Army dismisses gay Arabic linguist

[Tock]

Your Tax Dollars at work . . . this story tells it all. Some of y'all may have relatives in Iraq in operations that depend on knowing what the Arabs are saying. They're already woefully short of people who can interpret Arabic, and they've fired50-something interpreters for nothing more than being gay, which puts the folks over there at an additional risk . . .
Here's the story of the latest pointless discharge.

Any civil comments?

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/07/27....ap/index.html

Army dismisses gay Arabic linguist
He was 'outed' by anonymous e-mails

Thursday, July 27, 2006 Posted: 1200 GMT (2000 HKT)

JOHNSON CITY, Tennessee (AP) -- A decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist was dismissed from the U.S. Army under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, though he says he never told his superiors he was gay and his accuser was never identified.

Bleu Copas, 30, told The Associated Press he is gay, but said he was "outed" by a stream of anonymous e-mails to his superiors in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

"I knew the policy going in," Copas said in an interview on the campus of East Tennessee State University, where he is pursuing a master's degree in counseling and working as a student adviser. "I knew it was going to be difficult."

An eight-month Army investigation culminated in Copas' honorable discharge on January 30 -- less than four years after he enlisted, he said, out of a post-September 11 sense of duty to his country.

Copas now carries the discharge papers, which mention his awards and citations, so he can document his military service for prospective employers. But the papers also give the reason for his dismissal.

He plans to appeal to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy, established in 1993, prohibits the military from inquiring about the sex lives of service members, but requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.

The policy is becoming "a very effective weapon of vengeance in the armed forces" said Steve Ralls, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a Washington-based watchdog organization that counseled Copas and is working to repeal "don't ask, don't tell."

Copas said he was never open about his sexuality in the military and suspects his accuser was someone he mistakenly befriended and apparently slighted.

Thousands dismissed under policy
More than 11,000 service members have been dismissed under the policy, including 726 last year -- an 11 percent jump from 2004 and the first increase since 2001.

That's less than a half-percent of the more than 2 million soldiers, sailors and Marines dismissed for all reasons since 1993, according to the General Accountability Office.

But the GAO also noted that nearly 800 dismissed gay or lesbian service members had critical abilities, including 300 with important language skills. Fifty-five were proficient in Arabic, including Copas, a graduate of the Defense Language Institute in California.

Discharging and replacing them has cost the Pentagon nearly $369 million, according to the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Lt. Col. James Zellmer, Copas' commanding officer in the 313th military intelligence battalion, told the AP that "the evidence clearly indicated that Sgt. Copas had engaged in homosexual acts."

While investigators were never able to determine who the accuser was, "in the end, the nature and the volume of the evidence and Sgt. Copas' own sworn statement led me to discharge him," Zellmer said.

Military investigators wrote that Copas "engaged in at least three homosexual relationships, and is dealing with at least two jealous lovers, either of whom could be the anonymous source providing this information."

Shortly after Copas was appointed to the 82nd Airborne's highly visible All-American Chorus last May, the first e-mail came to the chorus director.

"The director brought everyone into the hallway and told us about this e-mail they had just received and blatantly asked, 'Which one of you are gay?"' Copas said.

Copas later complained to the director and his platoon sergeant, saying the questions violated "don't ask, don't tell."

"They said they would watch it in the future," Copas said. "And they said, even specifically then, 'Well, you are not gay are you?' And I said, 'no.'"

The accuser, who signed his e-mails "John Smith" or "ftbraggman," pressed Copas' superiors to take action against him or "I will inform your entire battalion of the information that I gave you."

On December 2, investigators formally interviewed Copas and asked if he understood the military's policy on homosexuals, if he had any close acquaintances who were gay, and if he was involved in community theater. He answered affirmatively.

But Copas declined to answer when they asked, "Have you ever engaged in homosexual activity or conduct?" He refused to answer 19 of 47 questions before he asked for a lawyer and the interrogation stopped.

Copas said he accepted the honorable discharge to end the ordeal, to avoid lying about his sexuality and risking a perjury charge, and to keep friends from being targeted.

"It is unfair. It is unjust," he said. "Even with the policy we have, it should never have happened."

