Discharged DADT Cadet escorts Lady Gaga to VMA's in INDIA WHITES

Mongo said:

Pray, do tell. Seriously, I am in the dark.

Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that this is the SERVICE ACADEMY forums, and the thread title is "Discharged DADT Cadet..."

For better or worse, those two facts framed the discussion from the outset.

scoutpilot said:

All I'm saying is that this is the SERVICE ACADEMY forums.

Click to expand...

Which has morphed into ROTC, OTS/OCS,PLC, Public and Privately Funded Military Colleges, Military News, etc.

Regardless, when discussing leadership, don't you think that the more senior individuals have a certain amount of respnsibility? After all, she is not really a 'veteran' and has only been in 'college' for two years. Correct? How was she to know better if her seniors were doing the same thing? Sounds to me as if one is attempting to argue both sides of the issue here. Or perhaps, again, the uniform is not the real issue.

Mongo said:

Which has morphed into ROTC, OTS/OCS,PLC, Public and Privately Funded Military Colleges, Military News, etc.

Regardless, when discussing leadership, don't you think that the more senior individuals have a certain amount of respnsibility? After all, she is not really a 'veteran' and has only been in 'college' for two years. Correct? How was she to know better if her seniors were doing the same thing? Sounds to me as if one is attempting to argue both sides of the issue here. Or perhaps, again, the uniform is not the real issue.

Click to expand...

Oh, so now this is a leadership discussion? I guess I missed the leadership aspect when folks on your side of the argument, with otherwise respectable points, starting calling people bigots for not agreeing that it was A-OK for this young woman (or ANY of them, for that matter) to knowingly use her uniform for a political purpose (and that's by her own admission, as we've seen). Such insults are the refuge of the small-minded, because it means the only leverage they have left is to demean the opposition.

And you're absolutely right...in the end, she's just a college kid. One who got a hell of a deal.

MakeItHappen,

If AF's position on the rule is correct, then there are solid valid arguments that could be made on both sides of the issue, and it would not surprise me if in fact nothing was violated. If anyone has any precedents on this issue it sure would be helpful. My background isn't in military law, But the bolded would give me pause.

Click to expand...

It is a fact that they are not allowed to wear their uniform to a political function. End of subject, period, dot.

This is why people are arguing that she was wrong. She even stated she knew the rule. It was not as if she did not know this rule existed, she knew and still did it with full knowledge. She probably rationalized that the VMA was not a political function, which is true, however, she wore it for a political statement and no other reason. She didn't come out afterwards and say I didn't know Lady Gaga would be using me as a poster child for DADT. SHe came out and acknowledged that she knew this was the intention of the singer.

So now, if you know they are not to wear it for a political event, where do you stand? Yes, I guess you could frame it as she was not wrong, it was not a political event, thus giving her the right to wear it. However, isn't that actually parsing the intent of the reg? As many posters have stated none of us have a problem of her being an advocate for the repeal of DADT, but the only reason this became a story was the uniform. Had she shown up in a dress, she would have melded into just being a guest. It was the shock value of the uniform from a publicity stunt for political purposes that made this become a news issue, which is why the military doesn't allow their members to wear the uniform at a political event. Due to this action, Sen. Reid has called for a vote, one that was not planned. A vote before the survey ordered by the DoD is completed. Now, in a way that is great, but unfortunately, the vote was called by a Senator in the political re-election battle of his life. Am I the only one thinking he is doing this not for the good of the military, but to earn votes? Afterall, if it was for the good, then he needs to explain to everyone why he is not waiting for the results of the survey, or why he called for it 4 days after all of his Tweets with Lady Gaga.

scoutpilot said:

And you're absolutely right...in the end, she's just a college kid. One who got a hell of a deal.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Which seems to be a much more prevalent thought than influence by the other three individuals.

So perhaps she stayed as long as possible hoping that she could either learn to rationalize the dichotomy between DADT and integrity and/or DADT being repealed? I guess when she reapplies, the "folks on your side" will have lost their major argument. And if she is accepted, it means that WP accepted her actions, correct? So why don't we just drop this discussion and stand by to wait?

