Obama admin opposes full severance pay for military gays dismissed under DADT

[brentspeak]

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2011/09/22/7905479-govt-opposes-full-severance-pay-for-military-gays

Gov't opposes full severance pay for military gays

Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:04 PM EDT

Nedra Pickler, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Two days after repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy against gays serving openly in the military, the Obama administration was in court Thursday opposing a lawsuit seeking full severance pay for those dismissed under the law.

The American Civil Liberties Union is seeking class action status for 142 people who only got half pay after their discharge because of being gay. But the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to dismiss the case.

Judge Christine Odell Cook Miller said she probably will let the case continue and questioned why the government wouldn't pay now that the law has changed.

"Your timing is exquisite — two days after the policy goes into effect eliminating `don't ask, don't tell,' here we are," she said as she took the bench.

[teddy51]

1. I think they should be reinstated with full back pay, the hell with just severance pay. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

2. The administration is a petty lot.

They say it is God in their mix but it is really just a stick up their ass.

[BlueIris]

3. Losers.

When the LGBTIQ community turns its back on the Democrats in 2012, I won't be a bit surprised.

[Vicar In A Tutu]

16. As long as they don't dare complain when DADT returns

And the DOMA becomes more entrenched than ever, I don't think anyone begrudges anyone the opportunity to do what they want. Just don't start being a pathetic, whiny hypocrite about something that is obviously considered trivial after the event. As it happens though, I doubt very much whether this will occur, as you are simply making an entirely thoughtless, silly projection.

[Kurmudgeon]

4. As per the article, the policy has been in effect since 1991

FTA:"Separation pay is granted to military personnel who served at least six years but were involuntarily discharged, part of an effort to ease their transition into civilian life. But the Defense Department has a list of conditions that trigger an automatic reduction in that pay, including homosexuality, unsuccessful drug or alcohol treatment or discharge in the interests of national security. That policy went into effect in 1991, two years before "don't ask, don't tell" became law."

There's no doubt that the policy needs changed, however blaming Obama for something started long before he entered into office is being disingenuous.
What needs to be done is putting the heat on the Defense Department for this policy, attacking the wrong target will not help change.
I would think one of the sharper law types could make a case out of this.

[vaberella]

5. It's the norm here!!n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. Ssshhh! You weren't supposed to notice that.

;)

[brentspeak]

7. As per the article, it is the JUSTICE Dept. that has intervened to try to scuttle the case

Please show us where it is written that the Justice Department is legally obligated to utilize its resources in this particular matter.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Come on!

Please Join the Gotta.find.something.to.blame.Obama.for.today Club!
where it doesn't matter what the facts are, or how they apply...After all,
the Right does this all the time, pins blame without citing facts....
so why shouldn't those claiming to be on the Left not be able to do it too?
after all, my understanding is when forming an arc, the extremes meet at some point.

We know that the Right blatantly allows itself to be misinformed and lacks nuance....
but it appears that the Left has finally caught up in the age of Obama. :shrug:

[Vattel]

9. Obama should just tell them to pay it.

Then there would be no need for the lawsuit. He is the CIC. No law of Congress requires the military not to pay. It can be done.

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. So Obama could just "tell them to pay it"? Why didn't his 3 predecessors just do that?

:shrug: Long Live King Obama! :eyes:

[Vattel]

14. Presumably because DADT was in force.

Apparently you don't understand how the federal government works. The President, as CIC, actually has a lot of power over the military. He can't violate laws that regulate the military, but you tell me: What law requires the military not to pay these soldiers full severence pay?

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. You seem to think you're the expert, you tell me. A link would be nice. This topic was...

discussed on NPR the other day. A caller who had been discharged under DADT, after 17 years of service, and was only 3 yrs away from retirement & full benefits was bemoaning the fact that the repeal didn't include restoration of benefits for someone in his predicament. The experts on the panel said that people would be welcome to re-enlist if they could pass the physical. Otherwise, new legislation would need to be drafted and passed by the House & Senate.

I really would like to see a link to your assertion, since "apparently I don't understand how the federal government works". Thanks in advance.

[Vattel]

18. The issue is severance pay and not general retirement benefits, but

you are correct that I was too quick to suggest that the President could help these soldiers get full severance pay. I simply don't know if there is federal code that precludes giving the soldiers in question full severance pay for their involuntary release. If there is, then the President would be powerless to do anything about the problem without new legislation from Congress. I think (though I'd need to check to be sure) that the Secretary of Defense is given a lot of power to decide on issues of involuntary release from service. So maybe something could be done. But I confess that I haven't looked into the relevant code nor am I inclined to take the time to do so. In short, my bad.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. Thanks for your honesty. I guess there's much we both "don't know...

about how the federal government works", huh? The danger of course is that misinformation like this gets passed along to unwitting folks who won't research, and won't question what they're told by someone who speaks with such sure-fired authority, like yourself. I think it behoves us all to check & doublecheck before passing along information that impacts the lives of real people. It can sometimes cause unnecessary worry. :hi:

[blkmusclmachine]

10. I never trusted Obama on anything GLBT:

Now I remember WHY.

[Inuca]

11. This better be a joke

but I am afraid it's not.

[SpartanDem]

13. This sounds like simple ex post facto

it was legal at the time, now that law has changed you can't go back say they were wronged. It's rare for a court to say a law can apply retroactively

[Vicar In A Tutu]

17. Don't be logical.

That hurts brains.

[jenmito]

20. When the DADT repeal took effect a few days ago, did you post ANYTHING about THAT? You know...

did you give any credit to Obama the way you criticize him for everything? Did you even express hapiness for the GLBT troops? No? I'm not surprised. Your only agenda at DU seems to be to criticize Obama. :eyes:

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. Uhm....I gonna guess, NO?

;)

[jenmito]

23. You'd be correct...

I searched his posts before asking. ;)

[JoePhilly]

21. Obama hates the gays, we all know that!!!!

:sarcasm: