Senate Repeals DADTFollow

lulz.

Try reading again for comprehension.

Bahaha, totally wrong. DADT is still the law until they finish writing up the new guidelines. If an officer asked about orientation right now the officer would be let go.

Edit: Dang, what Joph said.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 1:26pm by LockeColeMA

Well at least they moved on from "It was God".

Technically, the army only defines "unnatural carnal copulation" to mean anal or oral sex.

Though I'm trusting about.com as my source.

Oh, and SURPRISE, the army has it's own definition of statutory rape. You're totally allowed to do a 16 year old girl, as long as you only put it in her vagina and it isn't by force.

Wow. I REALLY hope the military takes a look at this article when editing out DADT.

Because, really, what % of the military has violated it when on leave if it includes blow jobs? C'mon, it's probably huge.

Frankly, the rule should be something like--No sexual activity while deployed and not on leave. No raping people. No sticking it in kids.

Oh, and they aren't fucking around about no kids under 16 though. 12-16 years, among other things, is 20 years in prison. Under 12 is life, no parole. So I'll give them some credit on the statutory rape thing.

[EDIT]



With a technical reading of that, women can receive all the oral sex they want. And you are perfectly free to use your tongue on the guy--just not the mouth.

This article is horribly written (even ignoring how stupid the mandates are).

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 3:41pm by idiggory

Majority votes. Super-majority votes in the case of the Senate.

varus, you so silly. :P

But I don't give a rat's ass about tradition. That's one of the worst defenses you could give about a retarded law. Traditions are nice, but they should be left to parades and sh*t. Laws should evolve as the times do.

Though I notice no one ever uses tradition to defend the ones they don't like. Like hosting a Ramadan feast at the White House, which was first done by Jefferson (I'm pretty sure--too lazy to fact check?)

[EDIT]


Wait, that's the worst it can do??? Crap, I should probably see my doctor...

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 3:48pm by idiggory

iddigory,



Then you don't give sh*t about the constitution. But we already knew this.

This is (mostly) true. 1805, Jefferson hosted the Tunisia representative and agreed to change the time to past sunset in respect of Ramadan.

Tunisia was also the first country to recognize the US as a new country. Yay Muslims!

Jews and Muslims also agree that Christians are full of sh*t.

Considering they all are branches of the same original book (the Old Testament), your argument is complete sh*t. Variations on a theme often have some relation to the central theme, you know? It's beside the point that the Supreme Court has ruled again and again that we can't discriminate based on sexuality and that the first amendment is interpreted as a clear separation of church and state. (As it was by the founding fathers you adore so much) Your religion doesn't matter here, varus.

I saged Lewo (or someone else did and I got to experience it). :D



He probably start humping the chair with all the excitement

And @varus, that's the weakest argument I've ever heard. I don't respect the constitution out of tradition, I respect it because it's the backbone of our entire country. I think it was decently written at the start, and has gotten better with additional amendments (mostly). But I'm not opposed to striking amendments if they prove to be poisonous overall.

But there are certain ones that I won't give up--Amendment 1 is frankly the one I care most about, which is funny, because it's the one the right hates the most. Most amendments I would not want to give up. Some, like 3 are archaic and pointless (and if troops want to be quartered in your home, it's because you are in a fucking war zone and you better be happy they are there). I don't give a crap about 2, frankly. Most people are better off without guns.

You do realize it's the job of the SCotUS to interpret the Constitution, right? You do realize that you don't get to reinterpret it because it doesn't fit your worldview?


@idiggory - You've jinxed me. Or I'm just being a particularly big cnut today. Either way.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 2:26pm by LeWoVoc

lilwoc,



LMAO!!! Considering your liberal buddies appoint radical idealogues like Vader it's obvious you don't care about the actual duties of the Scotus.

Bard,

Well then don't pretend like you care if your radical judges are interpreting law or making it.

Damn those radical judges of the 1870s

And you realize that Amendments 5, 6, and 8 all guarantee American citizens the right to:

5. The right to trial by jury according to due process and prevents trial by self-incrimination.
6. The right to a fair and speedy trial by jury, with representation, to face your accuser and know of the accusations against you.
8. The freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

And then amendment 9 states that the federal gov't has no right to infringe on these rights.

So, explain to me how the Republican President Bush was paying due consideration to these articles of the constitution when he threw American citizens in Guantanamo Bay prison, refused to grant them trials (let alone fair or speedy ones), doesn't inform them why they are there, and tortures them. I'm REALLY interested to hear that answer.

idiot,



Terrorists are treated differently. It's really that simple. The safety of the majority always, ALWAYS, supercedes the right of one.

And how do you know they are terrorists if you haven't even given them a trial. You DO remember that "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is represented by the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments, right?

I mean, hell, the gov't can just lock up ANYONE they want to then guys! All you have to do is call them a terrorist and all their rights disappear, never matter if it is true or not! Isn't that useful.

Oh, and btw, the constitution specifies that these rights cannot be denied to ANY PERSON by the federal gov't.

I wasn't aware that terrorists weren't people. That should make it much easier to find them!

I, for one, am disgusted this Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty passed with no provision for the regulation of tactical weapons. What a disgrace! What an outrage!

I didn't know they were the constitution.

Damn Caribu Lou has got me all confused.

And so is not stoning unruly children at the edge of town, or not killing someone for building a fire on the sabbath, or planting two different grains in the same furrow, or eating pork. We have a long TRADITION in this country of upholding those sacred laws, don't we? I say, let's stop being hypocrites and bring back all the Old Testament laws.

You know, like the biblical law that says the proper punishment for rape is to force the rapist to pay some money to the victim's father and to force the rapist to marry the victim. Let's enforce the punishment of sins, what do you say?

Oh, and speaking of the Constitution and tradition, you do realize that one of the most amazing things about our Constitution is the ability to amend it, right? Not sure if you've read it since the 1700s, but it's been amended 27 times.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 9:50pm by SuperAtheist

Completely sidetrack, but what the hell:



Sure.

1. No American citizens were held at Gitmo. This is actually irrelevant since the amendments in question refer to "persons" or "people", and not just to "citizens". But I figured I'd point it out anyway.

2. Trials are only guaranteed for cases of "criminal prosecutions". Those held at Gitmo were specifically held as "unlawful combatants", and thus fall under a different set of rules (as do all combatants, we don't grant POWs trials or let them go do we?).

3. They were certainly informed as to why they were there. You're confusing being informed, with being charged with a crime. Which is irrelevant given answer number 2 above.

4. Torture is a pretty subjective allegation, not a fact. How about we stick to facts, ok?



Oh. And for the record, I doubt seriously that you REALLY want to hear an answer. What you REALLY want is to hear the question asked again, and again, and again. Repeat it enough and most people will assume the questions have merit.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 7:10pm by gbaji

Anyone who's found to be engaging in military operations against the US, yes. I'll point out again that we do this with declared enemy combatants all the time. We call them POWs.

The only difference between the treatment of the detainees in Gitmo and normal POWs is that those detainees were found to not qualify for the preferential POW status granted to those who fight in ways specified under the 3rd Geneva Convention. Thus, they are not awarded the special privileges we grant to POWs.

Do you REALLY want me to quote you the section of the Geneva Conventions which specifically outlines the conditions and loss of protection that people meeting those criteria may be subjected to? I'll give you a hint: It specifically states they may be held without communication, and may be subject to interrogation.

But you don't really want an answer to your question, do you? You want us to assume that by asking it, there must not be an answer.



All we have to do is declare someone a POW and all their rights disappear! We can hold them without trial, and without redress, and for as long as we want. OMG! The humanity...


You're ignoring a whole section of the law here.