1085
Biden pardons thousands of US veterans convicted under law banning gay sex
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
1085 points (98.7% liked)
News
23397 readers
3463 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was bigoted propaganda branded as a consideration, and the Lavender Scare was horrifically layered oppression. It was basically, “We’ve decided your sexuality is scandalous, forcing you to hide it, which makes you at risk of being blackmailed, so we’re charging you with a crime.” Fucking despicable.
These pardons are excellent. It’s such a shame thousands of veterans had to live so long with criminal records for who they are, not even what they did.
While obviously not near the same level of criminalizing someone for part of their core identity, I’ve felt the same way about the US government’s treatment of pot smokers. Can’t get a security clearance if you’ve smoked pot within the past 7 years because it’s blackmail leverage ignoring the fact that it’s only blackmail material when the government considers it verboten
You can 100% get a clearance if you've smoked within 7 years of applying for one. Hell, you can get a clearance if you smoked within the last year. You just have to a) disclose the fact, b) be able to show mitigations as to why smoking weed won't be an issue while you have a clearance, and then c) not do it while you have a clearance. It ends up being not so much about the fact that you smoke weed as it is that you're not following the law, and that's the real clearance risk (from their POV). Getting a clearance is really about proving you're trustworthy to the investigator.
There are agencies, iirc mostly law enforcement, that consider it a strict bar. It also depends on the level of clearance, and how much they need you. An Army private getting a secret clearance to present weather to the general on the daily isn't getting nearly as much scrutiny as a nuclear physicist. But nuclear physicists willing to work for the government are a finite resource. It's all clear as mud and the fear of losing your career over some stupid persecution is real.
You're mixing some things up. Yes, some agencies will have some POLICIES about not wanting to hire personnel with a history of drug abuse/use, but that is separate from the clearance adjudication process.
A secret clearance is a secret clearance, and you're correct that it's much simpler to get a basic secret than it is a TS-SCI or to be read into certain programs. But there isn't a "FBI" secret and an "Army" secret.
There's no timeline for how long it's been since you've smoked pot, or number of times, or anything. I think a poster said that it's about whether the investigation finds you trustworthy enough for the level of eligibility they're investigating you for, and that is correct - and there isn't a hard and fast rule necessarily.
If you do an investigation and are asked if you've ever used any illegal drugs and you say no, but in your criminal record you have a possession charge, that's bad. You're obviously lying, and not even being smart about it. If you say you used to smoke trees every day and are blazed right now, that's bad because you obviously don't give af about laws and stuff (not my opinion, this is the opinion of the Fed that still thinks it's illegal). If you say you used to smoke with your friend for a couple months in college a year ago but stopped and think that was probably a dumb decision, that's not necessarily bad, it all depends on how the interview goes. They'll ask for the names of who you smoked with and how you got the weed - so they can check if you were hanging out with known cartel members or just some other joe schmoe at UCWhatevs.
At the end of the day it's all based on context and a ton of factors. They dig a lot deeper and have a much higher standard for more selective clearances or programs, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone? But it's all about whether you're trustworthy to keep certain sensitive information from unauthorized people.
I understand all of that, I was just keeping it simple for Lemmy. And there's no functional difference between a pass from DCSA with a note of prior drug use in the last 3 years and a fail from DCSA for those agencies. It's a distinction without a difference in their eyes. But there is also different pipelines for Military and Civilian clearances. If you come to the government with a military clearance they will want you to get an upgraded check and interview. It's a lot easier than a new clearance for most people but it's still a thing. This was per the State Department for FSO's last time I checked out that process.
So we can dig into minutia all day long if you want.
That change requires an act of Congress. They’ve been dragging their heels on it.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3617
It’s not so much the blackmail with pot, it’s the fact you can’t “follow the rules”. They will give a bye for previous smoking events (before you need the clearance, took a position etc.), it’s smoking with a clearance or NOT telling them that will get you wrapped up.
Smoking with a clearance is only possible blackmail material because the government makes it verboten. Their point stands.
Their point doesn’t stand. Just report it.
