Anti-Gay Bigotry and The War Against Terrorism

[Will]

If I remember the author's name correctly, today the New York Times published an op-ed piece by Alastair Gamble. It was an excellent article, comparing the extraordinary costs of training Armed Services linguists versus the waste of throwing them out of the service because they were outed. (Gamble was careful about the don't-ask-don't-tell nonsense). He also wondered whether the U.S. can afford to have dismissed 80 (I think) gay trainees from the language school at a time when Dubya wants to take on the world.

[Casteran]

It seems our government feels that terrorism and the new Homeland Security Dept don't need qualified individuals, especially if they are gay. Welcome to the world of GWB - laughing stock of the world

[HooBoy]

I just watched a handsome, white, All-American looking guy, Alastair Gamble, on CNN who was booted out of the military because he was gay. Unfortunately, he was one of the FEW people the military has been able to recruit who could speak Arabic and be used as a translator in the War Against Terrorism.

 

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20021114/capt.1037310586.gay_military_linguists_fx107.jpg

 

Gamble is on the left. His lover, Hicks on the right.

 

I did a quick search on his name and came up with several compelling stories, a portion of one is below from National Review Contributor Deroy Mrudock.

 

Since August, as intercepted "chatter" from suspected terrorists has grown louder, the Army has dismissed seven Arabic-language specialists from Monterey, California's Defense Language Institute(DLI). Their offense? They happen to be gay.

 

As The New Republic's Nathaniel Frank first reported, these highly trained Arab speakers were sacked as America braces for possible war with Iraq and against potential terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Personnel who speak Arabic are desperately needed for battlefield and espionage duties. As the House Intelligence Committee complained last fall, "Written materials can sit for months, and sometimes years, before a linguist with proper security clearances and skills can begin translation."

 

Questioning captured terrorists and enemy soldiers is crucial, too. Army Human Intelligence Collector Alastair Gamble, 24, had taken nine-weeks of DLI interrogation training atop 30 weeks of intensive Arabic. Language instructors gave him stellar marks, while he earned a perfect 300 on his physical-fitness exam.

 

"I won't lie that I was one of many in my class who fantasized about interrogating Osama or one of his deputies," Gamble tells me. "It's not a realistic dream, but you have to have something to motivate you through seven hours of Arabic classes a day. Realistically, though, I was also hoping to focus on the Iraqi dialect and have some kind of a career in and around U.S.-Iraqi relations."

 

Last April, a late-night "health and welfare" inspection found Gamble in bed with Robert Hicks, 28, a male Korean-language specialist whom he had been dating for eight months. The dozen people who searched Gamble's room discovered romantic greeting cards the two men had exchanged and photographs in which they displayed non-carnal affection.

 

After investigating his sexuality, the Army honorably discharged Gamble on August 2. Hicks also was honorably discharged last month.

 

As discretion is the better part of valor, Gamble and Hicks (who now share an apartment in the Washington, D.C. suburbs) should have met each other off base. Still, two patriotic linguists are now useless in U.S. efforts to watch al Qaeda, Baghdad, and Pyongyang.

 

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network says that six other high-level, Arabic speakers have been barred from defending America because they are gay. According to SLDN spokesman Steve Ralls, "none of these additional cases involved on-base conduct."

 

"I want to wield my voice to end this policy," Gamble says, "not because it discriminates against gays, but because it weakens the country's military in a time of war."

 

Whatever one thinks of homosexuality, Americans should agree — especially now — that the Pentagon ought to stay focused on first things, such as preventing America's wily enemies from converting more skyscrapers into high-rise crematoria.

 

— Mr. Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service.

[Guest Everett]

I saw Gamble on television, and he described the situation as the article describes it. He violated military curfew or military visiting regulations, which he acknowledged. The reporter interviewing him, however, read the section of the military code that contains the infamous "don't ask - don't tell" section. Going by the wording of the section, Gamble actually didn't tell anyone that he was gay. None of the other subsections of that section that dealt with discharge from the military because of sexual orientation or sexual acts applied to Gamble's situation. When he was questioned about his sexual orientation, he said he didn't want to answer any such questions without an attorney present. The individuals who searched the room came to the conclusion that he was gay by what they found there. I don't know how this regulation has been interpreted, but it's infuriating if having romantic greeting cards found in your room by military police constitutes "telling" someone you're gay. It would be interesting to see what would happen if he decides to fight this, and how the courts interpret this policy.

