I guess they weren't cunning enough

[MikeTwain]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144375,00.html

[Pace]

"I don't want any homos around when I'm trying to kill people."

[Derek Meister]

I'm surprised the article didn't try to put forth what's really the only moderately convincing argument for getting rid of people in an already under-staffed yet highly important position: the loss of their security clearance the second it becomes known they're homosexual.

The government feels that homosexuals could have their sexual orientation used to blackmail them into giving away secrets in exchange for keeping their secret safe. Therefore, just like any significant debt will result in the loss of your security clearance, so too will admitting to being a homosexual.

[Brian Rucker]

They weren't fired for being homosexuals as far as I can tell. They were fired for violating the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. That would indicate, to me at least, these weren't secretive closeted away fellows that would be the likely candidates of blackmail attempts. These were gays that had nothing to hide and weren't inclined to - unfortunately for them.

[Pace]

Further, if our army and populace weren't such bigoted fuckheads, there wouldn't be power in blackmail.

Knowing is half the battle.

[MikeTwain]

Just remember kids, Don't Ask Don't Tell is a Clinton invention.

:roll:

[Jakub]

Just remember kids, Don't Ask Don't Tell is a Clinton invention.

:roll:
Which is a significant improvement over the "Fags get beaten up and kicked out, and hopefully die of AIDS" Reaganite military.

[Matthew Gallant]

Just remember kids, Don't Ask Don't Tell is a Clinton invention.

:roll:
It was a compromise and was not his preferred policy outcome.

[Stroker Ace]

haha, a cunning runt! get it?

[Moore]

I'm surprised the article didn't try to put forth what's really the only moderately convincing argument for getting rid of people in an already under-staffed yet highly important position: the loss of their security clearance the second it becomes known they're homosexual.

The government feels that homosexuals could have their sexual orientation used to blackmail them into giving away secrets in exchange for keeping their secret safe. Therefore, just like any significant debt will result in the loss of your security clearance, so too will admitting to being a homosexual.

does not compute!

"I'm gay!"

"Hrm.. someone could blackmail you with that knowledge"

[Derek Meister]

If you don't think someone couldn't blackmail a soldier, even one who fully admits such to his friends, family and even co-workers, with knowledge of their gayness, you haven't spent nearly enough time around the military.

Take the homophobia that exists in stereotypes of the south and multiply it by ten, then mix in some military bravado, and that's what you're dealing with when it comes to the less understanding troops.

It's one thing to admit you're gay to your commanding officer, but entirely another to have your entire battalion find out, for example. And it's not like the outed individual could expect not to be harassed and threatened, even assaulted.

Not all troops are like that, not by a long shot, but there are just enough bigoted, violent soldiers out there who could make working impossible if they were to find out.

I hate the way it is, but that's what you get when most people who have better opportunities in careers don't go enlisted.

[Pace]

Of course they couldn't expect not to be harrassed and etc... the army does nothing to dissuade such acts, and even seems to encourage such bigotry.

Makes you all teary-eyed, don't it? I'm going to go listen to Lee Greenwood and practice my hoo-rahs.

[Bullhajj]

Just remember kids, Don't Ask Don't Tell is a Clinton invention.

:roll:
Which is a significant improvement over the "Fags get beaten up and kicked out, and hopefully die of AIDS" Reaganite military.

To be fair, it was like that in Carter's military, too

[Qenan]

Uh-huh. And Ford's, and Nixon's... the point made was that Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", while not his preferred outcome, was still an improvement.

I can't believe our Armed Forces are still so homophobic, though. Lame.

[Jason McCullough]

Kicking out homos is the only thing we can do in the light of the military's homophobia and the resulting security clearance/blackmail problems.

[shift6]

In fairness, blackmail concerning homosexuality has been a huge part of compromising assets among spies for the last 50 years. If the KGB got you on film kissing another guy, baby they were going to show the world unless you gave them good information. In this limited sense, homosexuality isn't viewed as bad, just as potentially compromising for an intelligence worker.

[extarbags]

In fairness, blackmail concerning homosexuality has been a huge part of compromising assets among spies for the last 50 years. If the KGB got you on film kissing another guy, baby they were going to show the world unless you gave them good information. In this limited sense, homosexuality isn't viewed as bad, just as potentially compromising for an intelligence worker.