Mongo said:

Or perhaps, again, the uniform is not the real issue.

Click to expand...

Of course not. Never seen this much venom directed at an athlete who drops after two years. But bring up the subject of "one of those gays" and suddenly a lot of people become windsocks.

Pima said:

It is a fact that they are not allowed to wear their uniform to a political function. End of subject, period, dot.

Click to expand...

It was not the Pat Robertson right-wing evengelical book burning, nor was it the George Soros Communist/Socialist Picnic - it was the MTV Video Music Awards.

The MTV Video Music Awards are not a political function. It's just some dumb TV award ceremony where the music industry pats itself on the back and gives little statues away.

End of subject, period, dot.

Luigi,

I did say it was not a political function, that is how it is possible to say she was fine in doing it. However, she wore it for a political statement, and that is where the lines become blurry.

I have stated, I think she knew this and thus, played hard and fast with the intentions of the wearing the uniform at a political function. I think it was wrong. I have never had an issue of her being gay, or being an advocate for LGBT. Go for it.

I support the repeal of DADT.

It is interesting how posters will discuss the level of honor and integrity for our military members must be upon reproach, but when they come to use it as a defense why they were against this action, all of the sudden that is not allowed to be used. When I say this issue/action, I am speaking only of wearing the uniform, nothing about her sexuality or terms of why she left WP.

Did she all the sudden lose that level of honor and integrity when she left WP? Or are you stating, that you believe she did not wear the uniform as a political statement regarding DADT, she and the others just wore them because they had nothing else to wear in their closet. If you say it was for a political statement, than don't you agree she played hard and fast with the rules? DOn't you agree when she said she knew she wasn't suppose to wear it due to the reg, she loses credibility for that honor and integrity issue regarding the military's stance on the appropriate times to wear the uniform?

JMHO, she knew it, and slapped the face of the military by wearing it for a political purpose. It was not a fashion statement, it was a political statement. Sometimes the only way to determine where you stand on an issue is to question the motivation of the actions that caused the issue. Ask yourself...political or fashion...not a hard question to answer.

Luigi59 said:

Of course not. Never seen this much venom directed at an athlete who drops after two years. But bring up the subject of "one of those gays" and suddenly a lot of people become windsocks.

Click to expand...

And yet I bet you would if an athlete quit, then wore his dress gray to the NFL draft as a part of a movement to allow Cadet graduates to be drafted into the pro sports leagues.

Apples to apples, my friend. Rare, I know.

Notice how there wasn't this level of discourse when the thread about her simply resigning was posted? Only when she wore the uniform did it take this turn.

Sorry, but your point doesn't hold water. Again, spurious insults and labels are the refuge of the small-minded.

Mongo: Without any admitted proof whatsoever, I'll bet you she in no way "reapplies" or comes back to the military. Not unless DADT was repealed in the next 12 months. Saying she left ONLY because she was a VICTIM of the DADT policy (Even though hundreds and possibly thousands of gays before her seemed to be able to live by the policy) and that she'd reapply if DADT was rescinded, is her total defense. Without making such comments, her leaving the academy would have no meaning whatsoever. You and JAM want to give her every possible benefit of the doubt on her motives. I can appreciate that. But her actions; going to the media, the VMA, etc... speak differently. As far as we know, the Academy was a backup choice for education, and that once something better came along, she had an exist strategy in place. Not saying this is true, just possible. But you seem to believe 100% that the academy/military service was her life long dream and passion. That without the DADT policy, she'd be one of best cadets of all time. That's definitely possible. It's also possible that the academy was a backup, and as soon as a "Better" deal came along, such as Yale, she had every intention of leaving.

Luigi; it seems like ONLY those defending this girl are the ones bringing up that she's gay. I've not heard one other person in this thread make mention of her sexuality. I wonder why that is? When you run out of arguments, you pull "Cards". If she was black, I'm sure the race card would have be played by now by someone. She's gay, so that card was definitely going to get played. Of course JAM had to play the "Gender" card because she didn't expect a few Conservatives to be open minded enough to slam on a republican representative. But again, ya'all seem to be the only ones obsessed with her sexuality. And it doesn't seem to matter if I use analogies of tattoos, drinking, drugs, hair length, or any other policy, and that I feel EXACTLY THE SAME for any and all policies in the military. Nope, that doesn't matter, because you don't have an argument against that. So, it must be because she's gay; or the representative is a woman; or we're just bigots, racists, narrow minded, rednecks, etc... Don't feel bad, your response is quite common when a group runs out of substance in a discussion or argument.

I'll bet you she in no way "reapplies" or comes back to the military. Not unless DADT was repealed in the next 12 months. Saying she left ONLY because she was a VICTIM of the DADT policy (Even though hundreds and possibly thousands of gays before her seemed to be able to live by the policy) and that she'd reapply if DADT was rescinded, is her total defense.

Click to expand...

I think she has to reapply, just like Shannon Faulkner had to go down that route when she won her case against the Citadel.

She is now unofficially the spokesperson for the repeal of DADT. If it is repealed even in 2-7 yrs, she would be eligible to go OTC, if she doesn't it will look bad, especially since she has publicly acknowledge she hopes to one day wear the uniform. People would always question her true motives.

The minute it is repealed the Army will reach out to her to be the next Jeannie Flynn, but from a sexual orientation standpoint, not a sex/gender standpoint.

If she really wants to be in the military, she'd be a fool to turn it down because like Jeannie she would be the poster child. 1st Commander, 1st Field Grade, 1st this, 1st that. Her career would be golden. She can parlay that into a fortune. Of course, just like Jeannie, there will always be as she obtains rank early, and gets the "pick" of assignments, that it had nothing to do with her abilities, but because she is being taken care of from a military PR stance. Which IMHO a wrong assumption. I personally know Jeannie, and I think her career has been always harder than the women she opened the door for, since she knows this exists in many people's minds. She works 2x as hard, and still has that illusion over her cranium.

Back to the uniform issue...again, I have yet to read anyone state if she knew the uniform was not to ever be worn for a political statement Katie Miller was correct in wearing it. I have read it was the VMA, and not a political event,(I agree it was not a political event), but not that she did not do it for a political statement. Isn't that splitting hairs? Wouldn't that be saying, yes, it was politically motivated, but she didn't break the law? Isn't that an issue if you are certain posters that demand honor and integrity among our troops? How honorable is to abuse the letter or intent of the reg for your personal gain? Are these the type of military members we want who find the loophole to satisfy their personal needs over the military? Honestly, to me, that is the issue. She split hairs and I question her integrity.

OBTW, I also question the integrity of the other 3 too. However, as scout pointed out the fact is this thread is titled Discharged DADT Cadet and not Gay military members at the VMA.

I sure hope the Academy is able to resist the pressure to readmit her upon DADT repeal. Her sexual orientation was an open secret with the cadets. If she was ever in the closet it was a large walk-in closet without a door.
Her class rank notwithstanding, she was not beloved and her departure met with few tears. She was a lone wolf and not a team player. It was a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" situation. Gay cadets can survive and do well at the academy - depending upon how one interacts with other cadets. Those with a personal agenda, any agenda, likely will not do well.
Her going to the press after separation would have been fine - doing it before she left was a political stunt. Appearing with Lady GooGooGaGa was even worse and likely shows that her agenda has now been taken over by her advisers/handlers. RIP, and again hopefully that door didn't hurt too bad when it hit you on the way out.

They will not be able to resist, they will offer it. The only way out of it is if she says, I don't want to at this time go back because it would be repeating X amount of yrs educationally. However, I will be going OCS upon graduation. I think due to her youth and advisors/handlers she has yet to understand the cliche becareful of what you wish for. By becoming the poster child she has now put herself in a corner, one that the Army will utilize. They will say, we are tolerant of homosexuality once the DADT is repealed, and the way to do it is to get her to join. She says no, and she will have a lot of splaining to do. Go back 20+ yrs ago, Jeannie Flynn was on the national media circuit because she was the 1st female fighter pilot in the AF. The military is going to go down this route with Katie Miller. It will follow her for yrs...it will be news for yrs. I.E. If she chooses to leave before retirement, there will be a national media blurb, about her leaving. If she makes General there will be a national media blurb. I highly doubt, she understands how big this really is from a long term standpoint.

Her going to the press after separation would have been fine - doing it before she left was a political stunt. Appearing with Lady GooGooGaGa was even worse and likely shows that her agenda has now been taken over by her advisers/handlers

Click to expand...

I think this is also why many posters feel that it was a political stunt, thus to the world it was not a political event, but Katie Miller made it a political event in the attire she elected to wear.

Again, anyone who supports her wearing it, I am all eyes. Just defend to those that oppose her wearing the uniform that it was not political. I have yet to read one poster say it wasn't political.

Pima said:

MakeItHappen,
It is a fact that they are not allowed to wear their uniform to a political function. End of subject, period, dot.

Click to expand...

Forgive me, but it's not that elementary. You don't grasp the legal analysis, nor should you be expected to.

Pima said:

if you know they are not to wear it for a political event, where do you stand?

Click to expand...

Hypothetically, with what you've given, the individual would be in violation.

Pima said:

Yes, I guess you could frame it as she was not wrong, it was not a political event, thus giving her the right to wear it. However, isn't that actually parsing the intent of the reg?

Click to expand...

Please re-read my post. I'm not framing it either way. Policy, regs., laws, etc, need to stand up to scrutiny and intent is certainly one factor that plays into that.

Make It,

I'm not framing it either way. Policy, regs., laws, etc, need to stand up to scrutiny and intent is certainly one factor that plays into that.

Click to expand...

It seems you have a legal background. So let's address it from your legal perspective.

Katherine Miller stated:
"It was a big decision to wear the uniform," Miller said. "You're not supposed to be in uniform at anything that could be perceived as a political event."

As an attorney, how would you defend this with the additional information of why Lady Gaga had these 4 escort her in their uniform? I think the key words are "perceived as a political event" and not a "political statement". Parsing to me.

What would you expect the counter be from the military stand point...not talking vet or DADT issues, just the political event issue since she wore it for a political statement and not fashion.

I am just asking to gain knowledge.

This is not a legal issue for the majority of us, this is an ethical issue. She can be legally in her own rights, but that doesn't mean it was ethical. Ethics, Honor and Integrity are the core fundamental needs for a strong leader. The SA exists to create future leaders. How does she mentor a lower ranking military member if she parses the military regs for her own agenda? Does she as an AD member support this action, or does she reprimand? Does she look the other way?

Yes, law has black/white and gray like life. However, if she is to come back into the military, just like life, sometimes your personal opinions take back seat to the organization, and you can find yourself in the bulls eye if you try to make it the opposite way. To the majority of us, that is what she did, she put herself above the organization. She placed the bulls eye on her back with full knowledge. She knew she would be criticized and was willing to risk it.

Don't condemn people for criticizing her regarding her motives...not saying you are, but others are doing exactly that. They are criticizing posters for not understanding how she was a victim of DADT, whereas, the reality is this is not about victimization or DADT, this is about ethically questioning her motive for wearing the uniform. TWO different things.

Pima said:

Make It,


It seems you have a legal background. So let's address it from your legal perspective.

Katherine Miller stated:
"It was a big decision to wear the uniform," Miller said. "You're not supposed to be in uniform at anything that could be perceived as a political event."

As an attorney, how would you defend this with the additional information of why Lady Gaga had these 4 escort her in their uniform? I think the key words are "perceived as a political event" and not a "political statement". Parsing to me




I am just asking to gain knowledge.

This is not a legal issue for the majority of us, this is an ethical issue. She can be legally in her own rights, but that doesn't mean it was ethical.

Click to expand...

.

MakeItHappen said:

America's Finest:
I had always been taught that the "political function" rule of uniform wear covered any event that would give civilians the impression that the military in any way, shape, or form endorsed, opposed, or in any way had a stance on the issue. Please, correct me if I am wrong as this is what I have always believed the rule was.

If AF's position on the rule is correct, then there are solid valid arguments that could be made on both sides of the issue, and it would not surprise me if in fact nothing was violated. If anyone has any precedents on this issue it sure would be helpful. My background isn't in military law, But the bolded would give me pause.

Click to expand...

With the little that I know about this subject,
there are several angles, here is one:

Were civilians given the impression that the military in any way, shape, or form endorsed, opposed, or in any way had a stance on the issue?

Civilians were not given an impression on what stance the military had (and on what issue), if any, by these individuals appearing in military dress uniforms. Civilians can hardly dress themselves, it would be impossible for them to perceive impressions from the military at an MTV function.

Were civilians given the impression that the military in any way, shape, or form endorsed, opposed, or in any way had a stance on the issue?

Civilians were not given an impression on what stance the military had (and on what issue), if any, by these individuals appearing in military dress uniforms.

Click to expand...

Yes, they were given the impression even from Lady Gaga
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/09/14/lady-gaga-involved-fight-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/
http://www.celebuzz.com/see-lady-gagas-anti-dont-s252231/
http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/09/14/lady-gagas-vma-date-interviewed-on-rachel-maddow-video/

Lady Gaga made it the news that the military did oppose DADT via multiple media outlets, thus the civilians were given the impression that negative image when they wore the uniform as members who were "forced" to leave due to their sexuality and the DADT issue.

Katie Miller, announced publicly that she knew the reason she was invited was because of DADT.

"How did you end up going to the VMAs with Lady Gaga?" Maddow wondered.

Miller said that Gaga had invited a group of soldiers -- who had either been discharged or had resigned because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- to one of her concerts.

After the concert, Miller and the other ex-soldiers "had the opportunity to speak with (Gaga) ... we told her our story, and she was really touched by that, and she wanted to do something bigger, so she proposed the VMAs and we all accepted."

Click to expand...

Their intention was clear, it was pre-meditated to make a political statement. Again, this was not a fashion statement, but a statement regarding the position of the military where, these members wore their uniforms to highlight the impression of the injustices within the military regarding DADT.

It was not a hush hush thing. It was a statement. Lady Gaga did not hide this fact at all when she did the red carpet walk with them, took pictures with them on the red carpet, gave background interviews on her escorts, tweeted about them, etc. Thus, civilian viewers who watched the VMA's were given an impression about the military stance, and the 4 of them knew the regs, and knew it was a political stance against the military's current position regarding DADT.

Are you splitting hairs about how many citizens compared to the amount of people in the world need to know as a classifier if they were wrong or right regarding the intention? I.E only 5 million people watched in a society of 300 million, out of the 5 million, only 500K only knew that it was against DADT? What will be the stick to classify the amount of civilians needed to define that issue. The 70 yr old grandpa babysitting his grandkids, who served...is he classified as a citizen? The sibling of an officer watching, are they a citizen? Both would be classified as a citizen, not a military member. Should it be counted against them because they are informed of the military's stance regarding DADT and/or when it is appropriate to wear the uniform in public?

Did the avg citizen have an impression upon the stance? You tell me, Harry Reid has asked for a vote on this issue before the survey. To me, that says the avg citizen did get an impression regarding military members wearing the uniform and DADT. It did have an impact, otherwise that vote would have been on the agenda before the VMA's. He actually slipped it into the DREAM bill this week. Additionally, Reid knows that voting on this will have no impact at all because Obama has to certify the survey prior to enacting the law, which means DECEMBER!

I do agree most people don't understand DADT from a legislative standpoint, Reid played politics as usual. This issue will be included as a rider with the F-35 engine, which Obama promises to veto, and the count for the bill is 55, not enough to over ride the bill. Hence, Reid made Gaga happy, with an empty promise. All of this came about from the VMA.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today promised pop star Lady Gaga, via the Twitter machine, that he will hold a vote on Don't Ask, Don't Tell next week.

