Berkeley council tells Marines to leave

[RANA]

Berkeley council tells Marines to leave


Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.
That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 6-3 Tuesday night to tell the U.S. Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

In addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines because of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. And it officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station.

In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.

Councilman Gordon Wozniak opposed both items.

The Marines have been in Berkeley for a little more than a year, having moved from Alameda in December of 2006. For about the past four months, Code Pink has been protesting in front of the station.

"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates after votes were cast.

A Marines representative did not respond to requests for comment.

The resolution telling the Marines they are unwelcome and directing the city attorney to explore issues of sexual orientation discrimination was brought to the council by the city's Peace and Justice commission.
The recommendation to give Code Pink a parking space for protesting and a free sound permit was brought by council members Linda Maio and Max Anderson.

Code Pink on Wednesday started circulating petitions to put a measure on the November ballot in Berkeley that would make it more difficult to open military recruiting offices near homes, parks, schools, churches libraries or health clinics. The group needs 5,000 signatures to make the ballot.

Even though the council items passed, not everyone is happy with the work of Code Pink. Some employees and owners of businesses near the Marines office have had enough of the group and its protests.

"My husband's business is right upstairs, and this (protesting) is bordering on harassment," Dori Schmidt told the council. "I hope this stops."

An employee of a nearby business who asked not to be identified said Wednesday the elderly Code Pink protesters are aggressive, take up parking spaces, block the sidewalk with their yoga moves, smoke in the doorways, and are noisy.

"Most of the people around here think they're a joke," the woman said.

Wozniak said he was opposed to giving Code Pink a parking space because it favors free speech rights of one group over another.

"There's a line between protesting and harassing, and that concerns me," Wozniak said. "It looks like we are showing favoritism. We have to respect the other side, and not abuse their rights. This is not good policy."

Ninety-year-old Fran Rachel, a Code Pink protester who spoke at the council meeting, said the group's request for a parking space and noise permit was especially important because the Marines are recruiting soldiers who may die in an unjust war.

"This is very serious," Rachel said. "This isn't a game; it's mass murder. There's a sickness of silence of people not speaking out against the war. We have to do this."

Anderson, a former Marine who said he was "drummed out" of the corps when he took a stand against the Vietnam War, said he'd love to see the Marines high tale it out of town.

"We are confronted with an organization that can spend billions of dollars on propaganda," Anderson said. "This is not Okinawa here; we're involved in a naked act of aggression. If we can provide a space for ordinary people to express themselves against this kind of barbarity, then we should be doing it."

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_8120433?source=rss

[Tock]

The resolution telling the Marines they are unwelcome and directing the city attorney to explore issues of sexual orientation discrimination was brought to the council by the city's Peace and Justice commission.

That city has a law prohibiting discrimination against gays. The Marines discriminate against gays. So, they essentially told them that they are not welcome, because they are breaking their law.

Until the Marines can demonstrate why they should prefer convicted felons, thugs, illiterates, and Sabbath-breakers over well-qualified gays (which they do), then IMHO, the city has a reasonable law.

I'd vote the same way, if I was there.

[3bd]

Maybe those Berkley fvcks shoud just go down there and kick those Marine's asses!

[Tock]

Maybe those Berkley fvcks shoud just go down there and kick those Marine's asses!

Nope.

The Marines should get over their fear of gay people.

[3bd]

Nope.

The Marines should get over their fear of gay people.

Should the military make special accomodations for gay people such as barracks, showers, etc.,? I know that when I was in the Navy there was no way in hell I'd stay in the same berthing compartment with a gay man if I knew he was gay. For the same reasons the women would not want me staying with them. Thus the don't ask don't tell policy. It has nothing to do with fear. I can tell you have never served our country.

[southmadejd]

That city has a law prohibiting discrimination against gays. The Marines discriminate against gays. So, they essentially told them that they are not welcome, because they are breaking their law.

Until the Marines can demonstrate why they should prefer convicted felons, thugs, illiterates, and Sabbath-breakers over well-qualified gays (which they do), then IMHO, the city has a reasonable law.

I'd vote the same way, if I was there.

Tock maybe you should get more educated about the information you are trying to put out there before you actually just say things that are untrue.

The Marines do not take anyone convicted of a felony. And you must score a 31 on the ASVAB to get accepted and even though that is not very high....if you score a 31 that at least means you can read. The Marines don't actually discriminate against gays, they just ask that they keep it to themselves. Unfortunately that is a way of discrimination but that fact is that when a bunch of men are out in the field together...it would be extremely odd if two gay men were hanging out in their two-man tents making out. Now I am not saying that would ever happen nor would gay men act like that....but unfortunately that is a situation that the Marine Corps can't let happen. But I just wanted to let you know that you are wrong about convicted felons and the illiterate part. But they will accept some one who was arrested for a misdemenor with a waiver.

[Logan13]

Tock maybe you should get more educated about the information you are trying to put out there before you actually just say things that are untrue.

The Marines do not take anyone convicted of a felony. And you must score a 31 on the ASVAB to get accepted and even though that is not very high....if you score a 31 that at least means you can read. The Marines don't actually discriminate against gays, they just ask that they keep it to themselves. Unfortunately that is a way of discrimination but that fact is that when a bunch of men are out in the field together...it would be extremely odd if two gay men were hanging out in their two-man tents making out. Now I am not saying that would ever happen nor would gay men act like that....but unfortunately that is a situation that the Marine Corps can't let happen. But I just wanted to let you know that you are wrong about convicted felons and the illiterate part. But they will accept some one who was arrested for a misdemenor with a waiver.

he knows that he is wrong, he just chooses to use false information to further his own views since the facts do not support his take on the world.

[dhriscerr]

Honestly, I can say that being a Marine, It's probably for the (gay) persons saftey that the Marine Corps has a don't ask don't tell policy, because you could not begin to imagine the kind of hazing that would be done to an openly gay Marine. Also it is not that gay men are not fully capable of accomplishing anything that a hetersexual male Marine could do, it is merely the distraction factor, that is one thing you do not want in the middle of the battle field. Many of the same reasons that Women are not allowed to hold combat MOS's. Its the battlefield distractions that will inevitably cost Marines their lives.

[Tock]

Should the military make special accomodations for gay people such as barracks, showers, etc.,?

Should the military make special accommodations for heterosexual people who don't want to use barracks, showers, etc, with gay people?

I can tell you that every other NATO country except Turkey has an integrated military. And it works just fine.

I am against special accommodations for anyone. And that includes special accommodations for heterosexuals with irrational fears of gay people. There's no reason to make the military services a safe haven for anti-gay bigots, just as there's no reason to exempt gay people from the obligations of protecting the country from terrorists, invaders, etc.

I know that when I was in the Navy there was no way in hell I'd stay in the same berthing compartment with a gay man if I knew he was gay. For the same reasons the women would not want me staying with them. Thus the don't ask don't tell policy. It has nothing to do with fear. I can tell you have never served our country.

First of all, you can't tell I have never served our country, because I have. I was a military policeman in the USAF, K-9. Trained police and sniffer dogs.

Secondly, not every person in the military sleeps in such tight quarters. Lower grade enlisted guys had seperate dorm rooms in the Air Force, and most everyone else had seperate off-base apartments. Officers had seperate houses. There was lots of elbow room for everybody. I understand that things have improved since then.


Sexual harrassment is quite another thing, though. There's no room for leering from gays, just like it is inappropriate for guys to leer at women. And there's no room for guys to harp on gays, either.


---------------------------------

Aside from all that, though, tell me why you would refuse these gay and lesbian people an opportunity to continue to serve in the military --

1) Grethe Cammermeyer, RN, Ph.D, COL, USA Ret
http://www.cammermeyer.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margarethe_Cammermeyer
She met her partner, Diane Divelbess, in 1988, when she was 46 — after she had ended a 15-year marriage to a man and had four sons.
In 1989, in response to a question during a routine security clearance interview, she disclosed that she is a lesbian. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was not yet in effect at the time, and the National Guard began military discharge proceedings against her.

2) Jose Zuniga, US Army Soldier of the Year
http://www.amazon.com/Soldier-Year-J...ews/0671888153
A staunch Republican and patriot who loved the Army, Sergeant Zuniga was a military journalist who served in the Gulf War and was honored as the Sixth Army's 1993 Soldier of the Year. A gay man whose wife was a lesbian, he had been hiding his sexual orientation behind the "happily married" facade. But living a duplicitous life was increasingly hard on him, and his crisis of conscience was dramatically resolved when he delivered a coming-out speech during the gay/lesbian demonstrations in April 1993 in Washington, D.C., before an audience of nearly a million. The Army reacted swiftly, stripping him of his rank and threatening him with a court-martial for a minor uniform infraction. Since his discharge-which was honorable-Zuniga has been busy speaking out for gay rights and expressing his disgust over President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" compromise, which Zuniga calls a "sellout to homophobes and bigots." His book includes a vivid picture of San Francisco's Castro Street culture (Zuniga was stationed at the Presidio in that city) and a poignant account of his relationship with his macho father and tenderhearted mother. This well-told personal story avoids shrillness and self-righteousness, and wins admiration for Zuniga's courage.

3) Gays who spoke Arabic, worked in offices, lived in seperate rooms.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6824206
Report: More gay linguists
discharged than first thought

Records suggest U.S. military places
anti-gay position over national security

SAN FRANCISCO - The number of Arabic linguists discharged from the military for violating its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is higher than previously reported, according to records obtained by a research group.
The group contends the records show that the military — at a time when it and U.S. intelligence agencies don’t have enough Arabic speakers — is putting its anti-gay stance ahead of national security.
Between 1998 and 2004, the military discharged 20 Arabic and six Farsi speakers, according to Department of Defense data obtained by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military under a Freedom of Information Act request.
(more info at the website)

[Tock]

Tock maybe you should get more educated about the information you are trying to put out there before you actually just say things that are untrue.

The Marines do not take anyone convicted of a felony. And you must score a 31 on the ASVAB to get accepted and even though that is not very high....if you score a 31 that at least means you can read. The Marines don't actually discriminate against gays, they just ask that they keep it to themselves. Unfortunately that is a way of discrimination but that fact is that when a bunch of men are out in the field together...it would be extremely odd if two gay men were hanging out in their two-man tents making out. Now I am not saying that would ever happen nor would gay men act like that....but unfortunately that is a situation that the Marine Corps can't let happen. But I just wanted to let you know that you are wrong about convicted felons and the illiterate part. But they will accept some one who was arrested for a misdemenor with a waiver.

Read this, and tell me why the military should kick out the "Soldier Of The Year" for being gay, and let all these other misfits in:


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/02/waivers/

Out of jail, into the Army

Facing an enlistment crisis, the Army is granting "waivers" to an increasingly high percentage of recruits with criminal records -- and trying to hide it.
By Mark Benjamin


Feb. 2, 2006 | We're transforming our military. The things I look for are the following: morale, retention, and recruitment. And retention is high, recruitment is meeting goals, and people are feeling strong about the mission.

-- George W. Bush, in a Jan. 26 press conference

It was about 10 p.m. on Sept. 1, 2002, when a drug deal was arranged in the parking lot of a mini-mall in Newark, Del. The car with the drugs, driven by a man who would become a recruit for the Delaware Air National Guard, pulled up next to a parked car that was waiting for the exchange. Everything was going smoothly until the cops arrived.