That strikes me as nothing but an excuse for homophobia. After all, they don't have a rule that says you can't be an intelligence officer if you're cheating on your wife.

[Derek Meister]

Actually, yes they do.

In fact, you can spend time in the brig over it.

[extarbags]

Actually, yes they do.

In fact, you can spend time in the brig over it.

o rly

Well do they have a rule that says you can't be an intelligence officer if you have an illegitimate child from before your marriage that you don't want your family to know about?

[shift6]

In fairness, blackmail concerning homosexuality has been a huge part of compromising assets among spies for the last 50 years. If the KGB got you on film kissing another guy, baby they were going to show the world unless you gave them good information. In this limited sense, homosexuality isn't viewed as bad, just as potentially compromising for an intelligence worker.
That strikes me as nothing but an excuse for homophobia. After all, they don't have a rule that says you can't be an intelligence officer if you're cheating on your wife.
So "we shouldn't put easily compromised people in intelligence positions" is precisely the same thing as "I hate gays". Thanks for clearing that up dude! I guess it turns out that I hate gamblers, drinkers, druggies, and foreign nationals as well!

[extarbags]

In fairness, blackmail concerning homosexuality has been a huge part of compromising assets among spies for the last 50 years. If the KGB got you on film kissing another guy, baby they were going to show the world unless you gave them good information. In this limited sense, homosexuality isn't viewed as bad, just as potentially compromising for an intelligence worker.
That strikes me as nothing but an excuse for homophobia. After all, they don't have a rule that says you can't be an intelligence officer if you're cheating on your wife.
So "we shouldn't put easily compromised people in intelligence positions" is precisely the same thing as "I hate gays". Thanks for clearing that up dude! I guess it turns out that I hate gamblers, drinkers, druggies, and foreign nationals as well!

Gays aren't necessarily easily compromised though. Everyone could be blackmailed for something.

[Jason McCullough]

Erm, is the circular logic of "we'll fire you if you're gay because you can be blackmailed if we'll fire you if you're gay" that hard to figure out? The only reason to keep it secret & be potentially blackmailed is that the military will come after you for it. Note this is different from every other example given - in all of the other cases, there's a third party you don't want to find out, leaving you subject to blackmail even without government security clearence issues.

I guess if you want to retain "no closet cases" as a security clearance issue, ok, but "no out homosexuals" is a crime against logic.

[Bren]

Well do they have a rule that says you can't be an intelligence officer if you have an illegitimate child from before your marriage that you don't want your family to know about?

That depends. Are you gay?

[shift6]

Gays aren't necessarily easily compromised though. Everyone could be blackmailed for something.
That's true, everyone can be compromised. Thus the reason for 6 month minumum background checks for security clearances, personal interviews with a candidates past neighbors and freinds, etc. Any many intelligence people on every side have been turned over the years for reason of ideology, money, and aprobation instead of "personal secrets" (of which homosexuality is only one). That doesn't mean you are making a great judgment call allowing people with known gambling problems, or known money problems, or known sympathies with opposing governments into your intelligence organizations.

Hey if homosexuality wasn't such a taboo, it wouldn't be an effective blackmail tool. I agree! But the fact is that right now, it is.

Erm, is the circular logic of "we'll fire you if you're gay because you can be blackmailed if we'll fire you if you're gay" that hard to figure out?
Actually, that sentence is hard as a motherfucker to figure out. So to answer your question, yes.

The only reason to keep it secret & be potentially blackmailed is that the military will come after you for it. Note this is different from every other example given - in all of the other cases, there's a third party you don't want to find out, leaving you subject to blackmail even without government security clearence issues.

I guess if you want to retain "no closet cases" as a security clearance issue, ok, but "no out homosexuals" is a crime against logic.
It isn't a crime against logic. Where do you come up with these bizarre phrases? That sentence you wrote above is a "crime against logic", or against good writing style at least.

This is just a statement of the state of affairs. By the way it goes beyond the military into "civilian" intelligence service as well. It even goes into civilians industry that works for or with the government. I imagine over the next 20 years it will become less and less of an issue as society grows out of old ideas about homosexuality. But the USSR/CIS and USA were still using it as a tool of espionage less than 15 years ago.