 

If we really are at war, we need to get serious and use anyone of talent who wants to serve his country in this struggle. To drum a translator who happens to be a gay man out of the service under these circumstances, as we know of them right now, is idiotic.

[KY_TOP]

How Asinine can this country get. Even if he did violate "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" isn't the Government already ignoring many rules, laws, and possibly some constitutional rights in the name of "Homeland Security". It would seem like violating their "Rule" in this case is only common sense. Are we not Americans just because we are Gay?

And many on this site wonder why people decide to stay in the Closet.

[trilingual]

Um, Gamble WAS in the closet. As we can see, it wasn't much protection. :-(

 

I wouldn't expect much from this administration when it comes to this kind of stuff. They're too busy distracting people's attention from the real issues and dangers and their own corruption and incompetence. When people figure out that the sole purpose of this administration is to do whatever's good for the Petroleum Club, they'll see the rationale for the administration's actions more clearly. Too bad they got suckered into voting for this, because most of them are going to live to regret it, I think.

 

Fasten your seatbelts, kids, because it hasn't even BEGUN getting bumpy yet. The U.S. is in for a real strange ride. . .

[Guest Collie]

This will go on for two terms, because when the next presidential election comes around, we will be at war with Iraq, Korea and maybe even Canada if they keep calling W a moron, so well put, fasten your seatbelts. Don't forget W is the poster boy for the fundamentalists and remember their motto, they love the homosexual, but not the homosexual act.

 

As Colin Powell's cousin once said on the Charlie Rose show. He could not see what in God's name a black has to be conservative about. And that is about the same for gay men.....They would rather protect a little money than have a progressive environment that would protect them. We all get what we deserve, ultimately, and that is what causes change.

[Guest fukamarine]

>Fasten your seatbelts, kids, because it hasn't even BEGUN

>getting bumpy yet. The U.S. is in for a real strange ride. .

 

You've got that one right and the idot leading the cavalry is Asscroft!

 

fukamarine

[ad rian]

>If we really are at war, we need to get serious and use

>anyone of talent who wants to serve his country in this

>struggle. To drum a translator who happens to be a gay man

>out of the service under these circumstances, as we know of

>them right now, is idiotic.

 

Yes, but "justice is indivisable." I think this story shows why we should not be passive on the general and particular assaults on civil liberties taking place in this war effort here and elsewhere. It will be hard to find and hold the moral ground to oppose these idiotic policies if we don't do so on a consistent basis.

[Guest Bitchboy]

>

>Yes, but "justice is indivisable." I think this story shows

>why we should not be passive on the general and particular

>assaults on civil liberties taking place in this war effort

>here and elsewhere. It will be hard to find and hold the

>moral ground to oppose these idiotic policies if we don't do

>so on a consistent basis.

>

 

Gee, I wonder what this parasite is referring to????

[Guest Les]

This is just too much! The worst compromise Clinton ever made and now the anti-gay right will use 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' to persecute

and rid the armed forces of all gaymen and lesbians.

 

November 29, 2002

A Military at War Needs Its Gay Soldiers

By ALASTAIR GAMBLE

 

 

WASHINGTON — It was only two months after I started learning Arabic at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., the military's primary language training center, that a group of Arabic-speaking terrorists attacked the World Trade Center. For many of my classmates, the attack was enough of a motivation to learn. For others, it was the taped interview with Osama bin Laden that strengthened our resolve. Either way, the events of Sept. 11 caused all of us to work even harder at mastering Arabic.

 

I've always had a knack for learning languages, and I found myself picking up Arabic easily; I quickly became a confident speaker. As the course went on, my vocabulary grew from the simple to the relevant. I was able to converse not only about daily activities but also about military operations, economics and politics. The Middle East news broadcasts that my class watched between lessons became clearer each day. So did the tapes of Osama bin Laden.

 

By the end of the semester, eight of the 40 or so students who had started the class with me had failed out, and my eight-person section had fallen to six. I sometimes thought about what my future would hold. I imagined that in due time I would be able to use the language and my interrogation skills to question operatives of Al Qaeda.

 

Often our commander spoke to our group about the real-life application of Arabic that was in our future. And given the shortage of Arabic translators and interpreters in the military and intelligence communities — about half of the Army's Arabic language expert positions are vacant — our role in the war on terror would be vital.

 

Unfortunately, my service was cut short. There was something about me that, despite my skills and aptitude for the work, made me incompatible with military culture: I'm gay. The military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy makes no exceptions, even for personnel it needs desperately.

 

From the beginning of my time in the Army, I tried hard to hide my sexual orientation. I wanted to serve. It wasn't always easy to keep my secret. One day a good friend from my language class approached me after noticing that I'd been spending a lot of time with a male soldier from another unit. She asked me if we could talk about what was going on. Leery of the military's policy on gays, I was nervous about answering in English, so I said, in Arabic, "I prefer men." She laughed and teased me for not telling her sooner.

 

But not everyone was so understanding. One night my boyfriend was caught in my room after visiting hours. Though we were not found in any embrace, inspectors found romantic notes we'd shared. Typical punishment for breaking visitation rules is 10 days of restriction and 10 days of extra duty, which I completed. But four months later I was dismissed from the Army. My boyfriend, who was studying Korean, was dismissed eight weeks later.

 

Instead of fighting in the war against terrorism, I am now an observer, left to wonder how our country can afford to lose the talents and dedication of gays who are denied the right to serve. In 2000, the military dismissed more than 1,200 service members because of their sexual orientation. Over the last few months, eight other Army linguists have been dismissed for being gay.

 

The military invested thousands of dollars in my two years of training. In addition to the cost of intensive language courses, interrogation school and weapons training, it paid for a background check for my security clearance. Considering how many years the military has been throwing gays out, just imagine how much money, training and skills have been wasted already.

 

 

Alastair Gamble is a former specialist in the Army.

 

;(

[ad rian]

>>Yes, but "justice is indivisable." I think this story

>shows

>>why we should not be passive on the general and particular

>>assaults on civil liberties taking place in this war

>effort

>>here and elsewhere. It will be hard to find and hold the

>>moral ground to oppose these idiotic policies if we don't

>do

>>so on a consistent basis.

>

>Gee, I wonder what this parasite is referring to????

 

I guess then that means you think justice is divisable? (Defnding civil liberties across the board and on this Board is "parasitic"? Hmmh, I guess we are all in for an interesting ride, indeed.)

[trilingual]

RE: One of the Big Bumps Ahead. . .

 

With all the diversionary tactics going on, here's a BIG bump ahead that seems to have been ignored: the Bush administration is literally planning to gut the government!

 

Very little publicity has been given to this fact, but something over half of all federal employees are now eligible to retire, or will be retirement-eligibile within the next five years. The brain drain when all of these people walk out the door will be incalculable. Even before the Bush administration came to power, the problem was evident, but very little new hiring happened to replenish the ranks in time for knowledge to be transmitted from the old-timers to a newer generation. As a result, when the mass retirement wave begins, much of the institutional knowledge, history and skills that have been accumulated over the past thirty years or more will walk out the door for good. This at a time when the U.S. is facing real threats to its security and will need all the experience and expertise it can muster.

 

Instead of working to strengthen the government, what is the Bush administration doing? It's shoving a hodge-podge of agencies into the massive new Homeland Security Department, where it will take years (literally) to sort out its mission and rationalize its structure. One might ask if it's reasonable to expect optimum performance from such a many-headed newborn hydra at a time when we need peak functioning from the agencies that protect the U.S. As someone who works within the belly of the beast, I can assure you that in the short and medium term, this hasty reorganization of the government will impede our ability to operate at peak efficiency in order to defend ourselves.

 

As if making the new Homeland Security Department truly effective isn't a scary enough challenge, Bush has added another impediment by insisting on revocation of the civil service protections of the new department's employees. He's also revoked their right to be represented by a Union. Like the rest of the government, the agencies of the new Homeland Security Department are top heavy with retirement eligible employees. In the emergency situation facing the U.S., many might have decided to stay on the job to contribute to the effort. With their civil service and contractual protections stripped away, however, I'm sure most will decide to leave as soon as they can, before they fall victim to the political pressure and the spoils system that Bush is bringing to the new Department.

 

Adding insult to injury, the news last night reported that Bush is rescinding next year's cost-of-living pay increase for federal employees (a sumptuous 4.1%). Some of the retirement-eligibile workers of the new Department might have stayed on longer because a year's work under the new pay rate would have increased their pay as retirees (for most employees under the "old" federal retirement system, which includes most of the current crop of retirement-eligibiles, retirement pay is based on a percentage of their average "high-three" years salaries while they were working). If there won't be any benefit to be gained by staying on because of the rescinded pay raise, the exodus will accelerate next year.

 

If that weren't a scary-enough scenario, Bush intends to contract out at least half of all existing government jobs! With control of both houses of Congress, there is nothing now to impede Bush from carrying out his plan. Of course, when federal jobs are transferred to the private sector, employees' federal job benefits, including their retirement, are in jeopardy, because the benefits don't transfer along with the job. Instead of facing a loss of the benefits they earned over long careers, anyone eligible to retire will do so right away to protect themselves. The exodus will become a stampede. With so much knowledge and expertise lost at once, the U.S. will find itself, in a time of great peril, essentially starting up a government from scratch, with half its workers owing their loyalty not to the government, but to their for-profit employers, and the other half green as grass. . . I'm retiring at the end of December, and I just pray that in another year or so there's somebody around who still knows how to cut a retirement check! :-(

 

Is this insane? Obviously, I think it is. But what's to be expected from an administration made up of big "bidness" men whose only real work experience seems to have consisted of inside trading and stripping companies of their assets while lining their own pockets before bailing out. It looks to me like they're applying the same expertise to the government. All I can say is that anyone who thinks the U.S. couldn't collapse from internal rot and corruption should take a long hard look at another immensely wealthy country, Argentina, which is experiencing exactly that. Argentina's corrupt politicos ended up running the country as their private fief, ripping off most of the proceeds from the wholesale privatization of government services. The Argentines, bribed or lulled by the occasional crumbs thrown their way by the government, ignored what everyone could see was going on and kept re-electing the crooks. Now the country's in the toilet. There's not a credible political leader on the scene who might be able to lead the country out of its morass (every single one of them is considered soiled) and in their disarray there's a good chance that Carlos Menem, the arch-crook who got Argentina into this fix, might actually get re-elected President! Does anybody else see any disturbing parallels with the U.S.?

 

Folks, when the bumps come, they're going to be registering high on the Richter scale! Get under your tables or go stand in the doorways, because these are going to be the "big ones." ;(

[trilingual]

RE: One of the Big Bumps Ahead. . .

 

Well the brain knows better, but the fingers evidently don't: of course it's correctly spelled "eligible," and not "elegibile!" My fingers must think they're in Italy, or something! Another sign that retirement can't come soon enough. . .

[ad rian]

Don't lose all hope. If he is into S&M, he might qualify to be a UN weapons inspector!

 

Inspectorin Iraq Has S&M Links

Friday, November 29, 2002

 

BY JAMES V. GRIMALDI

THE WASHINGTON POST

 

WASHINGTON -- The United Nations launched perhaps its most important weapons inspections ever this week with a team that includes a 53-year-old Virginia man with no specialized scientific degree and a leadership role in sadomasochistic sex clubs.

The United Nations acknowledged Wednesday that it did not conduct a background check on Harvey John "Jack" McGeorge of Woodbridge, Va., who was in New York waiting to be sent to Iraq as a munitions analyst. McGeorge was picked for the diplomatically sensitive mission over some of the most experienced disarmament sleuths in the world. A U.N. spokesman said McGeorge was part of a group recommended by the State Department, which in turn said it was merely forwarding names for consideration.

The disclosures about McGeorge's qualifications come as concerns are being raised among some former U.N. weapons inspectors that the current team lacks experience. The former inspectors, who worked for the United Nations Special Commission created after the Persian Gulf War, say the new inspectors have been selected in part to avoid offending Iraq. These critics say that Hans Blix, the executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), is bypassing some experienced inspectors because they were opposed by Iraq as too aggressive in the earlier inspections.

