental that these individuals went through 1 and a half years of expensive training in very marketable languages at the government's expense before suddenly deciding that they "couldn't live the lie" anymore. The more so since the ones I was familiar with were pretty openly gay, and didn't catch any flak about it at all that I heard of.
I don't feel real sorry for any of the many many people I've known who went in with the full knowledge of what they were getting into, took what they wanted, and pulled an excuse to get out. Even assuming that they were truly homosexual, which in my experience (not regarding the above mentioned individuals) is often not the case.
I do think that the policy is foolish and unjustifiable, and should be done away with though, and I also think it provides a mighty convenient loophole for slackers and malcontents who decide they want to get out. For either reason and both, I think it is high time this law was repealled.
I'm not a GI anymore, but I can tell you right now that if I were recalled, I would be a lot more concerned about the abilities and character of the soldier fighting alongside of me than with either what was between their legs or what they chose to do with it. |
Wow. I learned more from this post than I was from several articles on the net talking about the situation. Its why I like coming to this forum, so many good posters who come from so many walks of life. This post makes up for all the crappy posts I've had to wade through for the past 2 weeks.
Otherwise, I pretty much would have shared OTOH's opinion and been outraged at the stupidity of the American armed forces, but now I understand another way in which the policy is particularly folly, it lets people exploit our military at their whim. And in those occasions those 'fired' are hardly victims.
Keep posting, JingleJangle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
The policy is not working because people can still be booted out for what they do in bed and who they do it with. The problem is not with the policy. It is with the troglodytes.
It reminds me of one of my favorite students, John. He graduated high school and went off to the local community college. A couple of months into the semester he showed up at my door at the end of the school day. He said he needed help.
He was taking a logic class and the prof had assigned an editorial for them to read and comment on. The article was about the wisdom of booting gays out of the military because they were security risks. If anyone found out someone was gay, he/she could be blackmailed and were therefore a threat to the security of the nation.
John, who had been boinking his girlfriend since both were sophomores, said he was confused by the logic. "If it weren't illegal, then gays couldn't be blackmailed."
Right, John. Lots of people don't want soldiers boinking their friends, so they make it illegal and punish guys who do that.
"But that doesn't make sense. These are highly trained professionals whose only 'mistake' is giving bjs. Why can't they shoot a gun like anyone else?"
This John, is why you were one of my favorite students. I can't explain to you why some people think who you sleep with and what you do in bed is more important than doing a good job. I'm sorry. It isn't logical to me either. Maybe that is what the prof wants you to see.
"Oh," said John. "Maybe Logic isn't as difficult as I thought it was going to be." |
From the Movie, "Road Trip" : "Did you just say boinked?"
Haha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "Did you just say boinked?" |
You're going to criticize Sam Malone's choice of euphemism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
