Oh, So Now Being Homosexual Is A Security Risk?
What's next, bike riding? Eating cheese? Drinking Dr. Pepper? The miltary is spying on gay rights groups:
The recent revelation that the U.S. military is spying on gay rights groups, say historians, evokes the Cold War crackdowns on gays during the McCarthy era, academics say.Then, as now, the government compiled lists of American citizens who were suspected of subversive activity by virtue of their association with critics of government policy. Targets included gays and members of gay or gay-friendly groups.
Last week, NBC News reported it had obtained sections of a secret Pentagon database with information about individuals linked to peaceful activist and protest groups that opposed certain U.S. military actions.
But according to David K. Johnson, a historian at University of South Florida and author of The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government, the banner of “national security” has long been used as a pretext to crack down on gay rights and even to spark moral crusades against homosexuality under the guise of national defense.
His book explains that “security risk” was used throughout the Cold War to invoke “the specter of homosexuality,” which was cast as a threat to national security, and as something that “needed to be systematically removed” from the government and minimized in the culture at large.
As far as is known, the current surveillance does not target homosexuality itself, but rather gay groups which have voiced opposition to the “don't ask, don't tell” policy barring openly gay service.
But as described in Johnson’s book, the historical pattern for thwarting gay freedom has been “guilt by association.”
Joseph McCarthy singled out Americans who read Communist literature, and took aim at gays because they “had extremely close connections with other individuals with the same tendencies.” The McCarthy era was also known for keeping lists of individuals deemed “security risks” because they had a history of alcoholism, Liberalism, disloyalty and even “loquaciousness.”
Dr. Johnson said the Pentagon’s spying is the latest in a long history of targeting gays and lesbians as subversives, despite lacking any evidence for such a charge.
“It's no surprise,” he said. “The federal government began spying on those who challenged its discriminatory policies from the very earliest days of such activism.”
He said the FBI investigated the first organizational meeting in 1961 of what became the Mattachine Society, one of the earliest gay rights groups. Government agents took photographs in 1965 at the first gay and lesbian public demonstration in front of the White House against the military’s exclusionary policies.
“What is surprising,” he continued, “is that in nearly a half century of undercover intelligence gathering, they haven’t yet figured out that these are always peaceful, lawful protests.”
This is why I caution people to look for an information source, not editorial commentary. Did anyone follow the article to Advocate.com?
Here's what it led with: "A secret Pentagon document shows that the U.S. military has been spying on what they call "suspicious" civilian meetings—including protests over "don't ask, don't tell" held at various college campuses across the country." Then it explains that NBC obtained just 8 pages of that "secret" 400-page document from the Pentagon. Of course, it can't explain how this felony occurred, nor does it explain how possession of the document, also a felony, is not pursued by agents still super-charged with Patriot Act powers. Think a minute. Independently of whatever general officers think of their orders to not ask, what about this article makes it more genuine than something you read on Rush's Web site? I suggest that it merely panders to an appreciative audience, like urban legends. Practically speaking, are these allegations enough to go to court with AFTER the original, actual felony is disposed? Who is the injured party, what is the injury, and who are the perpetrators? "The military"?
Let me bring up another issue:
Aside from the issue of "spying" by "the military" there is a huge problem nobody - especially the "politically correct" crowd - wants to talk about: sex in the service.
Right now, a submarine somewhere is doing wiring package checks on a real nuclear missile. No, I'm not making this up, and I'm not talking about a movie - I mean a real, MIRVed missile, capable of hitting several 50-foot circles four thousand miles away with real, no-kidding atom bombs. At the open access hatch to the missile compartment, two guards with guns stand, watching a thin red-and-white rope hanging across the hatchway; their job is to kill the sailor that passes that rope. Do I have your attention as to how important a job wiring package checks on atom bombs is now?
So, what would you think, if during the checks, one sailor looks at the other and thinks, "Hmm. Nice butt!"
The point is that sexual behavior gets sailors killed due to the distraction. The shipboard environment does not care about human rights, due process or any other such niceties. Those who talk about "individual rights" in the services are acting with blatant disregard for the accomplishment of the job - and most who chime in on this issue don't even know what the "job" is. Those who are curious can get that story. Most are too befuddled to ask.
Of course there are gay sailors, soldiers, etc., doing valuable work for their unit. Having served with some, I personally guarantee that those who have the respect of their peers - this respect being earned, not granted - act on behalf of the unit in nearly every gesture. Just like their heterosexual buddies.
Everywhere we mix crews, the Captain has no end of trouble with his own people. If you want effective military units, such that you can have the fewest people and least taxpayer dollars allocated to them as they remain invincible, you have to stop pretending servicemembers are merely employees like those at McDonald's, and stop social experimentation. There literally is no "right" to serve in the military.
Radwaste at December 20, 2005 11:07 AM
how lame. hmm nice butt.....
yeah right like that's going to happen when you have trained soldiers doing critical work. that's about the lamest excuse for don't ask don't tell I have ever heard. it's right up there with some guys mind wondering and having to beat off that very moment rather then fulling his mission.
your lame
alex the sea turtle at December 20, 2005 11:54 AM
While we're on the subject of McCarthyism and accusations of homosexuality, let's not forget that one of the favorite tactics of the CPUSA and fellow travelers when confronted with informers and apostates was to whisper about the person's homosexual tendencies (look, for instance, at what happened to Whittaker Chambers). It's a despicable tactic, but it's not by any means exclusive to those "McCarthyite" right wingers.