[Teabagger]

It is wrong for anyone to be disciplined in any way, for any thing, without having the opportunity to confront the accuser or the complaintant. He should have just answered "no" he is not gay....yes he would have comitted perjury, but it was lying to an illegal line of questioning..."are you gay". He should have requested courts martial and made them prove it...which they probably couldn't cause it was his word against an "unknown" snitch.

Now don't get me wrong..I have issues with gays in the military...but this particular story seems wrong. To me it is like an "unknown" person accuses someone of rape...and BAM! that person is arrested...thats bullshit.

[spywizard]

actually, under the UCMJ, it is not an illegal line of questioning... he swore an oath when he joined.. in that oath it he stated he would obey that which is in the Uniform Code of Military Justice...

just a thought..

[collar]

im not understanding this , whats going???

someone break it down to me please if you dont mind

[alphaman]

I read Teabagger's post and I almost read the article but then I thought....


If there's anyone who posts propaganda -- it's Tock....

It's always one of two things....

A gay who was mistreated or a gay preacher.

I'll bet 98% of the threads he's started fall into one of those two categories!

[Superhuman]

Thousands and Thousands of soldiers go through the Defense Language Institute in California. It is THE FASTEST foreign language learning program in existence. NO big deal that 55 people were dismissed that learned Arabic there.

[Tock]

I read Teabagger's post and I almost read the article but then I thought....
If there's anyone who posts propaganda -- it's Tock....

Propaganda? This is a news story.
Why not read the article before forming an opinion, eh?

[Tock]

actually, under the UCMJ, it is not an illegal line of questioning... he swore an oath when he joined.. in that oath it he stated he would obey that which is in the Uniform Code of Military Justice...

just a thought..

Well, the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" rule passed by Congress & signed by the President
does prohibit the military from asking a soldier if they're gay. And that's exactly what they did.

But the bigger issue here is whether or not it's a good idea for the military to fire greatly needed Arabic speaking interpreters because they are gay. The military thinks it's a good idea, even if the lack of Arabic speakers means that Arabic messages will have to wait a while longer to be interpreted, increasing the risk to the other soldeirs in the war zone.

So far, the military has kicked out 55 Arabic speaking people who are gay. Would that still be a good idea if they kicked out 550 of them? Suppose most of the Arabic speakers in the military were gay -- would it be smart to try to fight this war without them, just because they were gay?

Just curious . . .

[IronFreakX]

Ok I have a strong opinion about this, I think the guy deserved it because that is the law, you're gay you're out he already knew that Im sure, do not subject yourself to what you wish not be subjected to.

BUT....

That is completely UNFAIR, A person should not be kicked unless they are not competent, have comitted treason, etc.....

Why do they have this law?? I came up with a few reasons...

-1(and I've read this somwhere) because the men feel wierd about having someone gay with them....lol ok...I could care lesss but thats me.

2-because they have this rule saying no women can go into combat because guys have a tendency to protect women, maybe a gay guy would have that tendency with another guy if they were together or something ?? just a thought.

But same thing happens in the Airforce we all know about these fvckers who rape women there and shit so whos to say whatll cause problems??

I believe that maybe we should look into it and if logically it sounds fine we should try it, if no complications are found then go ahead...I wouldnt wanna be NOT fighting with a great soldier because he's just gay.

[Tock]

Thousands and Thousands of soldiers go through the Defense Language Institute in California. It is THE FASTEST foreign language learning program in existence. NO big deal that 55 people were dismissed that learned Arabic there.

Ya, but they weren't fired because of any lack of ability.
They were fired only because they were gay.

It's not like the US military has any surplus of Arabic speaking people -- in fact, they have a shortage that prevents them from keeping up with what's going on over there.

[IronFreakX]

Ok how about this, If it's allowed we should have the numbers of straight sexual/relationship problems in the Military, the compare it to the number of gay sexual/relationship problems in the Military (taking into consideration that the numbers will probably be less) and decide.

1-If % of straight problems are higher/equal than gay problems then allow it

2-If % of gay problems are higher than straight problems then stop it.

What if number 1 is significantly higher though do we fire all straight people??

[Tock]

I believe that maybe we should look into it and if logically it sounds fine we should try it, if no complications are found then go ahead...I wouldnt wanna be NOT fighting with a great soldier because he's just gay.