"I parked and walked over to his car and got in and we were talking," the future Air Guardsman later wrote. "He asked if I had any marijuana and I said yes, that I bought some in Wilmington, Del., earlier that day. He said he wanted some." The drug dealer went on to recount in a Jan. 11, 2005, statement written to win admission into the military, "I walked back to my car [and] as soon as I got in my car an officer put his flashlight in the window and arrested me."

Under Air National Guard rules, the dealer had committed a "major offense" that would bar him from military service. Air National Guard recruits, like other members of the military, cannot have drug convictions on their record. But on Feb. 2, 2005, the applicant who had been arrested in the mini-mall was admitted into the Delaware Air National Guard. How? Through the use of a little-known, but increasingly important, escape clause known as a waiver. Waivers, which are generally approved at the Pentagon, allow recruiters to sign up men and women who otherwise would be ineligible for service because of legal convictions, medical problems or other reasons preventing them from meeting minimum standards.
The story of that unnamed Air National Guard recruit (whose name is blacked out in his statement) is based on documents obtained by Salon under the Freedom of Information Act. It illustrates one of the tactics that the military is using in its uphill battle to meet recruiting targets during the Iraq war. The personnel problems are acute. The Air National Guard, for example, missed its recruiting target by 14 percent last year. And the regular Army missed its goal by 8 percent, its largest recruiting shortfall since 1979.

This is where waivers come in. According to statistics provided to Salon by the office of the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, the Army said that 17 percent (21,880 new soldiers) of its 2005 recruits were admitted under waivers. Put another way, more soldiers than are in an entire infantry division entered the Army in 2005 without meeting normal standards. This use of waivers represents a 42 percent increase since the pre-Iraq year of 2000. (All annual figures used in this article are based on the government's fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30. So fiscal year 2006 began Oct. 1, 2005.)
In fact, even the already high rate of 17 percent underestimates the use of waivers, as the Pentagon combined the Army's figures with the lower ones for reserve forces to dilute the apparent percentage. Equally significant is the Army's currently liberal use of "moral waivers," which are issued to recruits who have committed what are loosely defined as criminal offenses. Officially, the Pentagon states that most waivers issued on moral grounds are for minor infractions like traffic tickets. Yet documents obtained by Salon show that many of the offenses are more serious and include drunken driving and domestic abuse.
Last year, 37 percent of the Army's waivers (about 8,000 soldiers) were based on moral grounds. Like waivers as a whole, these waivers are proliferating -- they're 32 percent higher than in the prewar year of 2000. As a result, the odds are going up that the soldiers fighting and taking the casualties in Iraq entered the Army with a criminal record.
"The more of those people you take, the more problems you are going to have and the less effective they are going to be," said Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense under Reagan and a senior fellow at the progressive Center for American Progress. "This is another way you are lowering your standards to meet your goals." Retired Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, who was the Army's chief intelligence officer from 1981 to 1985, also called the increase in waivers "disturbing."
He expressed concern that the lower standards would place a burden on military commanders who have to deal with "more lawbreakers and soldiers with anti-social behavior in their units."
Even without the waivers, the Army has lowered its standards for enlistees. The Army has eased restrictions on recruiting high school dropouts. It also raised the maximum recruitment age from 35 to 39. Moreover, last fall the Army announced that it would be doubling the number of soldiers that it admits who score near the bottom on a military aptitude test.

In response to inquiries about the number of waivers being used, the Pentagon's assistant secretary for public affairs issued a three-page statement to Salon on Monday, headlined, "Military Recruiting -- High Standards With Limited Waivers." Regarding the use of moral waivers, it argues that "in most cases, the [criminal] charges were from a time when the applicant was young and immature." The Pentagon document contends that many waivers were "simply for an unusual number of traffic violations." It also cites as typical in waiver cases such minor offenses as "curfew violations, littering, disorderly conduct, etc."
Other Pentagon officials, who requested anonymity, cautioned against regarding this statement from the public affairs desk as the definitive word on the waiver question. These personnel experts stressed that the Army has a major problem with its use of exemptions from normal enlistment standards. These sources went on to say that the Army's statistical data appears to have been scrubbed to make its use of waivers look more infrequent than it actually is.
One Pentagon official, whom Salon asked to inspect the Army's official waiver figure, said the Army's claim that it has issued waivers to 17 percent of recruits "is not a correct number." In fact, the percentage should be higher. The Army has made the number appear lower by combining data from Army Reserve forces, including the Army National Guard -- even though the Guard has its own separate recruiting program and (based on information provided to Salon under the FOIA) used waivers in only 6 percent of all cases in 2005.

When pressed, the office of public affairs admitted that it had lumped together data from several military services to derive the official Army waiver number. Lt. Col. Ellen G. Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman in the office of public affairs, confirmed that the data provided to Salon had combined the waivers records of the regular Army, the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard into a single entry. She confirmed by e-mail: "Yes, these numbers include the active duty and reserve components."
Krenke referred questions about the Army's actual waiver rate to its Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky. Julia Bobick, an Army spokeswoman there, said her unit had received the document that the Pentagon had provided Salon and was "re-looking" at its own data in light of the follow-up questions. Until that reexamination is complete, Bobick said, the Army would have no additional comment. "The numbers that we have are not releasable," she said. "We are re-looking at these numbers in light of that query."

In short, the military's explanation seems a variant of Catch-22. Officials now admit that the Army waiver data originally given to Salon was contaminated with extraneous numbers, but the Army cannot comment on what its actual waiver percentage might be, since the Pentagon figures are so muddled. When told of these numbers games, Korb said, "I'm sure that somebody on Capitol Hill is going to demand the answers."
It is no secret to Congress that the Army, which is fighting the brunt of the war in Iraq, is facing a severe personnel crisis. A Pentagon-commissioned report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments leaked last week warned that prolonged deployments and recruiting problems were "breaking" the Army. A chapter of that report, titled "A Recruiting and Retention Crisis?" goes so far as to say that the grind of war on the Army -- rather than any political imperatives from Washington -- will accentuate the pace of military withdrawal from Iraq.
Odom offered a similar interpretation: "We will get out this year, not because we want to; we don't have any more troops to send. What we are seeing is the declining capability of the Army caused by the administration's manning and deployment policies."
A contrary, though far from surprising, view was offered by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Asked about the report warning of a broken Army at a press conference last week, Rumsfeld said, "I just can't imagine someone looking at the United States armed forces today and suggesting that they are close to breaking."
This fits with the Pentagon's official response that most Army waivers on moral grounds are for minor infractions like traffic tickets and littering. While there is no way to independently verify those claims regarding the Army, records from another branch of service suggest how recruiting waivers can easily be misused.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, Salon obtained copies of a one-inch stack of waivers granted by the Air National Guard from January to July 2005. Many of the offenses excused are significantly more serious than driving with a defective tail light or failing to return overdue library books.
Lt. Gen. Daniel James III, the Air National Guard director, told the House Committee on Armed Services last July 19, "The Air National Guard's success is rooted in the quality of our recruits and our ability to retain them. Our people are unequivocally our most valued resource."
Yet according to the waivers, just four days earlier the Air Guard's national headquarters had approved the enlistment of a California recruit who had been charged in October 2003 with "assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury." True, the recruit was a 17-year-old juvenile when he committed the crime for which he was later convicted, but that date was less than two years before he was admitted to the Air Guard.

Other examples from the Air Guard files suggest a wider problem: After his parents filed a domestic-abuse complaint against him in 2000, a recruit in Rhode Island was sentenced to one year of probation, ordered to have "no contact" with his parents, and required to undergo counseling and to pay court costs. Air National Guard rules say domestic violence convictions make recruits ineligible -- no exceptions granted. But the records show that the recruiter in this case brought the issue to an Air Guard staff judge advocate, who reviewed the file and determined that the offense did not "meet the domestic violence crime criteria." As a result of this waiver, the recruit was admitted to his state's Air Guard on May 3, 2005.
A recruit with DWI violations in June 2001 and April 2002 received a waiver to enter the Iowa Air National Guard on July 15, 2005. The waiver request from the Iowa Guard to the Pentagon declares that the recruit "realizes that he made the wrong decision to drink and drive."
Another recruit for the Rhode Island Air National Guard finished five years of probation in 2002 for breaking and entering, apparently into his girlfriend's house. A waiver got him into the Guard in June 2005.
A recruit convicted in January 2004 for possession of marijuana, drug paraphernalia and stolen license-plate tags got into the Hawaii Air National Guard with a waiver little more than a year later, on March 3, 2005.
Taken together, the troubling statistics from the Army and anecdotal information derived from the files of the Air National Guard raise a warning flag about the extent to which the military is lowering its standards to fight the war in Iraq. The president may be correct in his recent press conference boast that "we're transforming the military." But the abuse of recruiting waivers prompts the question: In what direction is this military transformation headed?

[Tock]

Honestly, I can say that being a Marine, It's probably for the (gay) persons saftey that the Marine Corps has a don't ask don't tell policy, because you could not begin to imagine the kind of hazing that would be done to an openly gay Marine.

It will be hell for the first bunch. Lots of 'em will get beat up,
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/01/010606soldier.htm
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?se...rld&id=3739299

some will get killed.
http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/2006oct/2402.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/04/2...der/index.html

It will be quite a while until the United States military is safe for gay people, but the process of integration is something that will have to be done.

Also it is not that gay men are not fully capable of accomplishing anything that a hetersexual male Marine could do, it is merely the distraction factor, that is one thing you do not want in the middle of the battle field. Many of the same reasons that Women are not allowed to hold combat MOS's. Its the battlefield distractions that will inevitably cost Marines their lives.

What about gay Marines/Soldiers/Airmen/Officers working in offices? Working as military police? Engineers? Doctors? Lawyers? Planning? Chaplains? Cooks? Truck Drivers? Aircraft mechanics? Air Traffic Controllers? Computer Technicians? Communications? Electronic Technicans?

Very few of the jobs in the military involve battlefield conditions or sleeping in close quarters, like submarines. So, until the entire military becomes one giant battlefield, this concern isn't really valid. It is, however, an excellent cover for what the real concern is.

[Tock]

he knows that he is wrong, he just chooses to use false information to further his own views since the facts do not support his take on the world.

You're a fine one to talk about "false information."
MILITARY DEATHS FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARs

You're pretty quick to latch on and spread an UrbanLegend if it fits in with your take on things . . .

[Logan13]

You're a fine one to talk about "false information."
MILITARY DEATHS FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARs

You're pretty quick to latch on and spread an UrbanLegend if it fits in with your take on things . . .

and I own up to mine, can't say that you have ever done the same..........

[Logan13]

take away their federal dollars. They want to act like their own country, let them. Their economy can not even stay above water now.

[paulzane]

Gay v hetro threads always end up hurting each other and bannings not too far away. AND like politics ..... everyone has their own views and will very, very, rarely change them after an arguement no matter how logical the arguements!!!

[peteroy01]

tock-1st of all the USAF is considered a joke in other branches and there is another 3 branches that arent as relaxed. and if your wanting to mix gays with straights of the same gender it would be the same as mixing men and women together(straight) and that wont work out will it?

[RA]

Not surprised. When you have that kind of concentration of lib-assholes your going to have an anti-military sentiment.

[goodcents]

Fuk it, I'll say it. recruiters are the lowest form of life in my opinion. They will say anything to get you in. "I want to fly jets"(duhhhhhhhhhhh) sign here and you will be in a jet before you know it I love the military and the soldiers but it has been turned into a merc force. You should see the money they are throwing out to keep guys

[goodcents]

Ps get mad at the system not me, I didn't fuk it up

[thegodfather]

tock-1st of all the USAF is considered a joke in other branches and there is another 3 branches that arent as relaxed. and if your wanting to mix gays with straights of the same gender it would be the same as mixing men and women together(straight) and that wont work out will it?

So that makes his contribution to the country less meaningful because your PERSONAL OPINION is that the USAF is a joke among the military branches in the US....not quite sure I follow your logic here. Have more respect for people that have served please, regardless of your feelings on what particular branch.

[pumpd4lif]

opinions are like assholes everybody,s stinks but urs

[goodcents]

opinions are like assholes everybody,s stinks but urs

[Red Ketchup]

tock-1st of all the USAF is considered a joke in other branches

Thats probably one of the most disrespectful thing I've ever read on this board...

Geez this guy served his country, where do you get off claiming how he served is not good enough?

I may not agree with all of Tocks opinions on gays/military, but I do respect those opinions... having served he has EARNED that respect.

Red

[southmadejd]

Read this, and tell me why the military should kick out the "Soldier Of The Year" for being gay, and let all these other misfits in:


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/02/waivers/

Out of jail, into the Army

Facing an enlistment crisis, the Army is granting "waivers" to an increasingly high percentage of recruits with criminal records -- and trying to hide it.
By Mark Benjamin


Feb. 2, 2006 | We're transforming our military. The things I look for are the following: morale, retention, and recruitment. And retention is high, recruitment is meeting goals, and people are feeling strong about the mission.

-- George W. Bush, in a Jan. 26 press conference

It was about 10 p.m. on Sept. 1, 2002, when a drug deal was arranged in the parking lot of a mini-mall in Newark, Del. The car with the drugs, driven by a man who would become a recruit for the Delaware Air National Guard, pulled up next to a parked car that was waiting for the exchange. Everything was going smoothly until the cops arrived.

"I parked and walked over to his car and got in and we were talking," the future Air Guardsman later wrote. "He asked if I had any marijuana and I said yes, that I bought some in Wilmington, Del., earlier that day. He said he wanted some." The drug dealer went on to recount in a Jan. 11, 2005, statement written to win admission into the military, "I walked back to my car [and] as soon as I got in my car an officer put his flashlight in the window and arrested me."

Under Air National Guard rules, the dealer had committed a "major offense" that would bar him from military service. Air National Guard recruits, like other members of the military, cannot have drug convictions on their record. But on Feb. 2, 2005, the applicant who had been arrested in the mini-mall was admitted into the Delaware Air National Guard. How? Through the use of a little-known, but increasingly important, escape clause known as a waiver. Waivers, which are generally approved at the Pentagon, allow recruiters to sign up men and women who otherwise would be ineligible for service because of legal convictions, medical problems or other reasons preventing them from meeting minimum standards.
The story of that unnamed Air National Guard recruit (whose name is blacked out in his statement) is based on documents obtained by Salon under the Freedom of Information Act. It illustrates one of the tactics that the military is using in its uphill battle to meet recruiting targets during the Iraq war. The personnel problems are acute. The Air National Guard, for example, missed its recruiting target by 14 percent last year. And the regular Army missed its goal by 8 percent, its largest recruiting shortfall since 1979.

This is where waivers come in. According to statistics provided to Salon by the office of the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, the Army said that 17 percent (21,880 new soldiers) of its 2005 recruits were admitted under waivers. Put another way, more soldiers than are in an entire infantry division entered the Army in 2005 without meeting normal standards. This use of waivers represents a 42 percent increase since the pre-Iraq year of 2000. (All annual figures used in this article are based on the government's fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30. So fiscal year 2006 began Oct. 1, 2005.)
In fact, even the already high rate of 17 percent underestimates the use of waivers, as the Pentagon combined the Army's figures with the lower ones for reserve forces to dilute the apparent percentage. Equally significant is the Army's currently liberal use of "moral waivers," which are issued to recruits who have committed what are loosely defined as criminal offenses. Officially, the Pentagon states that most waivers issued on moral grounds are for minor infractions like traffic tickets. Yet documents obtained by Salon show that many of the offenses are more serious and include drunken driving and domestic abuse.
Last year, 37 percent of the Army's waivers (about 8,000 soldiers) were based on moral grounds. Like waivers as a whole, these waivers are proliferating -- they're 32 percent higher than in the prewar year of 2000. As a result, the odds are going up that the soldiers fighting and taking the casualties in Iraq entered the Army with a criminal record.
"The more of those people you take, the more problems you are going to have and the less effective they are going to be," said Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense under Reagan and a senior fellow at the progressive Center for American Progress. "This is another way you are lowering your standards to meet your goals." Retired Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, who was the Army's chief intelligence officer from 1981 to 1985, also called the increase in waivers "disturbing."
He expressed concern that the lower standards would place a burden on military commanders who have to deal with "more lawbreakers and soldiers with anti-social behavior in their units."
Even without the waivers, the Army has lowered its standards for enlistees. The Army has eased restrictions on recruiting high school dropouts. It also raised the maximum recruitment age from 35 to 39. Moreover, last fall the Army announced that it would be doubling the number of soldiers that it admits who score near the bottom on a military aptitude test.

In response to inquiries about the number of waivers being used, the Pentagon's assistant secretary for public affairs issued a three-page statement to Salon on Monday, headlined, "Military Recruiting -- High Standards With Limited Waivers." Regarding the use of moral waivers, it argues that "in most cases, the [criminal] charges were from a time when the applicant was young and immature." The Pentagon document contends that many waivers were "simply for an unusual number of traffic violations." It also cites as typical in waiver cases such minor offenses as "curfew violations, littering, disorderly conduct, etc."
Other Pentagon officials, who requested anonymity, cautioned against regarding this statement from the public affairs desk as the definitive word on the waiver question. These personnel experts stressed that the Army has a major problem with its use of exemptions from normal enlistment standards. These sources went on to say that the Army's statistical data appears to have been scrubbed to make its use of waivers look more infrequent than it actually is.
One Pentagon official, whom Salon asked to inspect the Army's official waiver figure, said the Army's claim that it has issued waivers to 17 percent of recruits "is not a correct number." In fact, the percentage should be higher. The Army has made the number appear lower by combining data from Army Reserve forces, including the Army National Guard -- even though the Guard has its own separate recruiting program and (based on information provided to Salon under the FOIA) used waivers in only 6 percent of all cases in 2005.

When pressed, the office of public affairs admitted that it had lumped together data from several military services to derive the official Army waiver number. Lt. Col. Ellen G. Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman in the office of public affairs, confirmed that the data provided to Salon had combined the waivers records of the regular Army, the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard into a single entry. She confirmed by e-mail: "Yes, these numbers include the active duty and reserve components."
Krenke referred questions about the Army's actual waiver rate to its Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky. Julia Bobick, an Army spokeswoman there, said her unit had received the document that the Pentagon had provided Salon and was "re-looking" at its own data in light of the follow-up questions. Until that reexamination is complete, Bobick said, the Army would have no additional comment. "The numbers that we have are not releasable," she said. "We are re-looking at these numbers in light of that query."

In short, the military's explanation seems a variant of Catch-22. Officials now admit that the Army waiver data originally given to Salon was contaminated with extraneous numbers, but the Army cannot comment on what its actual waiver percentage might be, since the Pentagon figures are so muddled. When told of these numbers games, Korb said, "I'm sure that somebody on Capitol Hill is going to demand the answers."
It is no secret to Congress that the Army, which is fighting the brunt of the war in Iraq, is facing a severe personnel crisis. A Pentagon-commissioned report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments leaked last week warned that prolonged deployments and recruiting problems were "breaking" the Army. A chapter of that report, titled "A Recruiting and Retention Crisis?" goes so far as to say that the grind of war on the Army -- rather than any political imperatives from Washington -- will accentuate the pace of military withdrawal from Iraq.
Odom offered a similar interpretation: "We will get out this year, not because we want to; we don't have any more troops to send. What we are seeing is the declining capability of the Army caused by the administration's manning and deployment policies."
A contrary, though far from surprising, view was offered by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Asked about the report warning of a broken Army at a press conference last week, Rumsfeld said, "I just can't imagine someone looking at the United States armed forces today and suggesting that they are close to breaking."
This fits with the Pentagon's official response that most Army waivers on moral grounds are for minor infractions like traffic tickets and littering. While there is no way to independently verify those claims regarding the Army, records from another branch of service suggest how recruiting waivers can easily be misused.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, Salon obtained copies of a one-inch stack of waivers granted by the Air National Guard from January to July 2005. Many of the offenses excused are significantly more serious than driving with a defective tail light or failing to return overdue library books.
Lt. Gen. Daniel James III, the Air National Guard director, told the House Committee on Armed Services last July 19, "The Air National Guard's success is rooted in the quality of our recruits and our ability to retain them. Our people are unequivocally our most valued resource."
Yet according to the waivers, just four days earlier the Air Guard's national headquarters had approved the enlistment of a California recruit who had been charged in October 2003 with "assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury." True, the recruit was a 17-year-old juvenile when he committed the crime for which he was later convicted, but that date was less than two years before he was admitted to the Air Guard.

Other examples from the Air Guard files suggest a wider problem: After his parents filed a domestic-abuse complaint against him in 2000, a recruit in Rhode Island was sentenced to one year of probation, ordered to have "no contact" with his parents, and required to undergo counseling and to pay court costs. Air National Guard rules say domestic violence convictions make recruits ineligible -- no exceptions granted. But the records show that the recruiter in this case brought the issue to an Air Guard staff judge advocate, who reviewed the file and determined that the offense did not "meet the domestic violence crime criteria." As a result of this waiver, the recruit was admitted to his state's Air Guard on May 3, 2005.
A recruit with DWI violations in June 2001 and April 2002 received a waiver to enter the Iowa Air National Guard on July 15, 2005. The waiver request from the Iowa Guard to the Pentagon declares that the recruit "realizes that he made the wrong decision to drink and drive."
Another recruit for the Rhode Island Air National Guard finished five years of probation in 2002 for breaking and entering, apparently into his girlfriend's house. A waiver got him into the Guard in June 2005.
A recruit convicted in January 2004 for possession of marijuana, drug paraphernalia and stolen license-plate tags got into the Hawaii Air National Guard with a waiver little more than a year later, on March 3, 2005.
Taken together, the troubling statistics from the Army and anecdotal information derived from the files of the Air National Guard raise a warning flag about the extent to which the military is lowering its standards to fight the war in Iraq. The president may be correct in his recent press conference boast that "we're transforming the military." But the abuse of recruiting waivers prompts the question: In what direction is this military transformation headed?

Tock this is the National Guard....you were talking about the Marine Corps. I could have told you that the Army's recruiting standards have lowered somewhat.

[southmadejd]

tock-1st of all the USAF is considered a joke in other branches and there is another 3 branches that arent as relaxed. and if your wanting to mix gays with straights of the same gender it would be the same as mixing men and women together(straight) and that wont work out will it?

For real man, don't say things like this. You should respect Tock for serving for our country.

When I was in the Marine Corps we used to be jealous of the living conditions the Air Force got. But I still respected them.

To get back to the main topic....I think it is completely wrong for these people in Berkely to decide to "kick" the Marine Corps out of their town. That is ridiculous. You are going to kick out " the few, the proud", the branch of the military that has been dubbed " first to fight", does anything that they have done to protect this country not count for these assholes. Do they not realize that the only reason they are allowed to make such ridiculous statements is because the Marine Corps, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard are the ones that protect their 1st amendment amongst others. It really just sucks when there are Americans that live in this country that can be so disrespectful to our Armed Services.

And to think I am getting recalled....this really does suck.

[LawMan018]

I'm sorry. I think this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read... Kicking the Marines out? The very men and woman who've fought for our country since the beginning? Who without their efforts (as well as the other branches of course) we wouldn't be our own little country... Someones not very appreciative of their country, regardless of what is going on now. Some people just don't have any respect at all.

[goodcents]

Capt, chime in, we are all friends

[dhriscerr]

What about gay Marines/Soldiers/Airmen/Officers working in offices? Working as military police? Engineers? Doctors? Lawyers? Planning? Chaplains? Cooks? Truck Drivers? Aircraft mechanics? Air Traffic Controllers? Computer Technicians? Communications? Electronic Technicans?

Very few of the jobs in the military involve battlefield conditions or sleeping in close quarters, like submarines. So, until the entire military becomes one giant battlefield, this concern isn't really valid. It is, however, an excellent cover for what the real concern is.

The thing about it is, that once your in Iraq or Afgahnistan everyone becomes part of the battle. I understand some people do not ever leave the compounds, but we had engineers, Chaplains, Cooks, Obviously truckdrivers, and Communications guys with us on some of our convoys that were attacked, and ended up becoming over night and extended missions. I personally have absolutely no problem with gay people, and serving in the Military, but I think there is nothing wrong with the don't ask don't tell policy. If I don't know and no one else does then where is the problem, its once the issue becomes known that problems arise.

And for the person that said Recruiters are the Scum of the Earth. Have you been in the Military? You think those guys want to be recruiters? Many are forced into that position, or drill instructors or MSG duty or any other B billet job. It almost has to be done to advance your military career anymore because of the bonus points it gives you on advancement. One of my best friends is a Recruiter and not by choice. I can tell you for a fact that over 90% of the people that they sign up come to him instead of him recruiting them. And the life of a Recruiter is absolute hell, 16+ hour days 7 days a week to try to sign up 2 people a month, If you do your a hero, but the first month you don't make quota you might as well be the sh#t on the bottom of everyone's shoe. Being a recruiter will break your career faster than anything if you don't succeed at it. My buddy has a 2 year old and a baby to be born in the next few weeks, and he might be lucky to spend 3 hours a week with him and his wife, so before you go disrespecting people on the job they do make sure you get your facts strait and know what your talking about. Every salesman trying to get you to buy insurance, and every telemarketer and every public defender is just trying to put food on their families tables. Lawyers must be scum because they help murderers and rapist get out of jail. And then half of the guys on this forum deal with sources that probably sell AAS to kids and have them injecting things into their bodies that they have no idea about, but your source is your saving grace. My point is that you need to think very broad before you go off attacking people. (just like the person that said the other branches talk sh#t about the A.F. ya being a Marine, we talk sh#t to them, and ARMY stands for Aren't Real Marines Yet, just like we are Jarheads, and Bullet Sponges) the fact of the matter is they Pledged the Oath to defend the country and signed on the dotted line just like every other branch, as far as I'm concerned anyone that served in any branch is in my extended family)

[dhriscerr]

Fuk it, I'll say it. recruiters are the lowest form of life in my opinion. They will say anything to get you in. "I want to fly jets"(duhhhhhhhhhhh) sign here and you will be in a jet before you know it I love the military and the soldiers but it has been turned into a merc force. You should see the money they are throwing out to keep guys

I really respect you goodcents and you've said a lot of good things, and contributed heavily to this board, but I absolutly do not agree with you. And of course they are throwing out that kind of money to keep guys! How else are they going to get them??? I went to Iraq 2 times and wasn't about to go 3. I turned down a 40K tax free bonus, so I could watch my daughters grow up! Unless you can figure out a better way to get people to defend our country? I am obviously a little bias here, but I'm open to suggestions on how to keep our military forces at a high enough level to sustain operations? Not to mention if they are keeping branches from recruiting that is not going to help! Unless you want to see a draft or be like Isreal where everyone is required 2 years of service we need to make use of the system we have.

[meathead320]

"The only thing we americans fear more than a terrorist, is a gay-hero saving us from one." - comedy central

I was in Iraq 2004-2005.

Army 11B, was fun. Route IRISH, RPG alley, the real fun stuff.

My opinion, just make gay companies, let em'screw eachother, and see if it works. If it does, fine, if it fails, then we leanr what works and what does not. No big deal to me.

Honestly, I knew some guys in my company that were deffinately gay, but did not talk about it. I could care less really.

[Tock]

We will all have some excitement come this time next year (in Feb. 2009). The Democratic presidential candidates have all said they'll undo the Don't Ask Don't Tell law, and integrate the military. My guess is that we'll have a Democratic President next January, and a Democratic Senate and Congress, and they won't threaten to retaliate the way the Republican Senate and Congress did back when Clinton tried to integrate the military.

And a lot of gays and lesbians are gonna get hurt, some are gonna be murdered, all because some heterosexuals can't stand gays.

[Tock]

I personally have absolutely no problem with gay people, and serving in the Military, but I think there is nothing wrong with the don't ask don't tell policy. If I don't know and no one else does then where is the problem, its once the issue becomes known that problems arise.

Problems come up when civilians tell the military who's gay and who isn't.

For instance, suppose Pvt. John Doe was openly gay before he enlisted, and led a 100% closeted life in the military. He never tells, and nobody ever asks. Then someone who knew him stands outside the base main enterance with a big sign that says, "Pvt. John Doe is GAY!"

What usually happens in those cases is an investigation ensues, the facts are uncovered, and Pvt. Doe gets kicked out.

