The Military & Same-Sex Spousal Benefits

The Troops Will Go Unpaid

From Yahoo News:  

Washington (AFP) - The US military's nearly 1.4 million troops will stay on the job in the case of a government shutdown but they will not get paid, the Pentagon said Friday.

And if Congress fails to agree on a new budget measure by the close of the fiscal year on Monday, September 30, "roughly half" the Defense Department's nearly 800,000 strong civilian work force would be placed on unpaid leave, top officials said.

The war effort in Afghanistan and other high-priority missions would not be affected but most training and a range of maintenance work would be cancelled if Congress remains deadlocked, according to the Pentagon's top financial officer Robert Hale.

"We wouldn't be able to do most training, we couldn't enter into most new contracts, routine maintenance would have to stop," he told reporters.

The Bias of the Media's Syria Coverage

Were The Syrian Rebels Using Chemical Weapons?

From Reuters: 

The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.

"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney-general who also served as prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, gave no details as to when or where sarin may have been used.

A Glimmer of Hope Against Action in Syria

From Huffington Post:

A resolution authorizing military force against Syria barely made it out of the hawkish Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- with the majority of Republicans opposing it -- and now is facing withering skepticism in Congress. While the Senate appears poised to come to some type of agreement, the "People's House," as it is known, is showing much more reluctance to approve the deeply unpopular bombing resolution. "Peace may well have a chance," said one top House GOP aide.

Public opinion surveys have been reflected in the outpouring of calls, emails and letters that have flooded House offices, running, say lawmakers, at more than 9 to 1 against intervention. The opposition spans the political spectrum.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said on Twitter that his delegation is unpersuaded and that public reaction has been fiercely opposed. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), who represents the libertarian opposition within the GOP, said that he's also seeing intense disapproval.

Discomfort with the war resolution is not just Republican. "Members on both sides [are] undecided, with most (not all) I've talked to feeling extremely uneasy and uncomfortable with this resolution," said one Democratic member. "I think if it went down today, it wouldn't pass the House. People though are truly undecided with concerns in a bipartisan way. The real question is if those who feel uncomfortable with this can be made to be comfortable with a resolution that has a much narrower scope."

Complicating the picture for advocates of intervention, at least 34 members who voted to support the Iraq war are now leaning against supporting intervention in Syria, presumably burned by experience.

For a more detailed look at the above map where you can find where your House member stands on action in Syria, click HERE. Luckily, mine is currently leaning no in what is one of the few instances i agree with him.

The Costs of War in Syria

Rep. Tammy Duckworth Lays the Smack-Down

Prince Harry, the Hero

From the Daily Mail: 

A gay soldier told last night how Prince Harry bravely rescued him from a terrifying homophobic attack by squaddies from a rival regiment. 

The Prince stepped in to save Trooper James Wharton after he was confronted by six soldiers threatening to ‘batter’ him. 

Trooper Wharton fled to find Harry – who was his tank commander – and tearfully told the Prince what had happened. 

‘I told him, “I think I’m going to be murdered by the infantry.” I climbed into the turret and talked Harry through exactly what had happened. He had a complete look of bewilderment on his face. 

‘I couldn’t stop the tears from welling up in my eyes. He said, “Right I’m going to sort this s*** out once and for all.”

'He climbed out of the tank and I poked my head out of the turret a few moments later to see him having a go,’ Wharton said.

~

After taking on the gang, Harry briefed a senior officer before returning to assure Wharton the situation had been ‘sorted’. 

The soldier, who quit the Army earlier this year, said: ‘I will always be grateful to Harry and I will never forget what happened. Until he went over and dealt with everything I was on track for a battering.’ 

The remarkable incident reinforces the view of Harry as an officer with unfailing commitment to the troops under his command.

There is a LOT more to this article, which gives a good deal of insight into Prince Harry and his time in the British military. It was a great read.

Requiem For a Soldier

Sec. Gates Calls GOP View of Benghazi "Cartoonish"

Robert Gates was the Secretary of Defense under Presidents George W. Bush (R) and Barack Obama (D).

Progressives Challenging Obama On Drones

Marriage News Watch: February 19, 2013

Obama Promises Equal Treatment In The Military

Marriage New Watch: February 11, 2013

Military to Extend Some Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses

From the Washington Post:

The Pentagon has decided to extend certain benefits to the spouses of gay and lesbian personnel, according to officials and people notified about the decision, responding to the increasingly vocal appeals of same-sex couples in the military. 

~

Officials at the Pentagon would not say which new benefits the department has determined it can extend to same-sex couples without violating the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that bars the federal government from legally recognizing same-sex unions. Gay rights advocates have called for benefits including housing privileges, access to base recreational facilities and joint duty assignments for couples in the military. 

Legal experts say, however, that the Pentagon will be unable to extend more than 100 benefits while the Defense of Marriage Act remains in place.

~

[Out-going Secretary of Defense Leon] Panetta is expected to make the announcement this week, according to a U.S. official and a congressional aide briefed on the decision. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement has not been made.

Conservative Hypocrisy on Smaller Government

Why Conservatives Should Be FOR Defense Cuts

From The Daily Beast:

In my last column urging new thinking about our spending and debt addictions, I recommended we let the delayed defense sequester cuts take effect in March. While it is illogical that half of the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts spread over 10 years hit defense—which represents less than 20 percent of the federal budget—as conservatives we cannot always say “spend more” on defense. If we can easily see ways to cut costs in the Department of Education, we should not be blind to opportunities at the Pentagon.

And as only Levin can write: The president is not wrong “to raise the question of Pentagon ‘bloat.’ The United States has the most lavishly funded military on the planet, and what does it buy you? In the Hindu Kush, we’re taking 12 years to lose to goatherds with fertilizer ... [W]hy shouldn’t the Pentagon get a top-to-toe overhaul—or at least a cost-benefit analysis?”

~

Admittedly, this is not a great time to be affecting jobs, but the government is not the most efficient employer. With the Pentagon spending an average of $2 billion to $3 billion every business day, the potential for savings through streamlining, standardizing, prioritizing, and tracking and cutting waste and inefficiency could surely total the needed 10 percent.

Bottom line: Savings must be found.

5 Bush Mistakes Continued By Obama

Follow-Up: Pentagon's LGBT Filter "Explained"

Here is the statement from the Department of Defense:

We’ve received some questions/comment recently about DOD’s web access policies, and wanted to provide this statement:

The Department of Defense does not block LGBT websites. The pages referenced in several recent articles were denied access based on web filters blocking the “Blog/Personal Pages” category, not the specific sites themselves. While individuals on a DoD system may visit portions of the main websites (i.e., www.towleroad.com, www.AMERICAblog.com), certain additional links/pages – to include personal blogs – are blocked. Personal pages and blogs are blocked in accordance with DoD policy allowing military commanders the option to restrict access to personal pages for operational security reasons.

But as America Blog points out:

...if the Pentagon doesn’t ban LGBT content, but rather “blogs,” then why did US sailors today discover that the gay newsmagazine, the Advocate – which is not a blog – is banned on military computers found on board the ship the USS John C Stennis (CVN-74), and has been for over a year? 

And for that matter, if we are to believe the Pentagon today that AMERICAblog, for example, is simply being blocked for being a blog, then why is the prominent Republican blog, Red State, not blocked on the same Air Force computers that block AMERICAblog?  One is gay and progressive, the other is straight and Republican.

Even with Don't Ask Don't Tell dead (as it should be), there appears to be plenty of homophobia in the military's top brass. HERE is the original post I ran on this story.

Pentagon's LGBT Filter Still in Effect

From America Blog:

The LGBT filter existed before the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but still has not been fixed.  And the Pentagon was notified of the problem as early as last summer, 2012.  Yet no one’s gotten around to doing anything about it. I’m also told that the censorship varies depending on service and geographical region – it’s not entirely clear why the Pentagon doesn’t use the same bans/filters nationwide and agency-wide, if it’s going to censor the Internet at all. This problem has to be fixed Pentagon-wide.

Our site, AMERICAblog, was previously banned for being “LGBT,” but now we’re only banned at least by the Air Force, for being “political” and “activist.”  The Air Force is banning my Web site for being “political” while permitting other Republican “political” Web sites.  Daily Kos is banned as well.  Anyone else smelling a Big Brother constitutional problem with that?

I had a few different contacts try accessing a variety of sites on DOD computers, in order to confirm this, including Zeke Stokes, communications director for OutServe-SLDN, who confirmed via one of their military members.

Just so we are clear, we are NOT talking about gay pornography (I'm sure the Pentagon blocks ALL pornography...or at least should). We are talking about site such as LGBT civil right pages and the like.It is hard to fathom that such sites which are for civil right are blocked whereas sites for hate groups (Family Research Council, National Organization for marriage, etc.) are not, especially given the fall of Don't Ask Don't Tell.