US allies allow openly gay service members, including every member of NATO except Turkey. Research shows none of the countries with openly gay service members have been hurt by their non-discrimination policy. England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Israel (where military service is mandatory) are just some of the 24 nations that allow openly gay members in the military. Even South Africa allows openly gay service members. The US, like Turkey, is behind the times . . .

[IronFreakX]

US allies allow openly gay service members, including every member of NATO except Turkey. Research shows none of the countries with openly gay service members have been hurt by their non-discrimination policy. England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Israel (where military service is mandatory) are just some of the 24 nations that allow openly gay members in the military. Even South Africa allows openly gay service members. The US, like Turkey, is behind the times . . .

Ehh actually I totally forgot about that, I kept clicking on all the link on wikipedia and got to that page and now I remember 2 soldiers killed another one in his sleep I think just for being gay....Thats sick.

So I stand corrected, It is ok and it doesnt harm but do even more good by getting more soldiers.

What do you think is the main reason/s for us not allowing gay people in the military??

I think it's strictly homophobia.

[Superhuman]

Ehh actually I totally forgot about that, I kept clicking on all the link on wikipedia and got to that page and now I remember 2 soldiers killed another one in his sleep I think just for being gay....Thats sick.

So I stand corrected, It is ok and it doesnt harm but do even more good by getting more soldiers.

What do you think is the main reason/s for us not allowing gay people in the military??

I think it's strictly homophobia.

it's ignorance... politicians and military leaders see all homosexual men as nelly little faerries who wear women's clothing. Similar to the politicians seeing weed and AAS users as evil criminals who must be brought to justice...

[Logan13]

Well, the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" rule passed by Congress & signed by the President
does prohibit the military from asking a soldier if they're gay. And that's exactly what they did.

That would be President Clinton, right.........I can just see Tock trying to spin this toward Bush.
This guy admits it in the first sentence. "I knew the policy going in". There are rules and laws in place, and they apply to everyone at all times. If you don't like the law, get it changed.

[Tock]

That would be President Clinton, right.........I can just see Tock trying to spin this toward Bush.

Time to get your vision checked . . .

This guy admits it in the first sentence. "I knew the policy going in". There are rules and laws in place, and they apply to everyone at all times. If you don't like the law, get it changed.

The policy is "Don't ask, Don't tell." The guy didn't tell, but they asked. So who's at fault here?

Again, the bigger issue is whether or not it's a wise policy for the military to fire people with critically needed skills -- skills that could save lives (someone's got to interpret all those Arabic messages) -- just because they're gay.

Would it be worth it to you? Would you be happier with a 100% heterosexual military but with a reduced ability to know what the enemy is up to? Or would you rather have the best information available and maybe have to work with a few gay people?

Which would you prefer?

[Logan13]

Time to get your vision checked . . .

The policy is "Don't ask, Don't tell." The guy didn't tell, but they asked. So who's at fault here?

Again, the bigger issue is whether or not it's a wise policy for the military to fire people with critically needed skills -- skills that could save lives (someone's got to interpret all those Arabic messages) -- just because they're gay.

Would it be worth it to you? Would you be happier with a 100% heterosexual military but with a reduced ability to know what the enemy is up to? Or would you rather have the best information available and maybe have to work with a few gay people?

Which would you prefer?

Perhaps it would be better to pose this question to those who are actually in the military, they have to live with it one way or another. If this guy were simply a grunt, would you be as put off as you are now? I think that you know my answer to this question..........

[Tock]

Perhaps it would be better to pose this question to those who are actually in the military, they have to live with it one way or another. .....

Well, maybe we should have asked everyone who's actually in the military if they wanted to fight in Iraq. Or Vietnam. Or Korea.
And back when President Harry Truman integrated the military back in the late 1940's, we should have let those who were actually in the military decide, because they were the ones who had to live with the decision one way or another.

Ya, maybe that's what he should have done . . .

[Tock]

Again, the bigger issue is whether or not it's a wise policy for the military to fire people with critically needed skills -- skills that could save lives (someone's got to interpret all those Arabic messages) -- just because they're gay.

Would it be worth it to you? Would you be happier with a 100% heterosexual military but with a reduced ability to know what the enemy is up to? Or would you rather have the best information available and maybe have to work with a few gay people?

Which would you prefer?

Anyway, Logan, Which would you prefer?
Just curious . . .

[spywizard]

Well, the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" rule passed by Congress & signed by the President
does prohibit the military from asking a soldier if they're gay. And that's exactly what they did.

But the bigger issue here is whether or not it's a good idea for the military to fire greatly needed Arabic speaking interpreters because they are gay. The military thinks it's a good idea, even if the lack of Arabic speakers means that Arabic messages will have to wait a while longer to be interpreted, increasing the risk to the other soldeirs in the war zone.

So far, the military has kicked out 55 Arabic speaking people who are gay. Would that still be a good idea if they kicked out 550 of them? Suppose most of the Arabic speakers in the military were gay -- would it be smart to try to fight this war without them, just because they were gay?

Just curious . . .

should we have pediphiles providing day care??

the point is that type of sexual behavior, just like beastiality is not accepted by the military..

so yes.. it is acceptible to not have arabic speaking people in the military.. besides, they can always contract with the military for more $$$

[Logan13]

Anyway, Logan, Which would you prefer?
Just curious . . .

I would prefer to not share a tent with a flaming homosexual, the lisping, weak wristed type who are flamboyantly gay. If they act normal, then I would have no problems. If they exude homosexuality, then they create more turmoil among our troops then they solve, no matter what their job duty is in the military. It is about the team, not the individual.

[zodiac666]

I would prefer to not share a tent with a flaming homosexual, the lisping, weak wristed type who are flamboyantly gay. If they act normal, then I would have no problems. If they exude homosexuality, then they create more turmoil among our troops then they solve, no matter what their job duty is in the military. It is about the team, not the individual.

i have to agree. if you are in an all male infantry unit where you have to shower together and sometimes sleep together for heat. i dont think the unit would be near as tight if it allowed openly gay people.

on the other hand lesbiens should definitly be allowed to join.

i have nothing against gays. alot of you probably wont understand this response, but its one of those things you need to expirence for yourselves. my unit was really tight and adding alot of gay sexual tension between us would just have been detrimental.

[Tock]

should we have pediphiles providing day care??

What does this have to do with anything

? There is no mention of pedophiles anywhere in this article . . . and of course you realize that pediphilia is different from homosexuality, just like pediphilia is different from heterosexuality.

Geez . . .


But ok, I get your point. You'd just as soon not have any gays in the military, no matter how much good they can do, no matter how much the military need their ability.
Ok, good for you.

[Tock]

i have to agree. if you are in an all male infantry unit where you have to shower together and sometimes sleep together for heat. i dont think the unit would be near as tight if it allowed openly gay people.

Well, there doesn't seem to be a problem in other country's military. Right now, as we speak, gay people are serving in the Israeli army, doing whatever else everyone else is doing. The British have (or at one time did have) soldiers serving with Americans in Iraq. Some of those soldiers are gay, and is there a problem? Nope.

i have nothing against gays. alot of you probably wont understand this response, but its one of those things you need to expirence for yourselves. my unit was really tight and adding alot of gay sexual tension between us would just have been detrimental.

I understand . . . it took decades for blacks to be accepted by their peers into the military, and it won't be any different for gays.

President Harry Truman ordered the US Armed forces to integrate races back in the 1940's.
President ??? will order the military to integrate straights & gays sooner or later.

Probably later . . .

[Tock]

I would prefer to not share a tent with a flaming homosexual, .

Well then, you and I would get along famously, I'm sure . . .

Incidentally, how often do troops have to share tents nowadays? I was in the USAF 2 years, I never had to. I didn't know anyone in the USAF who did. In fact, I don't think we even had any tents on the base. If we did, nobody ever used 'em.

[zodiac666]

Well then, you and I would get along famously, I'm sure . . .

Incidentally, how often do troops have to share tents nowadays? I was in the USAF 2 years, I never had to. I didn't know anyone in the USAF who did. In fact, I don't think we even had any tents on the base. If we did, nobody ever used 'em.

airforce is alot different. every soldier i knew shared a tent (or if they were lucky shared a hard building). when you left the wire you slept under the stars. even my full bird COL and CSM shared a tent.

also when you are deployed for a year you get EXTREMELY horney no matter who you are. i wouldnt feel very comfortable showering and sleeping with an extremely horney, openly gay guy, but if you do then more power to you.

[Superhuman]

Well, there doesn't seem to be a problem in other country's military. Right now, as we speak, gay people are serving in the Israeli army, doing whatever else everyone else is doing. The British have (or at one time did have) soldiers serving with Americans in Iraq. Some of those soldiers are gay, and is there a problem? Nope.



I understand . . . it took decades for blacks to be accepted by their peers into the military, and it won't be any different for gays.

President Harry Truman ordered the US Armed forces to integrate races back in the 1940's.
President ??? will order the military to integrate straights & gays sooner or later.

Probably later . . .

you could be starting a whole new debate here.... about whether or not homosexuality is a choice, if you are born with it, or if it is a psychological "malfunction". You are born black or white and you can't change it (unless you're michael jackson) so of course blacks should be accepted as peers. HOWEVER, assuming you are not born homosexual there is absolutely NO REASON to accept it. IMO you are not born with it - i was not born attraced to blondes or brunettes with nice breasts, it was acquired. I've been through stages, i've liked asians, latinas, russians, etc... anyway i don't think we know enough about homosexuality yet to make big decisions regarding it.

[Logan13]

Well then, you and I would get along famously, I'm sure . . .

Incidentally, how often do troops have to share tents nowadays? I was in the USAF 2 years, I never had to. I didn't know anyone in the USAF who did. In fact, I don't think we even had any tents on the base. If we did, nobody ever used 'em.

maybe they knew you were gay.............

[Logan13]

Well, there doesn't seem to be a problem in other country's military. Right now, as we speak, gay people are serving in the Israeli army, doing whatever else everyone else is doing. The British have (or at one time did have) soldiers serving with Americans in Iraq. Some of those soldiers are gay, and is there a problem? Nope.

I understand . . . it took decades for blacks to be accepted by their peers into the military, and it won't be any different for gays.

President Harry Truman ordered the US Armed forces to integrate races back in the 1940's.
President ??? will order the military to integrate straights & gays sooner or later.

Probably later . . .

I can guarantee you that will not happen unless society embraces homosexuality first. So let me get this straight, you would upset the moral of a whole battalion in order to allow an openly gay soldier join the ranks? This is the military, not the damn country club my friend, it seems that your priorities are skewed as usual..........

[Tock]

So let me get this straight, you would upset the moral of a whole battalion in order to allow an openly gay soldier join the ranks?

Sure. The military successfully managed integrating blacks, although not without difficulty. It can be done with gay soldiers, too. There's no reason why the US military should be a bastion of homophobia, the last refuge of those who can't stand to live with fellow gay soldiers, a place where it's ok to beat up your commanding officer if he's anything but 100% heterosexual.

But, feel free to disagree.

And if one gay soldier can disrupt an entire batalion just by his mere presence, then the US Army must be full of wimps, wusses, and pussies.
If one gay soldier causes an entire batallion to veer out of control and transform its soldiers into an unruly, vengeful mob, then that doesn't speak well of its discipline, does it?

And if every NATO country can manage to integrate gays into its armed forces successfully (except Turkey), then why can't the US military do it as well?
Truth is, military leaders don't even want to try.

[Logan13]

Sure. The military successfully managed integrating blacks, although not without difficulty. It can be done with gay soldiers, too. There's no reason why the US military should be a bastion of homophobia, the last refuge of those who can't stand to live with fellow gay soldiers, a place where it's ok to beat up your commanding officer if he's anything but 100% heterosexual.

But, feel free to disagree.

And if one gay soldier can disrupt an entire batalion just by his mere presence, then the US Army must be full of wimps, wusses, and pussies.
If one gay soldier causes an entire batallion to veer out of control and transform its soldiers into an unruly, vengeful mob, then that doesn't speak well of its discipline, does it?

And if every NATO country can manage to integrate gays into its armed forces successfully (except Turkey), then why can't the US military do it as well?
Truth is, military leaders don't even want to try.

No need to try, we have bigger issues going on in the world now. Homos in the military is about the 20,010th issue in regards to importance right now.