Nice.  I’m intrigued by their ideas and wish to subscribe to their newsletter.
This issued definitely needs to be kept visable.
Waiting patiently hasn’t helped, there needs to be people speaking out saying, “This is not right.”

Amusing, but there’s no way that’s actually going to fly in court.

At this point, it seems like the matter of Dan Choi has descended into the realm of “cranks demand the president testify.” This comes across as more embarrassing than brave.

The subpoena of the President is necessary for the defense to prove that Defendants were following and obeying lawful orders or directives by their President and Commander in Chief, and were therefore under an obligation and authority to act as they did in order to pressure him

Directives?  Ha!

Anyone want to take bets on how quickly the judge is going to throw this out?

I agree that this is a good move, politically and even legally. It gives them one thin legal leg to stand on and also attracts public attention to the issue. FDR told civil rights advocates back in his day that he agreed with them but that they had to “make him” do it, a reference to the PR and legislative roadblocks.

They’re putting the only pressure they can on Obama. It’s not at all crankish to fight for deserved civil rights in any way you can. They know an Obama testimony is unlikely, but it does make introducing his statements much easier, which could prove to be the difference in their cases, others’ cases, and even exerts pressure toward an executive order.

These citizens are brave soldiers. It goes right to the core of citizenship, of personhood, and liberty.

In slightly-related news, rulings by even our mucho conservative Supreme Court bode well for gay issues up and down the chain:

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/06/sup-court-decision-destroyed-whats-left.html#disqus_thread

Not a proper use of a subpoena (note the spelling), which is a court order constraining the liberty of the person receiving it, and which therefore ought not to be issued lightly—certainly not for a piece of political theater.

Now, let’s not get all huffy ‘cause Choi and company have come up with a novel way to protest: history is strewn with older activists tch-tching what later turned out to be a new, but highly-effective means to get the point across.

For instance, the Stonewall Riots, with gay “street kids” and drag queens igniting the gay rights movement: at first, the older generation of homosexual rights activists were horrifed, thought it “undignified,” but they came around, baby.

which, therefore, ought not to be issued lightly—certainly not for a piece of political theater.

Like all those congressional subpoena (spelling noted and punctuation corrected, you’re welcome) that the Bush Administration ignored?

Huh. Don’t know how I feel about that. On the one hand, I’m with judybrowni - every political protest tactic looks extreme, silly, not effective, whathaveyou. Until it works. On the other hand, I feel it’s a bit of a gotcha move. It’s clear Obama will not testify. And when he doesn’t, they can point to that as evidence of hypocrisy. But, in reality, there’s plenty of real evidence of hypocrisy on his part. He won’t testify but there’s no there there.

And to play the devil’s advocate…as a civilian, damn straight I support what they did. But from a military standpoint, isn’t this akin to the McCrystal situation? Isn’t this why we need the POTUS to take real action and end DADT, so that military personnel don’t have to be insubordinate just to ask for their basic rights?

history is strewn with older activists tch-tching what later turned out to be a new, but highly-effective means to get the point across.

Not just older activists, but younger ones, too. I know a 22-year-old out and outspoken gay man who goes anti-Choi ballistic in Facebook and Twitter every time Choi’s in the news. He honestly feels that Choi’s hurting DADT’s chances and the rights movement as a whole—as do quite a few in the LGBT community.

I’ve read too much history to prognosticate either way—because it could go either way, as judi’s pointed out. Personally? I’m glad there’s a Choi out there. Most civil rights victories succeed in part thanks to these human symbols of agitation. People need a face on things—preferably a living, vocal one.

Isn’t this why we need the POTUS to take real action and end DADT

The president, as everyone other than Prof. Yoo knows, doesn’t have the constitutional authority to repeal a statute. Attacking Obama over DADT is absurd—he supports repeal.

I know a 22-year-old out and outspoken gay man who goes anti-Choi ballistic in Facebook and Twitter every time Choi’s in the news.

And does that kid spend 20+ hours a week working on DADT repeal?  No?  Concern troll is concerned.

On the other hand, this subpoena is just plain silly because:
a) the President can’t order anyone to do anything illegal, and
b) the President can’t order civilians to do jack shit.

