snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Social Studies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 28 July 2017, 09:28 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,298
Default

I think that if it is impossible to know whether any given tweet is to be construed as an order or declaration of policy, then we must assume that none of them carry any weight. Which means that saying in America we worship God is his feeling, but it is not an attempt to direct policy; that he is not trying to order any action on MS13, but is just putting forth that he wants to do something about it; that he has not instituted a ban, even though he thinks it's a good idea and this is a trial balloon to see if it will become a real policy; and he doesn't know how to spell coverage so he bailed halfway through a tweet.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 28 July 2017, 09:43 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,241
Psychic

Then we generally agree. But while a tweet alone may not constitute an order, it does give an insight into what the President is thinking (and it seemed pretty unequivocal). The President does not have the authority to establish a theocracy. He does, however, have the authority to re-instate previous restrictions on transgender personnel serving in the military that were only ever brushed away by an Executive Order from a predecessor.

You can understand how such a sudden turnaround to a significant personnel issue could tend to send people reeling, right? There was quite a bit of doubt as to the way things were going: now there's very little. While we're all waiting on clear guidance and some details on how this 180 will be handled, I don't think there's much doubt it's coming. Of course he could always hit the undo button or just forget about the issue, but I don't think the service chiefs are going to be the ones to fight the battle in favor of transgender personnel. I think the most they'll do is fight to not screw over the people who came out a year ago. Maybe. Or not.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 26 August 2017, 12:05 AM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,624
Flame Trump signs directive banning transgender military recruits

President Donald Trump on Friday directed the military not to move forward with an Obama-era plan that would have allowed transgender individuals to be recruited into the armed forces, following through on his intentions announced a month earlier to ban transgender people from serving.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/politi...ary/index.html
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 30 August 2017, 02:05 AM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,574
Default Transgender troops in military can continue to serve for now, Mattis says

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said in a statement Tuesday that the Pentagon will allow current service members who are transgender to continue serving, while a panel of experts will study the issue.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transge...w-mattis-says/
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 30 August 2017, 05:18 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is online now
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 11,538
Default

I have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of currently-serving transfolk in the military are going to be looking at leaving soon anyway. I can't imagine that this has done anything to improve acceptance of them.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 30 August 2017, 02:47 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,298
Default

I am completely against the ban. It's bad policy, it's bad morally.
However, I am a bit concerned about the Secretary of Defense deciding to put on hold an order from the President. Sure, stopping Trump is a good thing. But Mattis has done this, and a week or so ago he was telling troops that the rest of the country has problems that the military doesn't, and that these fine young soldiers need to hold the line. At what point does he start telling the troops that they need to rescue the country from itself, and let the grown ups in the military take care of things?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 30 August 2017, 03:15 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,075
Default

As near as I can tell, Mattis is not out of compliance with Trump's order. The order, in fact, seems to specifically allow him to let people continue serving:

The order includes the following:

Quote:
As part of the implementation plan, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall determine how to address transgender individuals currently serving in the United States military. Until the Secretary has made that determination, no action may be taken against such individuals under the policy set forth in section 1(b) of this memorandum.
-- I do wonder whether the military's trying to stall in the hope that the courts will knock it down. But I really don't think Mattis's position on this means that we need to worry that they're in active rebellion.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 30 August 2017, 03:27 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 24,644
Default

I wasn't crazy about the speech to the troops either as it does hint towards disloyalty. But the CBS News article is wrong. Mattis' order is consistent with the President's directive. The order bans recruiting transgender people and prohibits any spending on their transitions, but it prohibits the military from taking any action against currently serving transgender soldiers and requires a study.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.19f98163acab
Quote:
As part of the implementation plan, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall determine how to address transgender individuals currently serving in the United States military. Until the Secretary has made that determination, no action may be taken against such individuals under the policy set forth in section 1(b) of this memorandum.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 30 August 2017, 03:31 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,298
Default

That does make me feel a bit better. Thanks, tl and GY.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 30 August 2017, 07:03 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,666
Default

Studies can take as long as 3.5 years. Just sayin.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 30 October 2017, 06:38 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,574
Default Transgender military policy change blocked by federal court

A federal court in Washington is barring President Trump from changing the government's policy on military service by transgender people.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transge...-live-updates/
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 30 October 2017, 07:51 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,666
Default

Just wondering, but if something is considered a "duty" must it also have to be a "right"?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 30 October 2017, 08:50 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is online now
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,489
Default

No. Sometimes there are related duties and rights, but lots of things are only one or the other. What duty or right are you thinking of?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 31 October 2017, 01:59 AM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
No. Sometimes there are related duties and rights, but lots of things are only one or the other. What duty or right are you thinking of?
Some consider military service a duty. Does that also make it a right?
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 31 October 2017, 02:40 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 11 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 6,882
Mouse

I wonder what would happen if we manage to get every cisgender soldier diagnosed with bone spurs.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 31 October 2017, 03:43 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
Some consider military service a duty. Does that also make it a right?
It's only legally a duty when there's a draft. When there's been a draft, there have always been some people exempted, for a wide variety of grounds both sensible (e.g. youth and old age) and not sensible (e.g. gender and orientation.) And it's not legally a duty for people who are exempted or who have been discharged, even when there is a draft. Nobody's being simultanously required to serve and forbidden to do so; and there's hordes of precedent for the military refusing some applicants, and/or kicking people out.

So it's not legally a right.

Whether it's morally a right for those people who consider it morally a duty to serve seems to me to be a question for those specific people. In a society that considers military service important, it does seem to me that demanding the moral right to join in is a fair argument.

And, as people in the military are paid while serving, and may continue to get economic benefit as veterans when no longer serving (such as from pensions/health care; from preference in hiring for some positions; and even from discounts from some private businesses), an argument could be made that it's an economic right for those capable of doing the work the military's hiring for.

While those arguments can both be made, and I've seen both of them made, not everybody agrees with them. So whether it's a moral and/or economic right to serve in the military doesn't seem to be a settled question.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Pentagon's plan to put robot Marines in space A Turtle Named Mack Techno-Babble 13 23 July 2014 11:10 PM
Pentagon Lifting Ban on Women in Combat lord_feldon War, What Is It Good For? 8 24 January 2013 03:31 PM
9/11: Pentagon aircraft hijack impossible snopes Spook Central 15 14 October 2010 04:28 PM
Mornings at the Pentagon snopes Inboxer Rebellion 6 12 February 2010 02:29 PM
The Pentagon's purple water fountain snopes Military 3 08 February 2009 12:02 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.