Kicking Arabic linguists out of the Army
Deroy Murdock has been beating the drum for a long time that the US Army is grievously wrong in discharging a number of Arabic linguists because they turned out to be homosexual. This time the drum is a piece in Scripps-Howard. Murdock starts off course from his first paragraph:

Name the greater risk to national security: patriotic military translators who happen to be homosexual or anti-American Islamofascist terrorists who happen to be homicidal. If you picked the latter, thanks for putting U.S. safety first. Alas, the Pentagon disagrees.

Sorry, Deroy, it isn't the Pentagon. It's the US Congress, which by law demands that homosexuals be discharged be discharged. It's a pretty curious thing Murdock is doing, accusing the Army of being too law abiding. But here are the facts

The federal law concerned is Title 10, US Code, Section, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 37, Sec. 654. - Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces. The law was enacted in the early years of the Clinton administration. Obedience to it is not optional for the armed services. In the language of the statute we discover that the US Congress found:

The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

You may agree or disagree with whatever intensity you desire, but it does not change the fact that this is what the Congress says. Please remember,

Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

And that

Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

Section 654 requires the services to discharge homosexuals as follows:

A member of the armed forces shall be separated [emphasis added] from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations: That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts . . . .

There are limited and very specific exceptions allowed by the law (i.e., coercion), but "speaks Arabic" is not one of them, nor is possession of any other critical skill.

There is, however, an allowance that permits homosexuals to be retained on active duty if "separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces." It may be reasonably argued that the need for Arab linguists is so critical that it outweighs the clear intent of the Congress to exclude homosexuals, as defined in the law, from service.

But if homosexual Arabic linguists are retained you can bet your last sawbuck that every other homosexual soldier who's been discharged will sue claiming his equal-protection rights have been violated. How many lawsuits - hundred, thousands? Would that be good for national security? I don't think so.

Glenn Reynolds (whence the link) says that the linguists' homosexuality doesn't matter to him and shouldn't matter to the Army. I would be interested in his lawyerly take on the equal-protection problem, though.

Update: Doug Petch corrects my interpretation of the discharge discretion the military has. It seems the Army doesn't have quite the authority to retain as I thought. See here.

by Donald Sensing, 1/13/2005 09:38:20 PM. Permalink |