That varies extensively by department and administration.
can't get a fucking job because they're allowed to demand your piss and inspect it
Considering that Nixon's cabinet has openly talked about how they made it a federal offense so that they had justification to arrest the leaders of the war protesters (and the same thing with cocaine and the black community), I'd say it's of a similar level but a different kind of evil.
I thought the concept of don't ask don't tell was a way to let gay people serve without getting congress to change the laws. Kind of like federal pot laws. It's technically illegal, they're just not supposed to enforce it.
I can't speak for Bill Clinton's thoughts but the military never engaged with it in good faith. They considered any discovery as "telling". Some service members at the time even described unit members spying on their homes to see who they lived with. Even a letter from an old lover that someone took from your belongings would be considered telling. The function of the policy was that if they could "out" you, they would discharge you with bad papers.
Under this kind of atmosphere homophobia becomes ten times worse because the possibility of that guy being gay puts your career at risk too, in case you get too close and are swept up with them.
The "don't tell" part didn't apply to third parties.
No, it was a step in the right direction. There may have been units and commanders that tried to seek out gays but there were also plenty of commanders that really didn't want to know so never asked.
That's the thing, the commander could be the nicest person in the world. Once you were outed, their hands were tied. So your platoon's lieutenant might be alright, but the platoon sergeant from the next platoon over could be nosy as hell and out you. also it functioned as a second lavender scare. Even if you beat the official investigation after being "outed" because you aren't gay and it's impossible to actually out you, you're forever tainted. Your career is over and your life is in danger from homophobes, that felt empowered by the function of the policy to go after anyone they thought was gay.
If they wanted this to be a step in the right direction instead of leadership taking a step back and letting the bigotry just do it's thing they needed to come down hard on the bigots too and allow gay service members who did not actually tell anyone to stay. That would have sent the message the public was sold on DADT.
Hilariously, the thing that really spelled the end of DADT (along with changing morals in society) was the GWOT. It's actually kind of hard to railroad the guy who's been clearing rooms and getting blown up with you. And the people who did keep doing it in the combat units found themselves alienated finally because it's nearly impossible to "other" someone you served with like that.
It was a way to not deal with the issue directly, and to give members of the LGBTQ+ community an option to hide who they are and not receive punishment. But it in no way protected them. It was sold as a "compromise", but was actually a thinly veiled way to continue to suppress the community and enact harsh penalties and convictions for anyone who didn't follow the protocol.
Yeah it was progressive at the time since it stopped the military from digging around and asking your family if you are gay, especially since there weren't even civil unions in most states back then.
What i don't understand is why Obama didn't pardon them all since DADT was overtirned in 2010
It stopped official investigations before an accusation. It did not stop your chain of command from spying on their soldiers to find LGBTQ people. The function of the policy was that no matter how you got outed you were in violation of the policy. So they treated someone grabbing a letter from home and reading it aloud the same as you telling your commander you were going to a gay bar to look for a date.
that's how all of our progressive laws & rules take place; they seem progressive on the surface but if you look the tiniest bit closer it's clear that it's not.
part of me wants to forgive biden's votes & support of those laws (eg dont ask dont tell; defense of marriage; executive order 10450); but seeing as how the everyone on social media (especially the lemmyverse) already refuse to believe he did those things makes me feel like i have a duty to remember since they fucked with my life and so many other's lives' so severely; along with the other fucked up things he did that social media has already chosen to forget about.
He also had racist views the 70s. This is simply proof of growth.
Also, the line you quoted was regarding the Lavender Scare. That was 20 years before his time.
he also switched sides back then on that topic too when it was no longer politically popular.
he's not a leader nor is it growth (he was proud of appeasing segregationists during his campaign and kamala had to put him in his place); he's a politician that does whatever it takes to get votes.
Shh, let them have this. They need their team to be the saviors. Look how they trot out Jack Black like a clown. And now trickle out some good news a bit before the elections.
They're just gonna plug their ears and yell.
No one is calling Democrats saviors. They just enact more legislation that benefits people and planet while Republicans support corporations and Christianity. Feel free to pick whatever side is more compelling to you.