It's a law that doesn't work.

[dhriscerr]

Look we can look at this from a 100 different angles, lives will be lost and careers ruined either way. I guess when and if it happens, then that will be the only true measuring stick to use and until then, its like anyother gay debate, religion in school, abortion or any other hot topic, people will believe in their own ways and it will be almost impossible to swing them. Im not for it or against it, but I could make 50 arguments either way, and when someone standing on the outside looking in that doesn't really care can find that much debatable information, just think how much fuel the heavily opinionated person has.

[Kingweb50]

Today I read that a senator from South Carolina said he is going to push that Berkeley does not get any more federal money if they kick the Marines out of the station.

[dhriscerr]

It seems like that would be the logical thing for the gov't to do when a city government tries to oust a federal gov't program.

[Tock]

Today I read that a senator from South Carolina said he is going to push that Berkeley does not get any more federal money if they kick the Marines out of the station.

Ya, well, they haven't kicked them out, and according to the original post, all they did was pass a resolution telling . . .

". . . the U.S. Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

Dunno what's so terrible with a city council passing a resolution against an entity that violates its local discrimination laws.

[Logan13]

U.S. Senator Wants to Revoke Funding From City of Berkeley, Calif., for Vote to Boot Marines
Fox news

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., says the City of Berkeley, Calif., no longer deserves federal money.

DeMint was angered after learning that the Berkeley City Council voted this week to tell the U.S. Marine Corps to remove its recruiting station from the city's downtown.

"This is a slap in the face to all brave service men and women and their families," DeMint said in a prepared statement. "The First Amendment gives the City of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money."

"If the city can’t show respect for the Marines that have fought, bled and died for their freedom, Berkeley should not be receiving special taxpayer-funded handouts," he added.

In the meantime, a senior Marine official tells FOX News that the Marine office in Berkeley isn't going anywhere.

"We understand things are different there, but some people just don't get it. This is a part of the military machine that gives them the right to do what they do, but what they are doing is extreme," the official said.

DeMint said he will draft legislation to rescind any earmarks dedicated for the City of Berkeley in the recently passed appropriations bill — which his office tallied to value about $2.1 million. He said that any money taken back would be transferred to the Marines.

DeMint's office provided a preliminary list of items that would be subject to his proposal:

— $975,000 for the University of California at Berkeley, for the Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service, which may include establishing an endowment, and for cataloguing the papers of Congressman Robert Matsui.

— $750,000 for the Berkeley/Albana ferry service.

— $243,000 for the Chez Panisse Foundation, for a school lunch initiative to integrate lessons about wellness, sustainability and nutrition into the academic curriculum.

— $94,000 for a Berkeley public safety interoperability program.

— $87,000 for the Berkeley Unified School District, nutrition education program.

The Marine official, speaking with FOX News on Friday, said Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway scoffed at the news, but there are no plans for to protest the City Council's decisions. There are definitely no plans to move the recruiting station either.

"To actually put something into law that encourages the disruption of a federal office is ridiculous. They are not going to kick a federal office out of its rightful place there, and this is not going to discourage those young patriots who want to be Marines," the official said.

The Berkeley City Council this week voted to tell the Marines their downtown recruiting station is not welcome and "if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome guests," according to The Associated Press.

The council also voted to explore whether a city anti-discrimination law applies to the Marines, with a focus on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents open homosexuality in the military.

The council also voted to give the antiwar group Code Pink a parking space in front of the recruiting office once a week for six months, as well as a protest permit.

The Marine recruiting office in Berkeley has been open for about one year, but has been the subject of recent protests by Code Pink members.

[Red Ketchup]

My oponion on the original subject here (as like many I have strayed) is that as far as I am concerned, military recruiters should be allowed on ANY public land in the country they protect. Period.

We have a similar problem here with people whining that military recruiters are setting up boothes in community colleges... well those colleges belong to the government so as far as I am concerned the military has every rights to be there.

Just my 2 cents worth...

Red

[peteroy01]

So that makes his contribution to the country less meaningful because your PERSONAL OPINION is that the USAF is a joke among the military branches in the US....not quite sure I follow your logic here. Have more respect for people that have served please, regardless of your feelings on what particular branch.

and whats seriously wrong with saying that i think the USAF is a joke? have you guys served? if not, then your opinion means chicken sh1t to me. you guys are flaming me on my opinion and ive been on the other side of the fence. have you? so go put another little yellow ribbon magnet on the back of your cars and ill go buff my purple heart license plate.

[dhriscerr]

and whats seriously wrong with saying that i think the USAF is a joke? have you guys served? if not, then your opinion means chicken sh1t to me. you guys are flaming me on my opinion and ive been on the other side of the fence. have you? so go put another little yellow ribbon magnet on the back of your cars and ill go buff my purple heart license plate.

I have been on the other side of the fence, and your the kind of guy that goes over to Iraq to prove something to himself, then comes home and thinks everyone owes you something and no one else is as good as you. You want my opinion since you said everyone else that didn't go over doesn't matter. Well my opinion is your an arrogant, asshole! Have some F'n respect for someone that served. What was your MOS? Who where you with? For all we know you were a Marine, that sat at IPAC and played on the computer all day. The Airforce was there when we called in Fixed Wing support around Fallujah and Ramadi. The airforce brought us in to Al asad Airbase to get into the fight, and flew us back out of country. They dropped supplies, did logistics, provided all kinds of things what made the Grunt's jobs possible. You think 6-10 mags of 5.56 and a pair of NVG's are all you need to fight the good fight. Your wrong and you don't give credit where its due. We talked a lot of Sh#t to the Navy Corpsmen, but when my buddy lost both of his arms when an RPG hit his SAW mount it was the Navy guy and not the Marines that kept his cool and got on the Helo and probably saved his life. We can't do it with out them, and they can't do it with out us.