Reid announced yesterday that the Senate will vote sometime next week on the 2011 defense authorization bill, which includes a provision to repeal DADT.

Today, Gaga asked her followers to call Reid and tell him to schedule a vote. So Reid responded, via his campaign's Twitter account, that he already had.

.@ladygaga There is a vote on #DADT next week. Anyone qualified to serve this country should be allowed to do so http://bit.ly/9ucdIj #nvsen

The authorization bill, with the repeal provision, passed the House in May.

The Senate version would repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but not until after the military's policy review is complete in December and President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Joint Chiefs Chair Adm. Mullen sign off.

One provision of the spending bill, completely unrelated to the sexuality of servicemembers, may undermine DADT repeal. Several lawmakers want to see funding for a second engine for the F-35 fighter jet, which the military doesn't want. President Obama has promised to veto the funding, even if that means vetoing DADT repeal.

So far, the Senate version does not include funding for a second engine for the F-35 but the funding, some $485 million, is in the House version. Whether it stays could determine DADT's fate.

Click to expand...

Yes, the avg citizen can't dress themselves, but trust me they know twitter and this was a back and forth issue with Gaga and Reid for days and millions of citizens now are among the twitterers of the world. It did give an impression. This is also why IMHO those who support her wearing from a DADT position cannot and will not defend her or the others from a military standpoint.

Pima said:

Yes, they were given the impression even from Lady Gaga
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/09/14/lady-gaga-involved-fight-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/
http://www.celebuzz.com/see-lady-gagas-anti-dont-s252231/
http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/09/14/lady-gagas-vma-date-interviewed-on-rachel-maddow-video/

Lady Gaga made it the news that the military did oppose DADT via multiple media outlets, thus the civilians were given the impression that negative image when they wore the uniform as members who were "forced" to leave due to their sexuality and the DADT issue.

Katie Miller, announced publicly that she knew the reason she was invited was because of DADT.


Their intention was clear, it was pre-meditated to make a political statement. Again, this was not a fashion statement, but a statement regarding the position of the military where, these members wore their uniforms to highlight the impression of the injustices within the military regarding DADT.

It was not a hush hush thing. It was a statement. Lady Gaga did not hide this fact at all when she did the red carpet walk with them, took pictures with them on the red carpet, gave background interviews on her escorts, tweeted about them, etc. Thus, civilian viewers who watched the VMA's were given an impression about the military stance, and the 4 of them knew the regs, and knew it was a political stance against the military's current position regarding DADT.

Are you splitting hairs about how many citizens compared to the amount of people in the world need to know as a classifier if they were wrong or right regarding the intention? I.E only 5 million people watched in a society of 300 million, out of the 5 million, only 500K only knew that it was against DADT? What will be the stick to classify the amount of civilians needed to define that issue. The 70 yr old grandpa babysitting his grandkids, who served...is he classified as a citizen? The sibling of an officer watching, are they a citizen? Both would be classified as a citizen, not a military member. Should it be counted against them because they are informed of the military's stance regarding DADT and/or when it is appropriate to wear the uniform in public?

Did the avg citizen have an impression upon the stance? You tell me, Harry Reid has asked for a vote on this issue before the survey. To me, that says the avg citizen did get an impression regarding military members wearing the uniform and DADT. It did have an impact, otherwise that vote would have been on the agenda before the VMA's. He actually slipped it into the DREAM bill this week. Additionally, Reid knows that voting on this will have no impact at all because Obama has to certify the survey prior to enacting the law, which means DECEMBER!

I do agree most people don't understand DADT from a legislative standpoint, Reid played politics as usual. This issue will be included as a rider with the F-35 engine, which Obama promises to veto, and the count for the bill is 55, not enough to over ride the bill. Hence, Reid made Gaga happy, with an empty promise. All of this came about from the VMA.



Yes, the avg citizen can't dress themselves, but trust me they know twitter and this was a back and forth issue with Gaga and Reid for days and millions of citizens now are among the twitterers of the world. It did give an impression. This is also why IMHO those who support her wearing from a DADT position cannot and will not defend her or the others from a military standpoint.

Click to expand...

Good, good. What would be your arguments for the opposing position?

It was a fashion statement

I couldn't afford to buy anything!

Besides those 2 you really go into very gray areas, trying to convince people that the intention was not to split hairs re: political event and political statement. The opposition would always spin back to her, and knowing the reg. From there it will move to why did you wear it?

In the end, even if she says because Lady Gaga asked, the next question would be why? Because you look Snazzy, or because she wanted to highlight your sexual orientation and the injustices of DADT? Why only the 4 of you, all homosexuals, if she loved the military so much, why not one from every branch and homosexuals and heterosexuals? It would end up that it was because she is gay, they are all gay, and that it was a political statement to highlight the current DoD DADT policy... this goes back to your question:
"Were civilians given the impression that the military in any way, shape, or form endorsed, opposed, or in any way had a stance on the issue?"

Wouldn't your answer be YES, the impression was she knew that the reason she was wearing the uniform was to repeal DADT.

Her statement about discussing this in a personal conversation with Lady Gaga prior to the VMA damages her defense and supports the political issue because she now has to defend the statement she made about her thinking long and hard knowing it is against policy to wear the uniform for political events.

Even in the media they never threw her the hardball question...OKAY, but wasn't this a political statement? Did you wear it to bring forward and highlight the injustices of DADT to the American citizen because you left the USMA due to this reason?

Just because the media spins it their way, I.E. Maddow trying to make her this great cadet who was victimized due to the DADT, doesn't remove the fact. If Katie Miller believed she was right in wearing it, Maddow would have pressed that follow up question. Maddow didn't because it muddied the waters, BUT also took her into a world of disobeying a regulation. Her handlers wouldn't want that, nor Maddow. If I were Katie Miller, and knew that this was an issue about wearing the uniform, I would have gotten a head of the spin cycle by explaining in my own words why I wore this, knowing people could and would see it as a political statement which is against the regs.

Yes, the majority of Americans don't know about that order, but that does not relieve of her own conscious regarding the honor and integrity that every military member brings to this country when they wear the uniform. She placed Self before Service. That is not the military system or adage. It is Service before Self.


Seriously, this is not a DADT issue at all, it is wearing a uniform to advocate a political stance. Nothing more and nothing less.

Anyone who wants to say it is homophobic, racist, bigotry, DADT, against her personally, VET oriented, etc, etc, etc. are just playing the game of deflect the real issue, which is wearing the uniform for political reasons.

Avoiding ALL the other topics...I noticed someone mentioned that they believe she'll be offered re-admission when DADT is repealed.

I doubt it and here's why.

She resigned.

Period.

I don't care WHY she resigned, she resigned. That's the end of it.

And that's how I'd treat it if I could exchange what's on my shoulders right now for a star, which I never will.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

flieger83 said:

Avoiding ALL the other topics...I noticed someone mentioned that they believe she'll be offered re-admission when DADT is repealed.

I doubt it and here's why.

She resigned.

Period.

I don't care WHY she resigned, she resigned. That's the end of it.

And that's how I'd treat it if I could exchange what's on my shoulders right now for a star, which I never will.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

Click to expand...

Many cadets resign and come back. I know of a few who left for a religious trip they would not be able to take once they commissioned and were readmitted. Not all are religious reasons either. I know of one who left because she wasn't sure she could make the commitment. She went home just before commitment, worked for a year and realized it really was what she wanted. She is now on her last year at the academy.

As long as you are in good standing when you leave, it's possible to come back since you come back where you left off so they won't have to spend more money on you and the two years they already spent on you aren't wasted. I consider 9th in the class good standing.

I'm not saying I disagree with you (because I don't) but I do disagree that her resigning would be the reason she doesn't get readmitted. The things she did/does after resigning, however, are a completely different story.