[extarbags]

It isn't a crime against logic. Where do you come up with these bizarre phrases? That sentence you wrote above is a "crime against logic", or against good writing style at least.

This is just a statement of the state of affairs. By the way it goes beyond the military into "civilian" intelligence service as well. It even goes into civilians industry that works for or with the government. I imagine over the next 20 years it will become less and less of an issue as society grows out of old ideas about homosexuality. But the USSR/CIS and USA were still using it as a tool of espionage less than 15 years ago.

No, he's got a good point. If the stated reason for not allowing homosexuals in the military is that they can be blackmailed over it, why can't open homosexuals be allowed in? I mean, it's incredibly hard to blackmail someone over something that's public knowledge anyway, right?

[shift6]

No, he's got a good point. If the stated reason for not allowing homosexuals in the military is that they can be blackmailed over it, why can't open homosexuals be allowed in? I mean, it's incredibly hard to blackmail someone over something that's public knowledge anyway, right?
I think you're being overly generous with what it means to be "out", although again this isn't just in military environments. A good agent wouldn't just threaten to "tell the guys in your unit". You're talking about severe embarassment here. Generally something that would include provocation (such as the agent hiring a gay prostitute toreally lay it on you), leading to a human lapse of judgement taking place in, say, a hotel room with a video camera. Then threatening to send the video of you in action to parents, relatives, employers, etc.

It is just as compromising as any other perceived flaw. Unless and until society at large no longer sees it as a flaw, it will be an effective tool for espionage, in my view.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh yes, hiring a prostitute and videotaping it to send out and humilate you is a unique risk of being gay.

[shift6]

Oh yes, hiring a prostitute and videotaping it to send out and humilate you is a unique risk of being gay.
Hey asshat. If someone filmed a guy boning some Moscow hooker and sent it home to their parents and family and employer, it wouldn't have nearly the impact if it were with another guy.

To wit, the last sentence of my previous post: "It is just as compromising as any other perceived flaw. Unless and until society at large no longer sees it as a flaw, it will be an effective tool for espionage, in my view."

You are now in the negative with your political capital.

[Jason McCullough]

You really can't see how "openly gay" invalidates every line of that paragraph?

[Nick Walter]

You really can't see how "openly gay" invalidates every line of that paragraph?

It really doesn't though. Even someone who is "openly gay" to anyone who asks still doesn't generally hang up a sign to tell their sexual orientation with all their neighbors, with the bank that gave them a home loan, with the local police that theoretically protect them, etc. Even if they are "openly gay" to all their friends and family, spreading the news throughout the community can still be used to humiliate and spur hate crimes. That is absolutely true until American culture in general attaches no stigma to homosexuality. And we are far from that point sadly.

[Jason McCullough]

Ok, that sounds right for Wyoming. For DC? San Francisco? NY?

[Nick Walter]

Ok, that sounds right for Wyoming. For DC? San Francisco? NY?

I do see your point, but the U.S. govt can't try to look that finely at shades of grey on something as critical as security clearances. If someone is gay, take away the clearance. It's not a moral judgement, just a practical admission that this person might (might, not necessarilly will) be susceptible to pressure in some aspect of their personal life.

[Pace]

Ok, that sounds right for Wyoming. For DC? San Francisco? NY?

I do see your point, but the U.S. govt can't try to look that finely at shades of grey on something as critical as security clearances. If someone is gay, take away the clearance. It's not a moral judgement, just a practical admission that this person might (might, not necessarilly will) be susceptible to pressure in some aspect of their personal life.

That's certainly a viable concept, but where does it end? Who is not susceptible to pressure in some aspect of their personal life? I know there's tons of stuff in my personal life I'd rather not have discussed, and none of those things involve homosexual tendencies.

[Nick Walter]

That's certainly a viable concept, but where does it end? Who is not susceptible to pressure in some aspect of their personal life? I know there's tons of stuff in my personal life I'd rather not have discussed, and none of those things involve homosexual tendencies.