 

McGeorge is a former Marine and Secret Service specialist who offers seminars on "weaponization of chemical and biological agents." He does not possess a degree in one of the specialized fields -- such as biochemistry, bacteriology or chemical engineering -- that the United Nations says it seeks in its inspectors.

An Internet search of Web sites conducted by The Washington Post found that McGeorge is the co-founder and past president of Black Rose, a Washington-area pansexual S&M group, and the former chairman of the board of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. He is also a founding officer of the Leather Leadership Conference Inc., which "produces training sessions for current and potential leaders of the sadomasochism/leather/fetish community," according to its Web site. Several Web sites describe McGeorge's training seminars involving various acts conducted with knives and ropes.

"I have been very up front with people in the past about what I do, and it has never prevented me from getting a job or doing service," McGeorge said. "I am who I am. I am not ashamed of who I am, not one bit. But I cannot allow my actions, as they may be perceived by others, to damage an organization which has done nothing to deserve that damage."

[Guest rochesterseeker]

I think we should all be very afraid. The right wing nutballs who are in charge in this country are no friends of diversity. Little by little they are/will be taking people's rights away. Sadly we are all fat, dumb, and happy and are sitting by and letting this happen. The issue of letting the Salvation Army discriminate agains gays in hiring is back on the table. The Attorney General Nutball is covering naked statues (reportedly). The don't ask don't tell policy has been violated. Gays and minoities are losing ground. Am I the only one who wonders if the "Sadam" problem is merely a diversionary tactic while the radical right wing Christian fundamentalist social agenda is installed in this country? Is it back to the closets gentlemen?

[Guest Merlin]

On the other hand, elsewhere in this forum is the tread of a guy complaining that guys in the shower don't always turn around so that he can stare at their front side as well. In many gyms, the best looking guys don't shower at the gym because they don't like to be stared. This illustrates part of the problem with gays in the military. When straights and gays are forced to live together, sleep in the same room and shower together, sexual privacy is non-existent. While gays see no problem with depriving straights of their privacy, and wish to pretend the problem does not exist, it results in fights and gay bashing which would escalate if gays were not required to keep their orientation secret. Recruiting would without question suffer if young guys knew that they would be required to live with open, practising gays.

[Guest fukamarine]

>Am I the only one who wonders if the "Sadam" problem is merely a

>diversionary tactic while the radical right wing Christian

>fundamentalist social agenda is installed in this country? Is

>it back to the closets gentlemen?

 

If this were to be the future, I think you would see an uprising that would make the Stonewall riot look like an afternoon tea party at the White House.

 

fukamarine

[Guest newawlens]

Merlin is absolutely right. The discomfort that many straight men feel at the idea of having to live with gays is real, not something that Bush or Ashcroft made up. If you are responsible for the performance of a military unit you have to think about what would happen to performance if some of the men in the unit were openly gay. That issue is kind of important in a war, since if the people in the unit don't work well together some of them might get killed.

 

The problems that would occur if gays were allowed to serve openly are similar to the problems people predicted when the military was first integrated. Some of our top military leaders in those days predicted that integration would cause a great deal of tension, even some violence, and would cause a loss of effectiveness in some units. And they were right. The problems they predicted did happen, especially during the Vietnam era. But over the decades attitudes in society and in the military gradually changed and those problems were overcome for the most part, although most African Americans who have served recently will tell you that they are not completely gone. So it isn't that the people who predicted problems were wrong, it's that we as a nation chose to deal with those problems because we thought racial integration was important enough to justify it. And we have to face the same question when it comes to gays.

[Guest fukamarine]

>Merlin is absolutely right. The discomfort that many

>straight men feel at the idea of having to live with gays is

>real, not something that Bush or Ashcroft made up.

 

This is just the old paranoia that causes them to think that just because a guy is gay, he's automatically going to make a pass at them.

 

They have no concept of the idea that a gay man can live with straights in a close and personal enviornment and not lust after them.

I think that responsible gays are quite capable of living that way and treating their fellow men as friends or buddies.

 

>If you are

>responsible for the performance of a military unit you have to

>think about what would happen to performance if some of the

>men in the unit were openly gay. That issue is kind of

>important in a war, since if the people in the unit don't work

>well together some of them might get killed.

