Shooting Ourselves in the Foot

The U.S. military and all of our intelligence services are facing a shortage of Arabic linguists - and have been for some time. In 2003, for example (two years after September 11th, for the math impaired), the State Department had only 60 employees fluent in Arabic and only five with skills sufficient to go on Middle Eastern news and talk television programs.

This shortage very well may have contributed to the tragedies of September 11th happening at all. On September 10th, the NSA intercepted two messages from known al Qaeda operatives who were considered "high priority" - "Tomorrow is zero hour," said one; "The match is about to begin," was the other. Because these messages were from high priority targets, they were shunted into the translator's queue to be translated...which, due to the high volume of messages and the low number of translators, took two days. Until September 12th.

Clearly, a reasonable and effective defense strategy would be for our government to actually know what people from the Middle East (including those who mean us harm, those who may be trying to prevent harm, and those who want to engage in an ongoing dialogue about how we can improve international relationships and work together on safety threats) are saying to them and be able to talk back.

Yet despite all the talk of aggressive recruitment of linguists, signing and re-enlistment incentives, and stop-loss measures, our government seems intent on shooting itself in the foot when it comes to developing and employing a pool of desperately-needed Arabic language talent.

First, it rejects the already-established talent of men and women who very much want to use their skills on behalf of their country. Just one year after September 11th, the military discharged six Arabic linguists (along with three additional linguists in other critical languages) solely because they had been found to be gay. These "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" discharges have continued up to the present, including the highly-publicized firing of fluent Arabic speaker and West Point graduate Lt. Dan Choi last year.

Then, it harasses a young college student who is studying Arabic, detaining, handcuffing, and aggressively questioning him over the course of a four-hour ordeal as he tried to make his way back to school in California, because of the Arabic-language flashcards he had in his pocket. Among the questions Nick George was asked was whether he knew what language Osama bin Laden spoke. So now our government has made it suspicious behavior not only to speak a language that hundreds of millions of people around the world speak, but to develop language skills that are in painfully short supply and are needed for defense measures that are significantly more effective than violating the Constitutional rights of airline passengers who pose no threat to flight safety.

Maybe it's just me, but perhaps we need some better strategies.

Becca in Harrisburg

With the Stroke of a Pen?

I've been wondering something for a while now. Over and over you'll hear from people who are frustrated by the Obama Administration's lack of progress on gay rights issues that "he could end Don't Ask Don't Tell with the stroke of a pen." I wasn't really sure if that was true. Don't Ask Don't Tell was the result of a law passed by Congress, so could the president overturn that with an Executive Order?

Today I got curious enough to go in search of the answer and - working under the assumption that I am not the only person in the world with this question - I will now share the answer I found.

It is (drum roll, please)...sort of.

According to a report issued by the Center for American Progress

Careful examination of the laws outlining the president's powers as commander in chief show that the executive branch has the authority to suspend homosexual conduct discharges without legislative action. Yet because Congress originally passed the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military, such a suspension will eventually have to be followed up with legislative action reversing the policy.

Congress, in the Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement, and Separation—10 U.S.C. § 12305—grants the president authority to suspend the separation of military members during any period of national emergency in which members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty.

This provision is commonly referred to as "stop loss" authority. This policy has affected an estimated 120,000 service members since 2001, and more than 13,000 service members are still unable to leave the military because Secretary Gates has stated that the Department of Defense intends to keep the policy for another two years.

President Obama [could] issue an order prohibiting the Secretary of Defense—and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating under the Navy—from establishing, implementing, or applying any personnel or administrative policies, or taking a personnel or administrative action, in whole or part on the basis of sexual orientation. The order [could] further prohibit sexual orientation discrimination within the armed forces and among people seeking entry into the Armed Forces. This would include banning further dismissals on the basis of DADT.

Click here to see the entire report.

So basically, the president couldn't really take the policy away, but he could stop it from being enforced, as long as we continue to be at war and the military continues to institute stop loss measures. After that, the fix is going to have to be legislative.

I, for one, am happy to finally have that question cleared up.

Becca in Harrisburg

**If you would like to know more about Don't Ask Don't Tell - how it came to be, what the problems with it are, and what other countries' experiences have been - I recommend an excellent book by Nathaniel Frank, Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America.

Stimson slinks into the night

Charles "Cully" Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, resigned late last week over remarks he made about lawyers who represent Guatanamo detainees. From the Boston Herald...

Cully Stimson, he of the absurd comments about lawyers who represent Guantanamo detainees, has called it a day - and for the sake of our nation's fundamental values not a moment too soon.

For once, American values win out in the Bush administration.

Andy in H-burg

Bush administration official smears attorneys defending Gitmo detainees

Nothing like a good dose of incredulous outrage to start your day. This morning I read an editorial in the Washington Post about recent comments made by Curtis Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs. In an interview this week with Federal News Radio, Stimpson listed a group of US law firms defending detainees in Guantanamo. He continued on to say,

"I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out."

When asked who was paying the firms, he said "It's not clear, is it?" he said. "Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they're doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are; others are receiving monies from who knows where, and I'd be curious to have them explain that."

It shouldn't surprise me that Stimson is mystified by the motivations of the attorneys defending detainees - it's called a commitment to the rule of law and a belief in the Constitution.

(Incidentally, a lawyer from one of these law firms who is defending detainees in Guantanamo spoke at a vigil yesterday about his clients. His comments can be read in yesterday's post.)

Sara in Philly