Rea, it’s true, Obama doesn’t have constitutional authority to repeal DADT. But, as I understand it from reading up on it, he can issue an executive order to stop discharges based on application of DADT. Executive orders are highly controversial, of course, and issuing one here would cause an especially epic shitstorm. But the controversy around executive orders never stopped Bush. So I can imagine that’s the only thing stopping Obama is that it wouldn’t be politically expedient to do it. And you know what? I’m sort of getting sick and tired of being told to get off his case every time he doesn’t deliver something he promised because “he supports it.” Public option, real stimulus, real bank reform, ending the wars, closing gitmo, ending civil rights violations - we’ve been told those are all the things he “supports” but doesn’t have the authority to do. It’s that same old “week presidency” line that Greenwald has been dismantling in Salon. It’s bullshit.

Re: concern troll comment upthread. I just had a conversation with an an activist transperson in his early 40s and he said “we lined up to get married and it didn’t get us anything but a second Bush term.” He thinks Bush got elected in the backlash against gay marriage and he puts a lot of the blame on the actual gay folks who got married. I was pretty shocked, but then I thought about it. This community and struggle are his life. He might be wrong, but he’s entitled to his feelings. That doesn’t make him a troll any more than GMHC were trolls in their opposition to ACT UP tactics. Ultimately, ACT UP and Stonewall rooters were proven to be correct, but that doesn’t make other activists who weren’t on board concern trolls.

Stonewall rioters, that is. I fail at English.

Brass?  I’d upgrade them to an advanced Tungsten alloy.

The president may not have the contitutional authority to repeal a statute, but it’s widely known that

“In May 2009, a committee of military law experts at the University of California at Santa Barbara[55] concluded that the President can issue an Executive Order to suspend homosexual conduct discharges.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don’t_ask,_don’t_tell

Which Obama. Aint. Doin’.

While his justice department is DEFENDING DOMA, both of which, he promised to be a “fierce advocate” AGAINST.

Choi is taking Obama at his word—just because Obama has been a liar on gay rights up to this point, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give the President a chance to keep his word, for a fucking change.

Oh, and Obama doesn’t support the repeal of DADT, he “supports” the compromise on the repeal of DADT, which isn’t a repeal at-fucking-all.

The compromise continues the witchhunt, until Obama and the Pentagon have decided at some future foggy date that enough witches have been burnt.

Oh, and Obama doesn’t support the repeal of DADT, he “supports” the compromise on the repeal of DADT, which isn’t a repeal at-fucking-all.

THIS. Regardless of how we feel about the subpoena, it should be obvious to all that the “fierce advocate” isn’t doing all he could and should do.

hat doesn’t make other activists who weren’t on board concern trolls.

Activists who debate the best way forward are not concern trolls because they are engaged in the movement, and the debate helps to shape that movement.  A 22-year old venting on Twitter and Facebook might be a concern troll.

Without the compromise, DADT repeal would be dead until 2013, when we are very unlikely to have the Congressional majorities we have now.  That’s assuming we keep the White House in 2012, otherwise we’d be looking at 2017 or 2021.  So for the 65,000 gays and lesbians currently in the military, and the thousands more who will be serving between now and 2013, the compromise is completely fucking awesome. 

Obama deserves the credit for it too - the week of the Senate committee vote, lobby groups on both sides knew for a fact that we were two votes short of repeal.  Then the White House compromise was floated, and all of a sudden we had our first legislative victory on this issue by a vote of 16-12.  A few hours later, we had a resounding victory in the House too.

We are starting to win, and we are going to win, and it’s thanks to Obama.  Do we need to keep pushing through to the finish?  Yes.  But give the man some credit for the first real progress on gays in the military since 1992.

So, for the 65,000 gays and lesbians in the military would be safe from the witchhunt of DADT, if Obama signed a fucking Executive Order.

So, no thanks to Obama are warranted.

I was an adult back when the “compromise” of DADT was dreamed up by the Pentagon the last time round activists were trying to end the witchhunts of gays and lesbians in the military.

We were told, by the Democratic President, that DADT would end the witchhunts, but surprise, surprise it was used as a tool to continue, and even speed up, the witchhunts.

Nearly 20 years later we’re presented with a “compromise” which—again—doesn’t stop the witchhunts.

Oh, such progress!

I’d love to lay a $20 bet with whoever that gays and lesbians will be hunted down in the military for at least another decade, unless “fierce advocate” Obama ends the lies with an Executive Order that could actually end the witchhunt.

Unfortunately, Obama and the Pentagon apparently haven’t yet been satisfied with the number of witches burnt, so they’ve pulled another sleight-of-hand: “See that repeal of DADT? Ta dah! It’s disappeared!”