It ends somewhere reasonable? Perfection must give way to practicality. In a perfect world every single detail of a persons life and personality could be finely weighed before granting a security clearance. Of course that's not feasible so instead they look for certain high-percentage danger signals like massive debts or a gambling problem or whatnot that indicate a person might have problems or vulnerabilities in their personal life that make them susceptible to pressure. It's not a perfect system but it's a good way to work within the realm of the possible and practical.

[Pace]

That's certainly a viable concept, but where does it end? Who is not susceptible to pressure in some aspect of their personal life? I know there's tons of stuff in my personal life I'd rather not have discussed, and none of those things involve homosexual tendencies.

It ends somewhere reasonable? Perfection must give way to practicality. In a perfect world every single detail of a persons life and personality could be finely weighed before granting a security clearance. Of course that's not feasible so instead they look for certain high-percentage danger signals like massive debts or a gambling problem or whatnot that indicate a person might have problems or vulnerabilities in their personal life that make them susceptible to pressure. It's not a perfect system but it's a good way to work within the realm of the possible and practical.

Or it's another load of b.s. to justify and engender homophobia and bigotry. Tomato, tomahto. If it was so important to know things like that, the policy wouldn't be "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Nick Walter]

That's certainly a viable concept, but where does it end? Who is not susceptible to pressure in some aspect of their personal life? I know there's tons of stuff in my personal life I'd rather not have discussed, and none of those things involve homosexual tendencies.

It ends somewhere reasonable? Perfection must give way to practicality. In a perfect world every single detail of a persons life and personality could be finely weighed before granting a security clearance. Of course that's not feasible so instead they look for certain high-percentage danger signals like massive debts or a gambling problem or whatnot that indicate a person might have problems or vulnerabilities in their personal life that make them susceptible to pressure. It's not a perfect system but it's a good way to work within the realm of the possible and practical.

Or it's another load of b.s. to justify and engender homophobia and bigotry. Tomato, tomahto. If it was so important to know things like that, the policy wouldn't be "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

So you are seriously of the opinion that being a homosexual in the military does not expose one to a greater risk of pressure? That the military just cleverly slipped that into the rules to persecute gays?

[Jason McCullough]

Back in the 1950s, yes, I can see how that made sense as a security clearance issue. But it's not the 1950s anymore, and it's generally not a blackmailable category anymore.

[Nick Walter]

Back in the 1950s, yes, I can see how that made sense as a security clearance issue. But it's not the 1950s anymore, and it's generally not a blackmailable category anymore.

I think we live in different Americas then.

[Bren]

Back in the 1950s, yes, I can see how that made sense as a security clearance issue. But it's not the 1950s anymore, and it's generally not a blackmailable category anymore.

I think we live in different Americas then.

http://shell.samurai.com/~bren/new_map.jpg

[Pace]

So you are seriously of the opinion that being a homosexual in the military does not expose one to a greater risk of pressure? That the military just cleverly slipped that into the rules to persecute gays?

That's not actually what I said. What I said was, they put it in place to JUSTIFY the persecution of gays. Rather than dealing with the issue, they put rules in place that allow them to sweep it under the carpet. "Pay no attention to the fundamentalist values behind our honorable band of liberators."

I think that if the military was as honorable, not to mention as desperate for warm bodies, as you claim else-thread, they'd certainly not let a little thing like cornholing or getting cornholed disqualify someone from service. If soldiers followed orders and respected the CoC as you claim they do and should do, then certainly they wouldn't, say, beat the shit out of someone with bars of soap in pillowcases. Certainly that never happens. Surely if a gay soldier stands up and announces that he's being blackmailed, he'll recieve fair treatment and support, and not be drubbed out of the military he enlisted to help.

Your hypocrisy is astounding. Color me boggled.

[Jason McCullough]

Anyone have a link to all the things they can revoke your security clearence for?

[Nick Walter]

So you are seriously of the opinion that being a homosexual in the military does not expose one to a greater risk of pressure? That the military just cleverly slipped that into the rules to persecute gays?

That's not actually what I said. What I said was, they put it in place to JUSTIFY the persecution of gays. Rather than dealing with the issue, they put rules in place that allow them to sweep it under the carpet. "Pay no attention to the fundamentalist values behind our honorable band of liberators."

