From Draft NOtices, October—December 2011
—Kathy Gilberd
On September 20, lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) service members and veterans, as well as their many supporters, held parties and events around the country to commemorate the official repeal of the military’s policy commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). Just what is the impact of this change?
DADT was the latest in a long line of policies prohibiting homosexual conduct (in reality, prohibiting homosexuals) in the military. DADT was itself a small victory, since it (1) prevented military officials from asking about military members’ sexual orientation without cause and (2) allowed LGB members to serve as long as they were silent about their orientation. The policy reduced the number of anti-gay witch-hunts and mass investigations that had accompanied prior policies, and also reduced the number of involuntary discharges. But DADT allowed members to be discharged for simply stating that they were gay, or using words or even gestures to that effect. In addition, homosexual acts and marriages were grounds for discharge under DADT, and the policy was so broadly defined that even a kiss or hug was often sufficient for discharge. Under this policy more than 13,000 service members were discharged.
The repeal of DADT means that service members may be open about their sexual orientation, coming out to their co-workers or chains of command. They may marry (in states where that is permitted) and may be open about their partners, even bringing them to military events. Romantic and sexual activity should only be penalized, in theory, if the same heterosexual conduct is prohibited. Because of the “Defense of Marriage Act,” however, many spousal benefits will be unavailable to the partners of LGB soldiers; the Pentagon says that some benefits issues are still being worked out. Harassment of LGB soldiers, though not clearly defined, is not to be accepted — offenders will be told that their conduct is not appropriate. The repeal is unclear about disciplinary action to be taken against harassers.
Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD)
From Draft NOtices, October—December 2011
— David Morales
In February of 2009, Mission Bay High School students, parents, teachers, and community members waited anxiously and well into a Tuesday night for the decision by the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) Board to finally restrict the JROTC program. It did so by passing a policy banning JROTC rifle ranges and marksmanship training in the district.
Before that night, students had proven that JROTC programs across the district were leading students to falsely believe that the program would grant them credit that could be counted toward college acceptance. In addition, it was documented that students were sometimes being placed into JROTC without their or their parents’ consent, violating California Education Code section 51750. These complaints were addressed without school board action in 2008 when the superintendent issued a directive banning both practices.
The Education Not Arms Coalition (ENAC), a group consisting of students, teachers and several community organizations, made these victories possible. It’s an achievement that is significant for taking place in one of the country’s most militarized cities. Since the restrictions were approved, they appear to be having a direct impact on at least one school, Mission Bay High, where JROTC is entering its fifth year with shrinking enrollment numbers.
However, students, parents, and other activists fear that the restrictions won in late 2008 may be violated by those who are desperate to increase JROTC enrollment. Department of Defense guidelines state that when enrollment in a JROTC unit drops below a specified minimum during its second year (third if it’s a new unit), it must be placed on probation. If under-enrollment continues the next year, the unit is required to be disestablished at the end of the school year.
From Draft NOtices, October—December 2011
— Miriam Clark
Some technology can have disastrous long-term consequences, especially when developed for war or as a spin-off from weaponry. One example, nuclear power, has proven to be dangerous and not well understood by the public. The world is now dealing with some of its lethal manifestations in Fukushima Japan. That disaster is now over six months old. The power plant says they may have the fires in the reactors out by January of 2012, but there is no cleanup plan for the contaminated earth or resettlement of 200,000 evacuated people. In eight weeks fallout from the disaster reached the northwestern coast of the U.S., and CounterPunch reported significant fallout in Portland, Tacoma, Seattle and Spokane. Wind carries the fallout around the world and rain brings it down wherever it falls.
Nuclear is something we know about, but another example of a dangerous technology that has drawn very little public attention is the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), a joint project of the United States Air Force and Navy in Alaska. Based on the theories of physicist Nicola Tesla, it is designed to study the ionosphere in order to develop weapons technology. The program is referred to as a "Star Wars" weapon and is intended to provide a shield against incoming missiles.
Ninth CIRCUIT COURT RULING: CONFRONTING MILITARISM BY USING EQUAL ACCESS TO HIGH SCHOOLS
When the military comes to your local high school, you have a legal right to give students an opposing view. This has been the position taken by federal district courts in Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois and two federal appellate courts. The most broadly-worded decision came from a case that COMD took to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1980s. Here is the background:
