It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court rejects Trump's transgender troop ban

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Sure he is certainly ABLE to do it without consultation. That doesn't mean it is a good idea and will be met with unanimous approval.




posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian




Why do you feel the need to down these people?


I dont. I just feel that any military should be consisting of real hard men....not bunch of pu****s...literally or other wise.

And in the end...because it's all pretense for the sake of PC...no woman or pretend man can ever be as equally competent to be in a military as a straight hetero male. A simple issue of biology over desire to feel good.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Not when it comes to the military, no. And yes, in chief
The executive is in control of the military, not the judicial. Matter of fact, for the judicial to even attempt to use their power in such a fashion could be seen as sedition or rebellion. Lincoln would have hanged the judge.
a reply to: Devino



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Devino

Pentagon ends transgender ban


The Pentagon said Thursday it was ending the ban on transgender people being able to serve openly in the U.S. military.


Was not that hard like the third link down, Ny times also covered it, so did the La Times.

They were not allowed to openly serve, IE they were then considered cross dressers as along as that did not get in the way of the mission folks generally did not care.
It appears you misunderstood my post. Let's reread it.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

WTF? They were outright banned from the military for the entire history of this country's military


originally posted by: Devino
Got a link to back that statement up? My guess is it was a "Don't ask don't tell" sort of situation. I'll bet there have been transgenders serving throughout this countries military history but nobody talked about it and nobody really cared.
My guess is it never used to be an issue. Perhaps transgenders were diagnosed with psychological disorders and thus discharged yet I don't know, that's why I asked for a link since burdman30ott6 seemed so sure. So when did this ban become specifically about transgenders or are we to assume it has always been there?



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
Not when it comes to the military, no. And yes, in chief
The executive is in control of the military, not the judicial. Matter of fact, for the judicial to even attempt to use their power in such a fashion could be seen as sedition or rebellion. Lincoln would have hanged the judge.
a reply to: Devino

This country is not founded on the military, we are far more than that. There are three branches of government that are separate for a reason. The executive branch does not control the Judicial and it is the very point of the Judicial branch to keep in check policies made by the executive branch when they are found to be in violation of the constitution. Not sedition nor rebellion but following its intended purpose.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Southern Guardian




Why do you feel the need to down these people?


I dont. I just feel that any military should be consisting of real hard men.
Is that why so much is spent on Viagra?



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Good send them lady boys to the front line!!!








posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill
Good send them lady boys to the front line!!!





They are already there and have been for a long time.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

How about they just do the MOS they signed up for. If I were a transgender doing Military Intelligence, I'd be pretty peeved if I got transferred to 11B and sent to the "front lines" just because I'm transgender. I'm petty sure that is also discrimination.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill
Good send them lady boys to the front line!!!



Why them?



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Devino
Sure but if he wants his EO to be effective and not simply banned he should do some consulting from those who know better, don't you think?

Well, yeah...that's exactly what I said (and you quoted):

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I mean, it makes sense to meet with a judge advocate general or so, just to ensure that he can legally do something, .../quote]



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
He is not having a good start to his week is he?


I know his supporters must be disappointed. He's not having a good start to a Presidency. It's riddled with conflict and failures.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You were in the military. Was this an issue when you were serving? Just curious.
Thanks



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill
Good send them lady boys to the front line!!!







wow, I think even the most hate-filled of folks would have been ashamed to post that.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

I served from 2003 - 2006 so "don't ask don't tell" was still in effect, and at the time trans people were grouped into the same boat as homosexuals for that policy.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
He is not having a good start to his week is he?


I know his supporters must be disappointed. He's not having a good start to a Presidency. It's riddled with conflict and failures.


Every Presidency is riddled with conflict and failures. Thats why Presdential elections mean less with every election. The broken Congress of special interest groups, kowtowing to their Corporate and Bankster supporters, thats the real problem!



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I agree with you except for the last part.

but no meeting need take place if the commander in chief wants to make a change to hiring policy.
The court in the OP apparently disagrees with you here. By rejecting his ban seems to prove that he cannot simply change hiring policy just because he wants to.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Mmmm, sorry, I keep forgetting about DADT. And DADT was the rule until Obama changed sometime after 2008 I guess.

I dont understand why this is an issue. Some seem to think it is because people will enlist just to have the military pay for the operation? That seems highly doubtfull to me.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
He is not having a good start to his week is he?


I know his supporters must be disappointed. He's not having a good start to a Presidency. It's riddled with conflict and failures.


Every Presidency is riddled with conflict and failures. Thats why Presdential elections mean less with every election. The broken Congress of special interest groups, kowtowing to their Corporate and Bankster supporters, thats the real problem!


Wouldn 't argue those points, but this administration seems particularly vulnerable to self-induced conflict.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Devino

Cannot end a ban if there is not a ban in place.

Wiki


The United States' military policy previously allowed for exclusion of transgender people from service on medical grounds. While gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members were allowed to serve openly since 2011, transgender service members risked discharge if they did not pass as their assigned sex. This required that service members conceal their gender identities throughout service.[37] It was estimated that in 2008-2009 there were approximately 15,500 transgender individuals either serving on active duty or in the National Guard or Army Reserve forces within the U.S. Military.[38] A 2016 study, however, based on previous research estimated that only between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender individuals served on active duty and between 830 and 4,160 in reserve duty, with midrange figures of 2,450 in active duty and 1,510 in reserves. [39][40]


Again not hard to look up, as I said they were commonly referred to as cross dressers and yes they were discharged.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join