I think that if the military was as honorable, not to mention as desperate for warm bodies, as you claim else-thread, they'd certainly not let a little thing like cornholing or getting cornholed disqualify someone from service. If soldiers followed orders and respected the CoC as you claim they do and should do, then certainly they wouldn't, say, beat the shit out of someone with bars of soap in pillowcases. Certainly that never happens. Surely if a gay soldier stands up and announces that he's being blackmailed, he'll recieve fair treatment and support, and not be drubbed out of the military he enlisted to help.

Your hypocrisy is astounding. Color me boggled.

Congratulations, through a combination of hyperbole, poor reasoning, misrepresenting my views from this thread, and misrepresenting my views from other uncited threads in this thread, you have become too incoherent to converse with.

I concede, you win. Whatever your point was, it must have been right.

[Nick Walter]

Anyone have a link to all the things they can revoke your security clearence for?

http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/adjguid/adjguidF.htm

I have a list of things to be considered when granting security clearances. I imagine it's the same list they would use to revoke one.

Interestingly, they say that sexual orientation isn't a factor, but then a paragraph or so later the document states:



Sexual behavior is relevant to security if it:

* involves a criminal offense;
* is compulsive or out-of-control;
* indicates a personality or emotional disorder;
* subjects the individual to undue influence or coercion;
* reflects lack of judgment or discretion.


Rather an interesting document overall. Obviously the bit about "subjects the individual to undue influence or coercion" is the relevant one to the discussion we are having.

[Pace]

Congratulations, through a combination of hyperbole, poor reasoning, misrepresenting my views from this thread, and misrepresenting my views from other uncited threads in this thread, you have become too incoherent to converse with.

I concede, you win. Whatever your point was, it must have been right.

Whoo hoo! I win!

Seriously, though. I don't think what I've said is that hard to parse. Let me know where I'm missing the point or misrepresenting you:

1. You claim that the army is justified in removing gays because they can be blackmailed.

2. I claim that the gays wouldn't be open for blackmail if the army didn't condone persecution of them, primarily through "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which intimates that once people know a person is gay, any persecution of said person is justified, since they don't belong in the army anyway.

3. In the 5,500 thread, you (and those who shared your stances) made various claims on the honor of our military, the cowardice of people who disagree and leave it, and the support available to members of the military who disagree with their situation and wish to speak out.

4. I claim that if the claims from 3 are true, then a gay person in the army would have recourse if and when they were blackmailed. Since the actuality of the situation is that confirmed homosexuals are summarily dismissed from service, the claims from 3 are unsupported, and more than likely fabrications.

Let me know where it stops making sense.

[shift6]

Back in the 1950s, yes, I can see how that made sense as a security clearance issue. But it's not the 1950s anymore, and it's generally not a blackmailable category anymore.
Right. American society has been accepting and open to homosexuality ever since the 50s. Good call, J.

[wildpokerman]

Actually, yes they do.

In fact, you can spend time in the brig over it.

o rly

Well do they have a rule that says you can't be an intelligence officer if you have an illegitimate child from before your marriage that you don't want your family to know about?

Can you be an intelligence officer if you like playing Pokemon?

[Bren]

Can you be an intelligence officer if you like playing Pokemon?

I believe that's considered "Extra curricular research in game theory".

[Jason McCullough]

Back in the 1950s, yes, I can see how that made sense as a security clearance issue. But it's not the 1950s anymore, and it's generally not a blackmailable category anymore.
Right. American society has been accepting and open to homosexuality ever since the 50s. Good call, J.

Huh?

[shift6]

You said that you don't believe homosexuality to be a "blackmailable category" anymore, and you implied probably not since the 1950s. The argumentation here suggest that it is listed precisely because it is something that can easily be cause of embarassment to a person, even one who is "openly gay". So since you believe that homosexuality isn't blackmail worthy material, therefore you appear to be claiming that homosexuality has been more or less socially acceptable and not cause for embarassment since the 1950s.

The fact is that until homosexuality becomes socially acceptable, it will be categorized in the same way as things like money problems, super huge egos, and addictions (physical like drugs and social like drinking or sex) when it comes to conservative (lower case "c") thinking and judgement calls.

[Jason McCullough]

Where did I imply that it stopped in the 1950s? I said it doesn't apply today to out homosexuals.