Letters to the Editor
-
Pace
Has clearly never met a homosexual, nor spoken with one, thoughtfully, that he knew of.
They're just like you and me, General. Except that their biology means that they are attracted to the same sex.
This is what passes for a man, a soldier these days? Gay haters?
Talk about immoral.
-
So no Republicans should serve? That sounds a little unfair.
They got us into this shit, the least these booty bumpers could do is pick up a rifle and hump it over there to kill a few of them thar in-sur-gents.
-
Personal View
General Pace was asked his personal opinion. It is his right to believe that homosexuality is immoral. I don't neccessarily agree, but I will defend his right to adhere to his moral compass.
-
Pace's knowledge of the law
Unless I'm mistaken, infidelity isn't a crime.
-
This amazes me
You can loosen the rules for (presumably) former drug addicts. And loosen academic guidelines. And send a soldier back who's too disabled to wear body armor. But for a homosexual or an adulterer? Never!
I'm no soldier. But I think I'd rather be hunkered down with the horn-dog or the homosexual. Especially if my other choices are a guy who's too injured to wear a helmet, or who's too dense to be a soldier in peacetime.
-
What about Dick?
I wonder how Dick Cheney feels about Pace calling his daughter immoral.
Although "immoral" and "Cheney" do go together so well.
-
The guardians
The connection to make is with the rightwing spokesperson who brandished the word 'faggot' with such aplomb the other day. Pace provides us with a peek into the dour, lightless substratum that she rests on.
All in all, we are getting an excellent foretaste of what it is like to be ruled by fanatics and dullards --- defenders of 'western civization' who will wipe it clean of its achievements.
-
Pace and morality
What about torture? Is torture immoral?
-
Excuse me?
The general says:
"...I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior."
What planet did he call this in from, if this was true half of the republican politicians in this country would have been prosecuted by now.
-
And it's not immoral to let large numbers of
convicted felons into the army, where they go around raping their female fellow soldiers?
If you have any interest in this issue and haven't already done so, read "Conduct Unbecoming" by Randy Shilts - probably the definitive statement on the issue of gays in the military.
-
Actually adultery is a prosecutable offense in the military
That being said, in my three decades in uniform, just about the only times I actually saw charges made for adultery were as an "add-on" charge when the primary charge was homosexuality or the case involved fraternization (relationship of a superior with a subordinate).
-
Adultery as a crime
As I understand it, the military considers adultery to be a crime within their system, which is what Pace was referring to. I don't know how explicitly this is written in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but I do recall reading about members of the military being tried for or at least dismissed for this.
-
Infidelity is a crime under the UCMJ
People seem to forget that the military has its own laws, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which are fundamentally different from the general law of the land. Under the UCMJ, rights (such as the freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, etc.) are drastically curtailed. Under this code, people can be and are, court martialed (or at least administratively punished) for inter alia adultery, disloyal statements, "conduct unbecoming an officer", etc.
In 2005, according to CNN.com: "four-star Army General Kevin Byrnes, a 36-year veteran on the brink of retirement, was relieved of his command of Fort Monroe. According to press accounts, Byrnes lost his command as punishment for committing adultery. Yet Byrnes contends that the adultery occurred after he was formally separated from his wife, was committed with a civilian, and did not affect his official duties."
General Pace is entitled to his views and hopefully someday we'll elect a commander in chief who will make it impossible for those views to coincide with official military policy.
-
My Personal View
General Pace is a hypocrite and a disgrace. His immorality is beyond question. Beyond his criminal culpability in the illegal invasion of Iraq, his inability to lead is now firmly established.
But does he get to say whatever moronic thought comes into his head? Yes. So what? We don't get to point that out?
Do you have a point, Mike, beyond the fact that the First Amendment still exists -- at least for Republicans? Anything you'd care to impart besides elementary school-level civics lessons? Maybe that the immorality of hating innocent and patriotic Americans has nothing to do with a "moral compass" and is made all the worse when coming from a pathetic and criminal excuse for a man who hasn't a moral high ground to stand on?
-
And Let's Not Forget...
...that it is IMMORAL to send America's sons and daughters into harm's way for specious or questionable reasons...
-
Peter is our judge!
An so shalt women be unclean and subservient? And.....
We have a person in a top governmental position that judges all
by his personal religious convictions? Are atheists allowed in
the Armed Services. Should they be allowed in the US?
Should extremist religious conservatives be allowed to lead
our Army?
Why not? Pace's militia, al-Sadr’s militia, its all becoming the same.
-
Immorality
Exactly what people consider to be miracles depends on their standpoint. St. Augustine believed that magnetism was proof of miracles, and probably this view was shared by educated men in his time.
Are homosexual acts immoral? Again, it depends on perspective. Certainly millions upon millions of Americans believe this, and General Peter Pace is one of them. At this time the Anglican Church is splitting itself apart over this issue, so apparently there is no obvious answer. It depends what you mean by immoral, doesn't it?
The general view in the more developed industrial democracies seems to be that regardless of morality, there is not much point in persecuting otherwise law-abiding people over private sexual acts with consenting human partners.
At a time when the US forces are having difficult recruiting because of the unpopularity of the war in Iraq, it seems logical that forming a few regiments of gay soldiers would help the military solve its recruitment problems, and probably put the fear of Bejasus into the enemy as well.