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

[Christcorp]

However, to deem her actions objectionable, one must examine her motives.

No I don't. 2 wrongs don't make a right. If you walk up to another person in public and punch them in the face, you are wrong. I don't care if that person had an affair with your wife or cheated you out of a thousand dollars. The motives mean nothing to me when your actions are premeditated and wrong. The way she left the academy, became a media cause, and expressed herself recently is all I care about. I could care less about her motives. Again, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Of course, she has the right to do these things. She can express herself any way she wants to. She had the right to leave the academy prior to her 3rd year, in any vocal fashion that she wanted to. She had every right in the world to go to the media and become their poster child against the military. She had every right to be a puppet and stand on a stage and be paraded in front of the audience. "I'll stay away from the uniform legal issues for now". But even though she had the right to do all these things, doesn't mean I have to respect her. When a person burns a flag in public, condemns our military actions vocally, etc... they have the right of free speech to do these things. But I don't have to respect her. And I don't care one bit what her motives are. She handled herself and her concerns improperly. She did so with contempt to the other cadets and to the military. And again, I don't care at all about her motives. There are numerous ways that she could have left the military; had she realized she made a mistake and can no longer live by a current policy. But she chose the "I'm the victim" method instead of the "I tried, but I can't live up to the current military standards and policies". She could have waited until she got out of the academy before going to the media and starting her crusade. She could have be a "guest" at a concert without wearing a military uniform. However, she chose to punch in the face. He motives are irrelevant.

You can rationalize her actions all you want; that doesn't justify them. She does not deserve any respect from military members. There is no difference between the DADT policy and any other policy in the military. While in force, you live by them. If you don't agree with them, you make efforts to get them changed. And there are plenty of ways to properly and respectfully go about getting policies, rules, laws, etc... changed. And this whole crap about she was FORCED to lie and break the honor code is also pure crap. I was still on active duty when the whole DADT policy originated and became mainstream. And it truly did become a DADT non-issue. If you, the individual, didn't bring it up, or flaunt your sexual preferences publicly, nobody asked you about it. Now I know you want to talk about all the "Unofficial" investigations by the other cadets and such. e.g. "How come you don't have a boy friend?" ; "Why didn't you bring a boy friend to the picnic?" etc... Yes, those types of inquires do exist. But there is no lying in saying: "I haven't found the right person" or something similar. It's also not lying or wrong if a fellow cadet/service member comes out directly and asks if you are gay and you simply say: "Dude, (Dudette), we can't talk about those kind of things.

Point is: I don't care about her motives. Her motives do not matter. She has contempt for the military and the academies, and I have absolutely no respect for her. I respect her right to express herself anyway she wants to, and that includes leaving the academy, the press, and public appearances. Just like I respect a person's right to burn the flag. That doesn't mean I have to respect the person or their actions. Just their right to do such things.

 

[Mongo]

Feel free to show me ANYWHERE in the USC (since we seem to believe that's the only source of law, period) that she is DEFINED as having served during wartime. As far as the U.S. Army is concerned, she has not.

As ,I am sure we agree, federal law trumps Army regulations, please see 38 USC 101:

Definition of "Active Duty":

(D) service as a cadet at the United States Military, Air Force, or Coast Guard Academy, or as a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy;

12) The term "veteran of any war" means any veteran who served in the active military, naval, or air service during a period of war.

Nothing at all about a war zone. These terms have been confusing from the very beginning and are now used primarily to determine both federal and state benefits. You will see terms such as "Vietnam Vereran" and "Vietnam Era Veteran" to distinguish between those war veterans who have served in a combat zone and those war veterans who have not.

 

[AcademyFriend1]

Just chiming in on a very minor point, from ONLY a technical legal standpoint: Given the weight of legal precedent, most likely the former servicemembers' wearing of the uniform in this context only (as opposed to trying to use a uniform, say, to get access to a military base) would be found to be a protected act under the First Amendment.

 

[Mongo]

No I don't. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Sometimes drastic injustices call for drastic measures. If not, we would probably still be paying a tea tax to the British. Sometimes we need to make exceptions for the exhuberance of youth. They don't often see all the shades of gray that us old timers do.

 

[sprog]

What is your definition of wartime service?

VA defines wartime service, as it can potentially make a difference in the award of certain benefits (e.g. nonservice-connected pension).

The "Periods of War" as defined by statute/regulation:

Indian Wars, January 1, 1817 through December 31, 1898, inclusive.
Spanish-American War, April 21, 1898 through July 4, 1902, inclusive.
World War I, April 6, 1917 through November 11, 1918, inclusive.
World War II, December 7, 1941 through December 31, 1946, inclusive.
Korean Conflict, June 27, 1950 through January 31, 1955, inclusive.
Vietnam Era, February 28, 1961 through May 7, 1975, inclusive.
Persian Gulf War, August 2, 1990 through date to be prescribed by Presidential proclomation or law.

You'll note that the dates do not necessarily correspond to the actual dates of cessation of hostilities, and that anyone who has served in the military since August 1990 is a wartime veteran (a "Persian Gulf War" veteran, as the law makes no distinction between the Desert Shield/Storm, Restore Hope, Northern Watch/Southern Watch, and Iraqi Freedom/Enduring Freedom periods). Any active duty service in one of these periods, including as a SA cadet/midshipman, is "wartime service" under this law.

The authority is 38 CFR 3.2, which was promulgated under the statute 38 USC 101 (the Congressional authority).

 

[Pima]

JAM,

I have no objection to her. I have an objection to her actions. I have a problem when she stated she knew it was a big problem. Sorry, but she admitted from a military standpoint it was wrong, by doing this conciously she slapped the military member wearing the uniform in the face.

"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."

Her exact words, not mine, and definetly not parsed. She knew this was a political statement, thus she knew that she was veering on the wrong side from a military perspective.

To me this is not about her being gay, the injustices of DADT, or the reg issue. This is about morals and values. I don't respect anyone who admits I knew it was wrong, but did it anyway. She took the adage better to ask for forgiveness than permission to an all time new height.

For the other 3, I actually hold more contempt regarding them, because they are not only older, but they lived the life as an AD member for many yrs. At least for her I can rationalize that it was youthful ignorance and she never lived AD life like they did.

 

[Christcorp]

Sometimes drastic injustices call for drastic measures. If not, we would probably still be paying a tea tax to the British. Sometimes we need to make exceptions for the exhuberance of youth. They don't often see all the shades of gray that us old timers do.

Fine, then you have absolutely NO PROBLEM with her lying to fellow cadets about her sexuality, and thus breaking the honor code. You are the one that keeps bringing this point up. "Even though I think it's a B.S. excuse". But even if you're correct, then it's not a big thing after all. I mean, it's just a drastic measure for a drastic injustice. Correct???

In other words, you just took away her only real excuse for leaving the academy. You say it's not right for her to lie and break the honor code; however, she is allowed to take drastic measures, albeit WRONG and DISRESPECTFUL, because it's simply a drastic measure to a drastic injustice. Sorry Mongo, but you can't have it both ways. But I'm glad you brough this up. That lends her now even LESS credence for how she left. Her life at the academy wasn't, or didn't have to be, as miserable as she is portraying.

 

[BR2011]

Christcorp, your example is bad. If I walked up to a person in the street who was about to shoot someone and punched them in the face I would be doing the right thing. Context and motive do matter.

Classifying not being a homosexual as a "Military Standard to live up to" reveals your mindset toward the subject. Perhaps a "Military Regulation that should be followed" is a better way to put it. It's not like they are failing in any way when they are "unable" be straight.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Any active duty service in one of these periods, including as a SA cadet/midshipman, is "wartime service" under this law.

Well, thank you for that. Since it has been established that Katie Miller did have wartime service, she did abide by US Code and did NOT break any laws.
Enough of that - she had the same right as the other three former military officers to wear her uniform.
Now since that is establised let's move on to some other finer points of discussion......

 

[Pima]

Persian Gulf War, August 2, 1990 through date to be prescribed by Presidential proclomation of law.

This made me chuckle, because it reminded me of the military giving out the medal, commonly referred to as "I was alive in 1990"!

Many military members also see through that when they wear their service dress, they do the quick up and down look to see if you actually participated (other medals) or you just were alive and in the military.

I think people are missing that point when discussing a war veteran. There is a huge difference in the AD member's eye. I am not saying they don't respect their brethren, because the intelligent military member knows it is not their decision to go to the theater, but the military's decision. However, to say I am a war veteran because that is what the DoD reg says smacks in their face, especially since they spent 2 yrs at WP.

I dare her to walk into a VFW hall and say I am a veteran. She wouldn't.

I also love when posters ask others how do you know what is in her mind? How do you take the leap that she thinks she is a veteran?

 

[Just_A_Mom]

BTW - Pima - "she" and "her" has a name. It's Katherine Miller.

If you want to know what Katie Miller thinks - click on this and watch the Video.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/14/5107281-katherine-miller-makes-you-smile

 

[Pima]

OMG, are you joking? If not please tell me how you want me to address her, I will be more than happy to appease you on this request. Do you want me to spell out on every single post Katherine Miller, Katie Miller, Cadet Miller?

C'mon, that last post was unnecessary.

As far as her Rachel Maddow interview, believe it or not I watch MSNBC, and listen to Air America. I do not watch Fox or listen to Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. (I will admit to listening to Chris Plant, but that is a right wing commentator in the DC area only, thus it is geo-centric). I prefer to see both sides of the coin. Is she a great kid? Sure! Was it hard for her to admit she was a homosexual? Sure! However, nobody is debating these issues. Nobody is saying she is evil for being a homosexual. That is not the issue at all. Stop trying to make her a poster child of the innocent.

OOPs...I guess I should have inserted Katherine Miller, Katie Miller or Cadet Miller instead of she...I will as soon as you inform me on how to correctly address her properly IYHO.

 

[scoutpilot]

Scoutpilot, Pima and Christcorps - clarify for me just what your objections are - to her specifically or all four former service members.

This seems to be what you want to hear **warning, the following is satire and is not a legitimately held viewpoint**: I hate her because I hate gays, lesbians, women, jews (my wife will be shocked, sorry bubeleh I'll make it up to you), puppy dogs, salamanders, anyone who doesn't like Letterman over Leno, and fluffy kitty cats. Since such a ludicrous and wholly outlandish statement seems to be the only explanation you're willing to accept for ANYONE on this subject, there you go. Have I, on behalf of everyone on this thread who doesn't support your belief that a perceived injustice over a long-standing policy justifies violating the terms and policies for wear of the uniform, finally satisfied you?

You seem totally unwilling to believe, despite the fact that it has been spelled out to you, that she knew she was wrong for wearing the uniform and does nothing but discredit the US Military Academy in so doing, or that any of us object to her actions for the unprofessional smear tactic they were and not to her choice in sexual partners.

And I guess Sprog's right, in accordance with the "undefined end" to the Persian Gulf War, she's a first-class servant of the American people and deserving. I hope she gets every benefit she's entitled to, atop the $150k she cunningly took from the American people.

I'd explain to you why the Army does not consider her a veteran of wartime service, but you find yourself to be the expert on all subject involving the U.S. Army so I'm sure you can figure that out yourself. As far as the Army is concerned, she never left training status. She is no different than a private who is honorably discharged from basic training.

She may get her VA benefits under the letter of the law (which, unlike some others on here, I will admit that I was wrong about), but she is not a wartime servant of the American people. But, as we have seen, the letter of the law is something that the adherents to her side of the argument care about only when it supports their viewpoint, and it is ignored where it contradicts their viewpoint.

 

[scoutpilot]

BTW - Pima - "she" and "her" has a name. It's Katherine Miller.

If you want to know what Katie Miller thinks - click on this and watch the Video.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/14/5107281-katherine-miller-makes-you-smile

Gender-appropriate pronouns are forbidden now?

 

[Pima]

puppy dogs, salamanders, anyone who doesn't like Letterman over Leno, and fluffy kitty cats.

That's it scout! I mean salamanders, I get, but puppies and kittens?


Just trying to add levity

 

[sprog]

And I guess Sprog's right, in accordance with the "undefined end" to the Persian Gulf War, she's a first-class servant of the American people and deserving. I hope she gets every benefit she's entitled to, atop the $150k she cunningly took from the American people.

.

I hear you....

I didn't write the law, just quoting it. The statutes/regs surrounding VA benefits tend to be rather generous overall (look at some of the Agent Orange presumptions).

I'm not going to take a side on the political debate, because it seems to stir up a sh*tstorm (perhaps a little too late). I agree that no former SA cadet/mid would likely be out at the American Legion Hall.

 

[scoutpilot]

That's it scout! I mean salamanders, I get, but puppies and kittens?


