Interesting Testimony of Army Infantry Captain on Kagan Nomination

Discussion in 'US' started by jumpinjarhead, Jul 9, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Indeed interesting that it did not!

    I agree it was persuasive testimony, and suspect we shall see more of this young man over the years.

    It would have been interesting had the situation allowed or, better, demanded, a personal and immediate response from the potential appointee.
  2. The anti-military sentiment in academia is widespread in Britain also. The late '60s/early '70s hippy mob are now seeking to teach their agenda to their pupils. During the course of my Master's I had to assess a set of ethical guidelines for the potential researcher. One of these named the military as a 'distasteful organisation' that a researcher should avoid. Needless to say that my synopsis wasn't very complementary!
  3. What I also find interesting is that some of these dons are the proverbial foxes in the henhouse due to the privatiz(s)ation of your professional officers' education programs. It is one thing to encourage open discourse and free thinking but I think it is not necessarily the best thing to have some faculty members who have an actual disdain for military matters.
  4. That's your personal experience, but I have to say that it doesn't resemble mine. I've been to two different Universities here in the UK and did not experience anything like that. In fact, the last establishment where I studied had and still has a very good relationship with the Forces, to the point that the RM provide instruction classes on self defence to female students, the TA and RNR both have recruiting desks in the SU at the beginning of each academic year, and the recruiting team from the local Infantry Bn are regular visitors.

    In the build up to 11th November there is an abundance of students and staff all wearing their poppies. I've never heard a bad word against the Forces. My former place of study didn't have (at the time I was there) this level of contact, but Forces recruiters were always present at the start of the academic year.

    I've never seen any 'child of the 60s' promote demonstration either. There are too many false stereotyped opinions on students, lecturers and Universities.

    As for being 'widespread', I challenge you to support that.

  5. That is very encouraging to hear.
  6. Listening to a Senators views on her (Sessions) it would appear that one of the props for her anti military stance was her dislike of the "dont tell" law on homosexuality in the military! However her open support for a Saudi proposal to open a center for "Sharia" law, which condemns homosexuals and advocates PUNISHING them by flogging or DEATH, shows her as being typical of the moronic do gooders who have no idea about the REAL world! FFS she should go back to housewifery, she is certainly not fit to be in any responsible position in the law or accademia!
  7. I can support that, not at a University level, as I do not have recent excperience in those institutions, but certainly there are many schools at which Head Teachers have been resistant to the creation of or support of Army Cadet Units, and one CCF recently is ceasing because of a lack of co-operation of a Head. It has, incidentally, and optimistically, been apparent over the last ten years or so, that more schools have been wiling to actually open units, linked to the academic syllabus. But there are still many Heads who would claim that their non support of this youth club is on an "anti war" ticket. (Sorry if "ticket" was an "Americanism, JJH, but I am sure you might excuse it :) ).

    Let me say now, as Cadet Forces have a poor reputation on ARRSE, (not least down to a lot of "our own small minority" of uniform fetishists and failed "real soldiers wannabees" winding up the membership!); for the benefit of JJH, that our Cadet Forces are sponsored as The Army's Youth Organisation, using largely military skills in structured activity for 12-18 year olds, and link in with The Duke of Edinburgh Scheme etc. They are not a recruitment organisation, though obviously foster the interest of a young man or woman who wishes to consider that as a career. Young people in the ACF are (Fact!), more self disciplined and more confident than their average same age counterpart in Britain who does not belong to any youth organisation.
  8. Many thanks for the explanation.
  9. Unimpressive to my eyes - from here it looks like good old US political axe-grinding at its finest (i.e. the "other side" is universally awful, and must be attacked at a personal level with cries of "burn the witch!"). Nothing to do with whether Kagan is a fit and proper member of the Supreme Court, and everything to do with the suspicion that she isn't sufficiently Republican. Not to worry, I'm sure Fox News will report it. It's also interesting that Captain Hegseth failed to comment on his personal opinions about "don't ask, don't tell"...

    The bar on homosexuals in the British armed forces was occasionally used in attempts to "stick it to the establishment", by young student politics types who were all enthusiasm and no effect - "You shouldn't be able to recruit here, you don't support equal opportunities". That didn't mean that the inequality wasn't wrong, and shouldn't have been addressed. When it was, they had to shut up.

    I never saw anything other than support for the Armed Forces while at University, apart from the occasional loudmouth from the Socialist Workers Students Society, and a 1980s mischief-maker who put the recruiting stands for the UOTC and the "Troops Out of Northern Ireland" society next to each other, separated only by the Sri Chinmoy Peace Movement... (and yes, the UOTC had far more traffic than either of the others).

    The worst accusation IMHO is that Kagan saw fit to critique "don't ask, don't tell" while being part of a department that accepted Saudi financial support. Extending the critique of a single policy into evidence of "attacking the armed forces while they are at war" is a tad extreme...
  10. Entitled to your opinion of course--I focus on the fact she was a dean of a law school openiy violating a federal law.
  11. That's not it, as I understand. She agreed with an attempt to overturn the Solomon Amendment; the Association of American Law Schools requires that Schools have a policy which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The two are inconsistent (and let's face it, DADT is a more emotive than factual response; no-one is claiming that the Israeli or British armies have fallen apart after lifting bans on LGBT soldiers).

    Exactly how did Harvard "openly violate a Federal Law"? The recruiters visited campus, and as a result she sent out an e-mail in which she stated that she disagreed strongly with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Harvard wasn't even a member of the coalition who challenged the Solomon Amendment in the Supreme Court.

    If you want to interpret the challenging of a law as a violation of it, that's a slippery slope... but as ever, I'm perfectly willing to be shown where I've grabbed the wrong end of the stick.
  12. Having spoken to several who were students of hers during that period that was not the extent of her "opposition." I think, as numerous observers on the political scene across the political spectrum have already noted, she is engaging in a well-orchestrated strategy of obfuscation and manipulation of definitions and artful answering. Of course, none of this is new nor does it really matter as it is apparent that she will be installed unless she snatches her confirmation from the jaws of victory by a gross misstep.

    As for the underlying substantive issue we also disagree-on moral as well as cultural grounds, as I have repeatedly said elsewhere, just because we (sort of) share a language, history etc. with another country or a formal or informal alliance (whether NATO or US/Israeli) with other nations does not mean their experience with various social experiments using the military as veritable lab rats (unionization, homosexuality, women in ground combat roles etc.), does not mean the US military should follow suit.
  13. Cultural grounds I'm willing to accept. Y'all have the Bible Belt to contend with, not to mention Creationists and Sarah Palin.

    Moral grounds is a more subjective position - IMHO you get to argue those once you either abolish the death penalty or fully implement Leviticus (including the bits about seafood, witches, and menstruation). Claiming that something is "immoral" is too often used as cover for "I have a prejudice which I can't support with logic" - see sundry preachers and claims about the immorality of mixed marriages, dancing, Catholicism, or integrated education.

    I believe that the "moral" argument is that I should treat people according to their deeds and abilities, regardless of colour of skin, sexual orientation, or gender (because these are fairly constant). Anything else would be bigotry, surely? If you think sexual orientation is something you choose (thus giving grounds for discrimination), unfortunately so is personal faith...

    (apart from those who list their faith as Jedi, obviously - those heretics have it in for all the Sith)