The policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) resurfaced last week during President Obama’s State of the Union address. The 17-year old policy, controversial when President Bill Clinton signed it into law, is officially listed under Title 10, Section 654 of the United States code. The code reads as follows:
(b) Policy. – A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that -
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.
In general, the policy states that if a member of the military expresses a homosexual desire or lifestyle, they are a disruptive presence within the armed forces. As the bill states, “There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces,” giving Congress the right to limit who can or cannot serve in the military for whatever reason them determine. But is it right to bar those living an alternative lifestyle?
This policy hasn’t barred homosexuals from joining the armed forces, but it has required them to keep their orientations secret. DADT didn’t cause this, as people were keeping their orientation secret for decades because it wasn’t socially acceptable. But now that we have high-profile celebrities openly discussing their alternative lifestyles and television shows with the leading character being gay, public opinion is softening towards what was once viewed as a perversion.
But is there a problem with military personnel living a secret life? Our friends over at Kn@ppster has this to say in their article “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — A Threat to National Security“:
If they’re in the military, then they are vulnerable — not because of their sexual orientation, but because of the military’s policy of requiring that that orientation be kept secret on pain of discharge.
Because they are vulnerable, the military is vulnerable. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” makes every man and woman in the military — of any sexual orientation, because a false allegation can be just as much a career-killer as a real one — a potential vector for infiltration by foreign intelligence services.
Could homosexuals under DADT become a national security risk? I don’t think that the fear of being exposed by a foreign entity would cause the service member to compromise national security. After all, these individuals have sacrificed their personal lives to serve and defend their nation. If they were so easily influenced, odds are they wouldn’t have signed up to begin with.
On the other hand, it only takes one person to cause a lot of damage. We have seen the damage done by a single compromised serviceman in the past. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people at Fort Hood in November. Warrant Officer John Walker, Jr. passed cryptographic secrets to the Soviets for 17 years during the Cold War. These two individuals are just examples of how it takes just one person to negatively impact the armed forces as well as putting many at risk.
Has DADT caused any events such as these to happen? Is it just a matter of time? I’m not in a position to answer either of those questions, but there is always the potential of someone being compromised, regardless of their sexual orientation. In the mean time, the military and Congress need to go back and evaluate the policy and see if it is still viable today as it was 17 years ago.