Just trying to add levity

I wouldn't have said puppy dogs except that I awoke at 0430 to the sound of my puppy dog horking up a gut full of food because the spinach she stole out of the garbage can didn't agree with her!

 

[Mongo]

The statutes/regs surrounding VA benefits tend to be rather generous overall (look at some of the Agent Orange presumptions).

Unless one was heavily exposed to AO and two of eight of their former team members have already died from it. Bad example.

 

[sprog]

Unless one was heavily exposed to AO and two of eight of their former team members have already died from it. Bad example.

This is a thread hijack, but it is NOT a bad example.

A guy who was in Vietnam for one day, forty years ago, and who now has type 2 diabetes (due to being overweight, smoking, and other age-related or genetic factors) can get service connection for the condition based on presumptive exposure to AO. This is even if the disorder didn't develop until decades after separation, and actual exposure to AO doesn't need to be verified.

I'm not suggesting that the regulations didn't serve a valuable purpose years ago, when AO-related cancers would likely have appeared (Adm. Zumwalt's son comes to mind). However, there are a few disabilities added to 38 CFR 3.309 (type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer, and soon to include ischemic heart disease) that are at pandemic levels in the adult (over 60) male population in this country, and which have very little to do with herbicide exposure forty years ago. My point, is that the regulations are generous.

This has nothing to do with the thread, so if you want to continue discussion on the subject, you can PM me or post a new thread.

 

[Christcorp]

Christcorp, your example is bad. If I walked up to a person in the street who was about to shoot someone and punched them in the face I would be doing the right thing. Context and motive do matter.

Classifying not being a homosexual as a "Military Standard to live up to" reveals your mindset toward the subject. Perhaps a "Military Regulation that should be followed" is a better way to put it. It's not like they are failing in any way when they are "unable" be straight.

Wrong again, but thanks for playing. The example is fine. If you want to use your example, then you have to use apples and apples; not oranges. Her motives had nothing to do with another person. Therefor, her motives are meaningless to me. They don't matter. If you can tell me how her disrespect towards cadets and all military members somehow stopped another individual from getting hurt or harmed, then I'll consider her motives. But chances are, you can't. What she did was for HER, not for anyone else. Therefor, her motives are irrelevant.

And NO, again, the homosexual classification has nothing to do with it, or my mindset. Don't continue with ignorance. Realize what you're responding to. The DADT policy doesn't specifically say if you can or can't be gay. The DADT "standard" simply implies that "We, (The military), won't ask you about it, and you in turn won't talk about it". This is the standard that SHE could not live up to. She felt compelled to talk about it and use it as a reason to leave. All she had to say was: "I'm gay, and I want to tell the whole world about it. Therefor, I can't live by your DADT policy. I want out". But instead, she said: "I'm gay, I want to tell the whole world about it, and I should be allowed to. I don't care what your policy says. I don't agree with it and I won't follow it. And I'm the victim".

I personally don't give a rat's a$s if she's gay. I've got too many gay friends to care about a disrespectful ex-cadet who has no respect for the military or it's members. There are plenty of rules, policies, laws, UCMJ articles, etc... that I didn't like or agree with while I was on active duty. That doesn't mean that I just automatically acted against everyone of those rules/policies/etc... The military isn't a union. It's not a democracy. But most important, it's not mandatory. If you "CHOOSE" to belong in the military, then you have CHOSEN to accept and live by their rules, policies, UCMJ articles, etc... If you can't, then you are free to leave. The greatest respect for conviction I have had for a military member, was an individual with 18 years of service. She converted over to being a Jehovah Witness. As such, she was not allowed to serve in the military. At least in the sect she was in, she couldn't be in the military. She gave up her military retirement, benefits, etc... and walked out of the air force with 18 years in. That took conviction. But she maintained respect for the military, it's purpose, it's necessity, and it's members.

I have no respect for this cadet who was nothing more than an opportunist. She could have simply said it wasn't for her and left. She didn't do that. You know it; I know it; we all know it. She is being portrayed as a victim. That's B.S. She knew the rules when she came in. If she thought she could live by the rules, but later realized she couldn't, she still could have respected the academy and military enough to simply walk away. She could continue her political cause on the subject later. But instead, she CHOSE to con people into believing that she was basically forced out of the academy because it was impossible to live under such a policy, and that she is the victim. Even though, probably hundreds of gays, have had no problem living under this policy for the last 15+/- years. She is a joke.