So, for the 65,000 gays and lesbians in the military would be safe from the witchhunt of DADT, if Obama signed a fucking Executive Order.

Translation: “The Obama Administration should be more like the Bush Administration, and sign legally dodgy Executive Orders that subvert duly enacted laws.  That way, when a Republican gets into the White House, we can go right back to the way things were.”

What Obama did was to keep pressure on the Congress, where it belongs, to pass a full legislative repeal.  He did this by:
1) NOT allowing the issue to go away, as he could have by signing a dubious Executive Order.
2) Ordering the Pentagon policy review which gave political cover to ambivalent members of Congress.
3) Somehow convincing the media that full repeal is a “compromise,” providing further cover at a critical moment, and turning a 12-16 defeat into a 16-12 victory in the Senate.
4) Keeping activists engaged and committed to seeing the thing through.

I’ll lay $40 against your $20, provided Obama wins reelection in 2012 (which your crying isn’t helping, BTW).

I’m with judybrowni on this. I don’t buy incremental change and compromise. It was the same with healthcare. We’re going to get some changes in a few years while we needed public option immediately. You end up with “historic” legislation, but what does it actually accomplish? Just getting something passed has no intrinsic value. Basic rights shouldn’t be doled out incrementally. 

And, really, just because someone is a) young and b) uses social media doesn’t mean she/he isn’t also an activist.

To keep activists engaged, including for the midterm elections, I’d suggest not offering up bait and switch like the repeal, that is no repeal, on DADT. Another “victory” that is no victory, like the original DADT.

The Obama administration has been gleefully following through on many of the dodgy Bush policies: close to 80% of the country polled would be pleased if Obama “made the issue go away” with an Executive Order that stopped the witchhunt.s

But it’s also the policy of this administration to ignore what the American people want (Public Option, anyone?), and that, more than anything I can write on a blog will keep the Democrats away from the polls in 2010 and 2012.

Me, I’ll be there, like a sucker, voting for Democrats, which I’ve faithfully done for the last 50 fucking years. If only because on some issues they’re slightly less scary than the Republicans (Cat Food Commission, anyone?)

Ooops, I exaggerate: I’ve only voted for Democrats for the last 42 fucking years—never, despite their various treacheries, did I slip up and throw my vote away on a Green or Nader distraction.

No one in my direct family has voted Republican for at least four generations, possibly because we come from union people: my great-grandfather Lewis was a union organizer and second cousin to John L. Lewis, who created the AFL-CIO.

And I’m also please the modern union movement is holding the Democratic politicians feet to the fire.

Which is what we all have to do: when Democratic politicians ape Republicans we lose Democratic voters.

I’m sorry, I’m overreacting a little.  I get into this argument a lot with people who are very poorly informed about the details.  It may be that as an activist, I’m just be too close to the issue, and have difficulty seeing last month’s victory in Congress as anything other than a Good Thing.

I’m not against compromise: just “compromises” that accomplish nothing, or even take steps backward, which I’m afraid will be the effect of the current “compromise” on DADT.

rea : IANAL, but I have read arguments that DADT is unconstitutional, in that it usurps some of the President’s rightful authority as Commander in Chief. If this is indeed the case, then he _does_ have the authority to nullify the statute, and we _can_ blame him for not doing so.

DADT is 100% constitutional in terms of separation of powers - the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate the Armed Services.  On the other hand, it may be unconstitutional on Due Process or Equal Protection grounds.  No court would ever find it to be so, however, so Congressional repeal is the only avenue we have.

Activists who debate the best way forward are not concern trolls because they are engaged in the movement, and the debate helps to shape that movement.  A 22-year old venting on Twitter and Facebook might be a concern troll.

BABH, I couldn’t agree more. I should have added that this individual is active on the gay rights front, although definitely not on the scale of a Choi or anyone doing 20+ hours a week…

Please, chaining yourself to a fence and going on a hunger strike are inherently pointless and stupid things to do.

And they work, often brilliantly, because the very absurdity and facial triviality of them force people who otherwise could have ignored the issue to address it or look like monsters.

Of course this won’t work as a matter of practical law. There’s no way the President is going to show up in court. But the Administration is in some form going to have to address this, in full view of the public and the media (gay bloggers, if nobody else, at first.)  Even if they work behind the scenes to squash this, or do some sort of end around, it will be observed and reported. If they go further, and actually issue a statement, then even more so.

One way or another, something is going on the record, even if it is another data point of inaction by the Fierce Advocate.