Artemis at December 20, 2005 12:49 PM
Regarding the nice butt comment, you could run through my house with handfuls of money, the finest smoked salmon and Dom Perignon, and when I'm on my deadline, I won't move out of my chair --except maybe to shut the door after you get your money tossing, champagne-toting ass through it so I can get my work done.
Amy Alkon at December 20, 2005 1:59 PM
I'm on my way- what was your address again?
eric at December 20, 2005 2:27 PM
"Nice butt"? Tacky comment from a tacky individual. Do you really think that when it comes to getting an important job done, gays always have sex on the brain? (By the way, you didn't stress how important the job is, only who fanatical they are in protecting it. And it wouldn't be the first time the government has placed uber-significance inappropriately -- the Terri Schaivo law, for instance, and the law to protect Christmas. I'm not saying the job isn't important. Only that by underscoring the measures surrounding it, you have NOT made your case regarding its importance.)
Reminds me of one of the lamest arguments I ever heard against gays in the military. One person claimed that if they were in a foxhole, about to meet certain death, the gay guy would want to get "one more in" before he dies. Oy.
Patrick at December 21, 2005 5:48 AM
alex - nice job not addressing the issue. Except for that part about the mind wandering; that's a real risk, too.
Patrick, nice ad hominem and straw man. Perhaps you missed the part where I said I served with such people who were professional. Amy, nice to know you can dedicate your time.
Now, you're all busted - I didn't tell you the gender of the sailors. There's some major projection going on here, in that somebody thinks I think gays think about sex all the time and straights don't. WOW, what a bunch of nonsense. What do YOU think goes on after a month at sea? We can't wait to get back to shore, but there isn't anything lovely just a few feet away!
There's another thing I bet you don't know about. The Navy runs repair depots called SIMA, short for Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity. Right before an aircraft carrier's deployment, SIMA units get loaded up with single women who decide that it's better to have an illegitimate baby on your dollar than do their sworn duty by going to sea. (Funny. I guess they didn't realize the Navy goes to sea.) Can you guess what value a pregnant sailor has to a nuclear-powered airport loaded with munitions? What would your health-insurance company say? Anyway. The Navy compensates by pulling people who are not due for another deployment, because no matter what, the ship comes first. So, sexual behavior costs us all twice: the first one can't (won't) do her job, and the substitute gets burned.
The services have to take what they can get from recruiters. These people are a cross-section of America. While it can be argued that they are generally less selfish than the general population, there are more than enough problems to go around.
Call anyone any names you wish. The plain facts are that sexual behavior can kill service people, there are only limited ways to suppress it, and this situation is not enhanced by people who sniff about the sacrifices of the individual who can't live the way they want to while packed in close quarters on a ship or in the desert.
Now why is sexual motivation the only cause for comment now? Does no one wish to admit that Amy's link quoting The Advocate quoting an anonymous "NBC News" person quoting "secret Pentagon papers", the real possession of which is a major felony, is hearsay?
Radwaste at December 21, 2005 1:23 PM
By the way...
If the anonymous NBC source has real existence, the responsible thing to do is to investigate there. "Reporting" is just gossip when it is four times removed, as has been the case here. You wouldn't base legal matters of your own on such remote speculation - you'd go find the source. I hope somebody will.
Radwaste at December 22, 2005 4:25 AM
Rad, you didn't have to tell us the gender of the sailors, for the simple reason that women are not allowed on submarines! Especially not "for a month at sea!" Duh.
Patrick at December 22, 2005 7:53 AM
Oh, and one more thing, Rad. Perhaps before you (AGAIN) decide that a source isn't credible just because you don't understand all the "whys" and "wherefores" of how something occurred (such as NBC obtaining some pages of a DATABASE -- not to be confused with a document), you could try and research it on the web. I entered "gay rights NBC database" into my search engine and voila! I haven't had time yet to read all of it, but it's everywhere. Not just the Advocate, either.
Patrick at December 22, 2005 8:05 AM
Patrick - How many people here really knew that? Then - how does that invalidate my example? New issue: why do you suppose women aren't allowed to serve on subs?
Sigh. About "credible sources" - it's a "straw man" to assign that motive to me. The bottom line is that I call for people to know the difference between a source and hearsay. I hope you will be careful to make that distinction as you surf.
Radwaste at December 22, 2005 12:48 PM
And one more thing. Yet again, Rad, you have resorted to "begging the question."
How? You haven't shown this to be true at all, except by drawing up an improbable scenario. Sorry, but you cannot draw supportable conclusions from a situation that doesn't exist.
I don't know how many people here knew that women aren't allowed on submarines, and neither do you. I would venture to say most if not all knew that. I myself was aware of that fact ever since I was old enough to be approached by recruiters for the military (16). As for why, I would imagine it has something to do the fact that sailors are supposed to sleep within mere inches of each other. Not a whole lot of room for changing clothes to protect a person's modesty.
Patrick at December 23, 2005 8:06 AM
Leave a comment