fayfreethinkers.com

Bush Serious About the War on Terror?

Here is proof to the contrary:

See here.

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers who say the military has kicked out 58 Arabic language experts because they were gay want the Pentagon to explain how it can afford to let the valuable specialists go.

Seizing on the latest discharge, involving three specialists, House members wrote the House Armed Services Committee chairman on Wednesday that the continued loss of such "capable, highly skilled Arabic linguists continues to compromise our national security during time of war."

Former Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Stephen Benjamin said his supervisor tried to keep him on the job and urged him to sign a statement saying he was not gay. Benjamin said his lawyer advised against signing because the statement could be used against him later if other evidence surfaced.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Benjamin said he was caught improperly using the military's secret level computer system to send messages to his roommate, who was serving in Iraq. In those messages, he said, he may have referred to being gay or going on a date.

"I'd always had been out since the day I started working there," Benjamin said. "We had conversations about being gay in the military and what it was like. There were no issues with unit cohesion. I never caused divisiveness or ever experienced slurs," said Benjamin, who was in the Navy for nearly four years.

He was fired under the "don't ask, don't tell" law passed in 1994. It lets gays serve if they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts. The law prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sex life and requires discharge of those who openly acknowledge they are gay.

Rep. Marty Meehan, who has sought a repeal, organized the letter to Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., asking the committee hold a hearing about the Arabic linguists.

"At a time when our military is stretched to the limit and our cultural knowledge of the Middle East is dangerously deficient, I just can't believe that kicking out able, competent Arabic linguists is making our country any safer," Meehan said.

The letter, signed by about 40 House members, says that the military has discharged 58 Arabic linguists under the policy and that Congress should decide whether "don't ask, don't tell" "is serving the nation well."

For Benjamin, 23, the discharge ended a military career he had hoped to continue.

He said he was among about 70 people investigated at Fort Gordon in Georgia for using the computer to send personal notes. He said others who are not gay kept their jobs even though they were caught sending sexual and profane messages.

They're supposed to send sexual and profane messages - it's part of their boot camp training. Just heterosexual sexual and profane messages - the predominently male officers don't want those "nice ass" comments to be about them.

And of course "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" doesn't support our military or serve our country well. Clinton didn't want it or like it, but the MSM's continual harping on it was getting in the way of stuff he was trying to do (like decent healthcare and balanced budget) - and he hadn't realized at that time that 24/7 attacks paid for by Scaife & Co were deliberate attempts to keep him from accomplishing anything. (And to this day largely keep Americans from knowing that he DID accomplish anything.) Even though he had a Dem-controlled congress, the DINOs weren't about to vote for gay anything. (Heck, he only got the balanced budget law through via the Veep's tie-breaker vote. The Dems have rued the waste of those two years ever since.)

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:They're supposed to send sexual and profane messages - it's part of their boot camp training.

Barbara - I guess the Navy has changed a great deal in the last six years since I retired.

When I first enlisted in 1976:
- 9 of 10 sailors that I knew smoked dope until we had the flight deck crash on Nimitz. ( I was there that night and was the one in 10.)
- almost every chief I knew was a hardcore drinker, and lacked language and math skills
- sexual harassment was rampant from my observations

Within 10 years:
- illegal drug use was down to under 6%
- swaggering back to the ship after liberty resulted in disciplinary review and usually mandatory treatment programs; chiefs were generally very sober individuals and very well-educated,
- sexual harrasment, inuendos, etc. were anomolies (i.e., no longer the norm).

There was a generation of Navy people like myself that enforced higher standards of conduct more and more as we rose to higher leadership positions. Many of us ensured that the people we were responsible for understood our position about things such as sexual harrassment and discrimination of any sort.

Specifically, we taught our people it wasn't Navy policy they should fear, that they should know that we had strong convictions on human issues and that we would not tolerate harrassment or discrimination. In other words, we did not just mimic policy, we lived those principles and led by those principles. We took action against harrassment and discrimination.

Our group has since graduated into retirement now. I would be extremely disturbed to find out that for all the years we fought to make the Navy a fair place for all its members, that it has been regressed.

Doug wrote:Bush Serious About the War on Terror?

In an interview with The Associated Press, Benjamin said he was caught improperly using the military's secret level computer system to send messages to his roommate, who was serving in Iraq.

After a long Navy career, I was surprised in recent years to learn how many Navy people were gay during that period, and that we never knew. Sailors I knew and served with turned out to be gay. The truth is, I don't care now and I would not have cared then. I would still serve with them..even though I have no understanding of same sex attraction. So...before anyone suggests I am a homophobic, my comments on this case are about the security context.

1. Translators in the Navy are called CTI's for Cryptological Technician Intrepreter. We called them both "spooks" and I-branchers. Spooks was the term for recognizing that CT's (CTA/CTM/CTI) were in the spy business. I-brancher just meant the interpreter speciality. I have been friends with and worked with many of them. Thus, I am very familiar with their profession and environment.

2. CT's all must maintain a top-secret security clearance--no small deal. I have been interviewed by FBI and other intelligence agencies regarding some of these peoples' security clearances and regarding some circumstances under investigation. I have also served on administrative boards pre/post courts-martial to recommend the characterization of discharge for some who committed security infractions (almost always less than honorable).

3. CT's are highly scrutinized ALL THE TIME because of what they know (intelligence) and the systems to which they have access. They know the stuff that admirals and generals are privy to. I would NEVER consider asking these people anything about anything. We just do not ask them questions. We talk to them about family, hobbies, etc. But NEVER NEVER pose anything in the form of a question. We wouldn't do such a thing to ourselves or to them. It's that serious!

4. That 58 of these people would have improperly used classified security systems for personal communications totally blows my mind. You just cannot imagine how wrong that is.

5. These 58 people, both heterosexual and homosexual, in my opinion and my professional judgement, cannot be trusted to help fight the war on terror. Their professional conduct, if they are proven guilty, is such that I would remove their clearances. You cannot allow sailors who lack the security discipline to be performing the job of a CTI.

6. Quantity is NOT better than quality. Keeping 58 CTI's who breach security is more dangerous to the fight against terrorism than being short 58 billets.

NeilS - I hope you are right about training, etc in the Navy - My quip was from knowledge of the "older generation" - my daddy was Army Air Corps in WWII, my ex-husband was in the Navy during Vietnam and my younger sister got out of the Navy about the time you went in.

As to your second comment - it's quite true that anyone who breaches security is dangerous and cannot safely be left in a security position. However, the determination to fire rather than reassign or reprimand should not be based on sexual orientation. The other point is that improperly using security systems is not quite the same thing as breaching security. It's in the category of the president's aide (during the Cold War days) using the "Hotline" to make a lunch date with somebody stationed in the Kremlin. Grossly inappropriate and deserving of reprimand or even penalty, but not a security breach. All 58 should be pulled off their current assignments pending investigation. Inappropriate use of classified security systems should be punished, if no other way that by not returning them to those assignments. Only actual breach of security should be penalized by firing - and possibly jailing as well. Nothing to do with sexual orientation. (Since we need translators so badly, possibly moving them to a less secure position but still maintaining use of their skills could be a military version of "plea bargaining".)

I should probably first know exactly which system was being used for personal communications before making my comments. My logic that the system(s) at issue were such that it would be a breach of security is:
1. Of all the improper communications that must take place by all categories of personnel, the only personnel addressed are the interpreters.
2. Systems available for informal communication would not be classified secret.
Thus, the security system refered to was one that was available to the intrepers and not other personnel. My logic, however, is often flawed around midnight.

You are right if the sender and the recipient were both at secure terminals on both ends and there was no possiblity of other material being compromised. Improper routing, however, may pose a security risk from a systems perspective. A break in protocol and discipline could pose a breach from the increased risk to exposure.

The truth is, I didn't have enough information to really make a good judgement.

Barbara, your information about the Navy through the time your sister left the Navy (early cold war era) is consistent with my observations.

I always believed the Navy changed as a result of my generation because:

1. We were the generation right behind the hippie movement. Although hippies were openly sexually less-inhibited, there arose a higher consciousness for human diginity (I think) and respect for others. I would add respect for oneself - for example, I cannot behave in certain ways because of the respect I have for myself. Prior to that time, I would say that male dominance and respect for authority and tradition prevaled in our society. That kind of environment is ripe for abuses of all kinds.

2. Women's Liberation (and the civil rights movement in general) influenced my generation greatly. We were too young to be involved, but old enough to understand.

We were a royal pain in the neck for our so-called superiors. I served on every command-level Human Relations Council (HRC) and took up the cause against harrassment and discrimination. I used to get furious because most mid-level leaders did not get what the program was all about (peope use to use it as a social committee). I actually used to get treatened by senior people - those who wanted to maintain status-quo. But their days were numbered.

I still remember when the Navy started its new HR directives. We had a "Human Goals" statement that I always posted on bulletin boards everywhere:

"Every person has the right to excel based on their personal ambition, inteligence, integrity, and dedication regardless of gender, race, nationality, or religion."

I, and many others, championed this goal.

In a nutshell - the Navy was/is a reflection of society to a large degree. Even though Navy policy was right, it required the commitment of enough leaders to fix the problems. The Navy-wide commitment increased as the older generation of males retired and were replaced by younger leaders with a higher level of consciousness.

FTR (for the record) - the Navy was first to assign women to combat roles and command of combatant units. The Navy would have done that even sooner except that it to is required to obey the law. An interesting side note: males in the Navy, contrary to myth, have no problem responding to authority of female leaders. It just doesn't matter to most. A chief is a chief is chief. Same for any officer or commanding officer. People respect knowledge, skill, talent, integrity, etc.

OH--this just came back to me...I was being interviewed for sailor of the year...it was 1983...the board asked me how I envisioned the future of the Navy...I shared my vision of a Navy where men and women served side-by-side and we had male and female leaders...and that we should begin this endeavor soon so we could learn to serve in space together without complications..." They thought I was absolutely stupid and scolded my chief for recommending me. Sorry, I just turned 50 this week and tend to digress...I remember 30 years ago better than I remember last week.

Obviously, you must know I love this topic.

Neil - I have a rather irrational love for the Navy (never been in it and know too much for my comfort about abuse of power, both military and civilian). Probably came from reading a biography of John Paul Jones in my youth (That and Mary Laswell's "Suds in Your Eye"). I'm glad the Navy has changed and hope to see it change further. It is one of the many ways to serve one's country and along with the service comes education and training for civilian life. My ex has worked for MCI and whoever bought MCI for close on to 20 years now using the knowledge gained from his radarman days in the Navy.

As to the security breach, or not, as the case may be - I think the reason the interpreters/translaters were the focus of the article was that we need them so badly, not that they were the only ones involved in improper use of communications equipment.