 

Well that's a stretch. Let me see now....... just cause a guy doesn't like fags he's going to let them get killed in battle?

 

fukamarine

[Guest newawlens]

>This is just the old paranoia that causes them to think that

>just because a guy is gay, he's automatically going to make a

>pass at them.

>

>They have no concept of the idea that a gay man can live with

>straights in a close and personal enviornment and not lust

>after them.

 

As Merlin pointed out there is a thread in this section right now in which someone is complaining about men who shower facing the showerhead because that way he doesn't get to look at their dicks. You think it's ever crossed his mind that some men might not want him staring at their bodies while they're trying to wash? I doubt it has.

 

>That issue is kind of

>>important in a war, since if the people in the unit don't

>work

>>well together some of them might get killed.

>

>Well that's a stretch. Let me see now....... just cause a guy

>doesn't like fags he's going to let them get killed in

>battle?

 

If you ever do manage to have sex with a marine you could ask him if he thinks it matters to a unit's performance whether the men in the unit trust each other. Most people who have been in the service would say yes it does matter. A lot.

[Guest fukamarine]

>If you ever do manage to have sex with a marine you could ask

>him if he thinks it matters to a unit's performance whether

>the men in the unit trust each other. Most people who have

>been in the service would say yes it does matter. A lot.

 

Reg: For what it's worth I have had sex with several marines. All of them were active voluntary partners although I suspect they were not all gay.

 

I saw no indication that they felt I wasn't to be trusted just because I sucked their cock.

 

I don't believe that an openly gay man, living in close quarters with straights would foster a climate of mistrust. This argument is only used by homophobes, most of whom are frightened by the truth about their own sexuality and who would probably like nothing better than to shove their dick up some other man's butt.

 

fukamarine

[trilingual]

The whole "we shouldn't let gays in the military because they might look at the straight guys" thing is mindless crap. There is no documented proof anywhere that having gays in the military undermines unit cohesion or otherwise causes any problems. In fact, I believe I just read that the U.S. is the last NATO nation that persecutes gays serving in the military. Gays serve openly in the military from Israel to Australia with no reported problems.

The sad fact is that the U.S. is still a deeply homophobic society with an incredible hang-up on sexual matters (regardless of the impression one might draw from television and Hollywood). :-(

[Guest newawlens]

>The whole "we shouldn't let gays in the military because they

>might look at the straight guys" thing is mindless crap.

>There is no documented proof anywhere that having gays in the

>military undermines unit cohesion or otherwise causes any

>problems.

 

 

That is completely untrue. During the last year of the Clinton administration DOD released a study showing that since the inauguration of the don't ask don't tell policy reported incidents of harrassment of gay men in the military as well as discharges of personnel identified as gay had increased rather than decreased. I can recall at least two very well publicized murders of U.S. gay service personnel committed by other men in their own units, not by strangers, during the same period. The cases are those of Barry Winchell at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and Allen Schindler, a seaman serving in Sasebo, Japan. Anyone who says there is no documented proof that identifying military personnel as gay causes any problems just doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

>The sad fact is that the U.S. is still a deeply homophobic

>society with an incredible hang-up on sexual matters

>(regardless of the impression one might draw from television

>and Hollywood).

 

Whether the problems gays have had in the U.S. military arise from homophobia or from other causes, the problems are real and trying to deny they exist is pointless. The attitude that if military authorities would simply leave gay men alone everything would be fine is simply wrong in light of the long history of harrassment and violence directed at military personnel who are perceived as gay.

[Guest newawlens]

>I saw no indication that they felt I wasn't to be trusted

>just because I sucked their cock.

 

After you sucked their dicks, do you suppose they went back to their barracks and told their bunkmates that you just sucked them off? If not, why not?

 

>I don't believe that an openly gay man, living in close

>quarters with straights would foster a climate of mistrust.

 

And this is based on . . . ?

 

>This argument is only used by homophobes, most of whom are

>frightened by the truth about their own sexuality and who

>would probably like nothing better than to shove their dick up

>some other man's butt.

 

If it's not unreasonable for women in the military to prefer that they not be required to share barracks with men, why is it unreasonable for straight men to feel the same way about gays?