By Kristina Wong

Feb 2, 2010 6:40pm

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Hearing — Mullen Strong on Repeal — UPDATED

ABC News' Luis Martinez reports: Today’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell hearing was memorable on many fronts; namely Adm. Mike Mullen’s strong personal statement that gays should serve openly in the military because it “would be the right thing to do” and Sen. John McCain’s strident claim that Defense Secretary Gates and Mullen were bypassing congressional input in suggesting a repeal.        In many ways Mullen’s remarks overshadowed Gates’ announcement that the Pentagon would undertake a year-long study to measure attitudes among military servicemembers in potential planning and a quick review of recommendations to carry out a more humane version of the policy until said time that Congress works out a possible repeal. In expressing his personal belief to the Senate Armed Services Committee that “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do, ” Mullen became the highest ranking active-duty officer to ever step forward in support of ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military.   He told the panel, ” No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about  who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens or me personally, it comes down to integrity, theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.” Mullen said he had developed his opinion over the years for a variety of reasons.  He pointed out that he had been serving alongside gays ever since he began his Navy career in 1968 and that it was likely that Sen. McCain had as well, “everybody in the military has.”  Yet, some Republican senators on the Committee were of the opinion that Mullen and Gates were simply following the lead of their Commander in Chief.    Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) suggested servicemembers serving under Mullen might under “undue command influence” given his comments today.  Mullen disagreed with the senator saying it was about leadership and saying very clearly that this  was something he took very seriously. Chairman Carl Levin finished the hearing praising Mullen’s eloquence in stating his personal opinion, calling it a “profile in leadership” and that “this was a view that you hold in your conscience and not giving to us because you were directed to by anybody, including the Commander in Chief.” After the hearing, Levin told reporters that he had heard Mullen express a similar opinion in a private meeting.  But the strongest critic at today’s session was Senator McCain, who told Gates he was “deeply disappointed” by his testimony because it was “clearly biased without the view of Congress being taken into consideration” as it was in 1993 when he had worked on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell legislation.    When he asked Gates what kinds of civil unions or partnerships might be respected by a new law that might replace Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Gates replied that would be one of the things that would have to be looked at. McCain cited that as another example of how the military was preparing for change without hearing from Congress, the Joint Chiefs and without “taking into consideration all the ramifications of the law.”  He finished his questioning by bluntly saying, “Well, I'm glad to say that we still have a Congress of the United States that would have to act to repeal Don't Ask,Don'tTell despite your efforts to repeal it, in many respects, by fiat.” Another memorable voice at today’s hearing was Sen. Roland Burris (D-Il) who is best known for the ethics travails he endured in filling out Barack Obama’s senate seat.  He  compared the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to President Truman’s integration of the military.   “At one time, my uncles and members of my race couldn't even serve in the military. And we moved to this point where they're some of the best and brightest that we've had — generals and even now the commander in chief is of African-American heritage,” Burris said. He argued, “We must have everyone who is capable, willing and able to volunteer to defend this country, defend this great American tradition of ours to have the opportunity to serve regardless to their sexual orientation.” Burris doesn’t want the debate to take long and become what he called a waste of taxpayer’s time and energy “on something that is so basic in human rights and opportunities for individuals in this country.” 

User Comments

“He [McCain] finished his questioning by bluntly saying, “Well, I’m glad to say that we still have a Congress of the United States that would have to act to repeal Don’t Ask,Don’tTell despite your efforts to repeal it, in many respects, by fiat.””
McCain 2006
“And I understand the opposition to it, and I‘ve had these debates and discussions, but the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.”
(hattip Avarois)

Posted by: Ryan C | February 2, 2010, 6:49 pm 6:49 pm

see everybody thinks dont ask dont tell ban is just that but few realize how much deeper it goes that no matter what if the dont ask dont tell ban goes through then being a homosexual or lesbian or some sort of transgender is still againnst the uniform code of military justice article 125 which is one of the punitive articles the reason being is the way homosexuals consumate is a form of sodomy which is clearly stated in article 125 then the debate of rewriting the uniform code of military justice begins should the uniform code of military justice follow you into your bedroom…good luck washington

Posted by: vincent | February 2, 2010, 7:46 pm 7:46 pm

I bet in Ryan’s mind there’s some inconsistency between McCain’s position today that the law shouldn’t be changed without input from Congress and the Joint Chiefs and his 2006 position that if the “leadership of the military”, ie the Joint Chiefs, advocated changing the law then “we ought to seriously consider changing it”.
What makes Mullen’s statement “strong” but McCain’s “strident”, besides reporter bias?

Posted by: bgates | February 2, 2010, 8:33 pm 8:33 pm

It’s well past time for Adm Mullen to retire.

Posted by: twg | February 2, 2010, 9:06 pm 9:06 pm

“I bet in Ryan’s mind there’s some inconsistency between McCain’s position today that the law shouldn’t be changed without input from Congress and the Joint Chiefs and his 2006 position that if the “leadership of the military”, ie the Joint Chiefs, advocated changing the law then “we ought to seriously consider changing it”.”
Does it sound like McCain will now seriously consider it after hearing support for it by the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs or did it sound like McCain has made up his mind?

Posted by: Ryan C | February 2, 2010, 9:33 pm 9:33 pm

While I would like to be liberal in regard to the rights of gay service members,I have had personal experiences of having to interview members who committed acts on non-consenting fellow service members.Unfortunately it does happen,at least at the enlisted level.Those kids are the most vulnerable.In my experience gay officers are responsible and tend to keep their sexual orientations private.

Posted by: Nephron | February 2, 2010, 9:34 pm 9:34 pm

If gay is ok, how about transsexuals? There are female uniforms they could wear and still be within regs. And isn’t finally time to stop the discrimination in the military against fat people? They are routinely discharged for failing to meet military standards for height and weight. I can see a lot of room for improvement in the military. Let’s just let elite academicians have at it to design the perfect military. We’ll all be a lot safer then.

Posted by: twg | February 2, 2010, 10:07 pm 10:07 pm

BARACK OBAMA ADMITS THAT BY DESIGN YOU REMAIN UNEMPLOYED
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Tuesday, February 2nd at 2:59PM EST
7 Comments
“Barack Obama refused to help get unemployment down in 2009 by design so he could get credit in the 2010 election year instead.”
Many of us have been saying it for a while. The White House intended that the stimulus money, which the White House intended to use to save or create jobs, would not really be spent in 2009 as unemployment soared to over 10%.
On page 9 of Obama’s budget proposal, we find that, in fact, the White House is now admitting this fact. You are still unemployed by government design.
Barack Obama writes,
All told, as of the end of November 2009, about 50 percent of Recovery Act funds—or $395 billion—has been either obligated or is providing assistance directly to Americans in the form of tax relief. By design, the bulk of the remaining 50 percent of Recovery Act funds will be deployed in the coming months of 2010 and during the beginning of 2011 to support additional job creation when our economy continues to need a boost. Many of the programs slated to receive additional funding in the near future are those with significant promise of job creation. These include more than $7 billion in broadband expansion, approximately $8 billion in funds to lay the foundation for a high-speed rail network, and continued funding for other transportation projects. All told, the Recovery Act is on track to meet the goal of disbursing 70 percent of its funds in the first 18 months of its life.
(Budget at p.9)
So wait? Even after 18 months all the money won’t be spent?
To put this in perspective, consider what the President said in his State of the Union address:
One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.
But the devastation remains. One in ten Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. For those who had already known poverty, life has become that much harder.
This recession has also compounded the burdens that America’s families have been dealing with for decades – the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.
So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They’re not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. . . .
For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don’t understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn’t; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.
What the hell? This man says last week that “we acted — immediately and aggressively” and this week says “by design, the bulk of the remaining 50 percent of Recovery Act funds will be deployed in the coming months of 2010.”
That is not immediately and aggressively. He says “one in ten Americans still cannot find work” but also says in his budget, “the Administration moved rapidly to sign into law, just 28 days after taking office, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Recovery Act) to create and save jobs, as well as transform the economy to compete in the 21st Century.” (Budget at p.
Obama is trying to have it both ways. He admits his stimulus money is dragging out and that even after 18 months it won’t all be spent. At the same time, he tells the public at the State of the Union that the reasons there is still 10% unemployment is “bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn’t” and “Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.”
Well, he has the last bit right. Washington was “unwilling to solve” the problems because 2009 was not an election year and 2010 is. The President of the United States refused to help get unemployment down in 2009 by design so he could get credit in the 2010 election year instead.

Posted by: henry | February 2, 2010, 11:45 pm 11:45 pm

ok.. i get it.. we must all treat people with alternated lifestyles in an equal fashion.. unless ‘we’ is the U.S. Goverment..
Don’t ask Don’t tell.. the dirty little secret.. the government imposed closeting of a large portion of the population..
maybe… we should make ‘them’ wear little pink triangles on their uni’s.

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | February 3, 2010, 8:06 am 8:06 am

alternate??

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | February 3, 2010, 8:07 am 8:07 am

the government imposed closeting of a large portion of the population..
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | Feb 3, 2010 8:06:54 AM
——————–
Vocal, yes. Large? No. Statistics run as low as 3% of the U.S. population to as high as ten percent. Either way, it’s not a large portion.
My views are mixed on this. I don’t feel like a military designed around integrity should make their soldiers become liars. However, no one is forced to enter the military right now, so the circumstances they would have to live under are well-known prior to enlistment. I think if they get it and find out it’s too difficult to not be honest about who they are, they should be eligible for a discharge.

Posted by: Jen B. | February 3, 2010, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm

“Vocal, yes. Large? No. Statistics run as low as 3% of the U.S. population to as high as ten percent. Either way, it’s not a large portion.”
That’s between 9 million and 30 million people.

Posted by: Ryan C | February 3, 2010, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm

If ever single one of them was in the military. Are you telling me that you believe every one of the 8-30 million is in or would be in the military?
As of February 2009 only 1,454,515 were on active duty in the armed forces, with 848,000 in the reserves. Even if you take the high end estimate of ten percent, you’re talking about 200,000 people. Do you see 200 thousand people as a large percentage of 300 million people?

Posted by: Jen B. | February 3, 2010, 12:37 pm 12:37 pm

vincent,
So is writing a bad check!!! Art. 123a, commands I’m sure will stay out of gays-lesbians bedrooms just as they’ve stayed out of folks bank accounts.

Posted by: BruhMan | February 3, 2010, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm

So I’m reading in this thread that gays only make up a small percentage of the population so their rights shouldn’t be protected? That such a small group doesn’t deserve equality in protecting our country? Does that even make sense to you? That’s the point of protecting people from discrimination, because they aren’t the majority. Less than 5% of the population in the US is Asian. Should they not be treated equally?

Posted by: Michael | December 2, 2010, 10:39 pm 10:39 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.