Retired Colonel Dick Black Reports 7 Days 60 Public Gay Crimes At Fort Hood, Texas
Retired Colonel Dick Black Reports 7 Days 60 Public Gay Crimes At Fort Hood, Texas
[Colonel Black is an attorney who was Chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon from 1992-94. As a Marine pilot, he flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam. He was wounded during fierce ground fighting with the 1st Marine Regiment. He served four terms in the Virginia General Assembly.]
A Danger to Discipline
Why We Must Keep the Gay Ban
By COL Richard H. Black (USA Ret.)
President Obama's promise to repeal the ban on gays in the military has caused tension among those responsible for military discipline. Former Marine Commandant, Gen. Carl E. Mundy, and 1,160 retired admirals and generals strongly oppose the change.
Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was tasked by the President with implementing the change. But that task has proven difficult. On Jan. 15, 2010, The Washington Times reported that "Adm. Mullen was unable to get the full backing of other senior leaders during an unusual meeting of the top officers from each branch of the military . . ." There are good reasons why top officers, including the current Marine Commandant, Gen. James T. Conway, oppose the change.
From 1992-94, I served as Chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon. During that time, Pres. Clinton ignited a firestorm when he tried to force DOD to admit known homosexuals into the military. Key obstacles were the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Department of Defense regulations stating that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." The UCMJ prohibits indecent assaults, indecent acts, indecent liberties with children, and sodomy. Each of those rules makes good sense in the unique military environment.
7 Days, 60 Public Gay Crimes at Fort Hood, Texas
Even as Congress was wrestling with Clinton's proposal on
gays, officials were dealing with a major homosexual scandal at Ft.
Hood, Texas. Gays had advertised a Ft. Hood restroom as a
gathering spot for casual consensual sex. In just seven days,
criminal investigators observed 60 men publically committing
serious acts on post. Officers, NCOs and enlisted personnel
participated. Many wore uniforms displaying their insignia of
rank.
The Army dealt with the matter discreetly, and the Chief of
Public Affairs referred to it as a "potentially explosive issue."
It was "explosive" because it contradicted the Administration's
campaign to portray gay GIs as "perfect gentlemen--a boon to the
force."
At the Criminal Law Division, facts contradicted that party line. Worldwide criminal reports documented serious offenses being frequently committed by homosexual GIs.
To be certain, gays weren't the only soldiers committing crimes. But the Administration's proposals would have placed homosexuals in situations of forced intimacy, where same-sex attractions invite serious trouble.
Activists claim the risk of crimes from same-sex offenders is no
greater than it is between servicemen and women. But they are
wrong. Women are not required to sleep and shower under the
watchful eyes of men.
Gays dismiss concerns regarding privacy in showers and in the
barracks. But the risk is high. At Ft. Sill, Oklahoma in 1991,
two homosexual recruits caught a lone soldier showering at night.
They violently sodomized the soldier, forcing him to submit by
strangling him with a bath towel. At the time of trial, the victim
was hospitalized under psychiatric care.
Recruit training is especially problematic. Male recruits had to
physically subdue one homosexual drill instructor at an Army base
to keep him from raping a male recruit as that recruit struggled to
escape out a second-story window. At Marine boot camp, an
aggressive female recruit was discharged for sexually touching and
soliciting fellow Marines. Her intimidating manner caused fear and
distrust throughout her platoon. At Quantico, a company gunnery
sergeant sexually attacked a young officer candidate who had stayed
back at the barracks while his platoon was out training.
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, spoke firmly against dropping the ban on homosexuals, stating that it would cause "disruption" and "serious problems." (Skelton opposes repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' TheHill.com Jan. 15, 2010). Ike Skelton is correct.
And assaults aren't the only problem. Few things threaten unit cohesion more than consensual sex between gays while others are present. The Ft. Hood incident demonstrates how public sex among homosexual officers, NCOs and men destroys respect for rank. How would men respond to such officers and noncoms in battle?
If widespread misconduct of that severity could happen with the
prohibitions now in effect, how much worse would it become if
consensual homosexuality were lawfully sanctioned -and made the
subject of sensitivity training?
Discipline will suffer if gays are permitted to serve. I learned the importance of discipline on the drill fields of Parris Island and during fierce fighting with the 1st Marine Regiment. Later, in the disciplinary collapse following the Vietnam War, I spent many years helping rebuild discipline in the Army. Experience shows that highly-disciplined units are important in garrison--and vital in battle.
President Clinton practically brought down his presidency trying to lift the ban. After an exhaustive national debate, the U.S. House of Representatives determined that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Congress then enacted Title 10 U.S. Code Section 654, which states that homosexuals are ineligible for military service. That ban is an essential element of military discipline. It must be retained.