Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You've probably heard by now about Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point grad who has just been discharged from the military under the DADT policy. He's written an open letter to President Obama and all 535 members of Congress. The letter is extremely poignant - and absolutely correct. The full letter is below the fold.
Open Letter to President Obama and Every Member of Congress:I have learned many lessons in the ten years since I first raised my right hand at the United States Military Academy at West Point and committed to fighting for my country. The lessons of courage, integrity, honesty and selfless service are some of the most important.
At West Point, I recited the Cadet Prayer every Sunday. It taught us to "choose the harder right over the easier wrong" and to "never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won." The Cadet Honor Code demanded truthfulness and honesty. It imposed a zero-tolerance policy against deception, or hiding behind comfort.
Following the Honor Code never bowed to comfortable timing or popularity. Honor and integrity are 24-hour values. That is why I refuse to lie about my identity.
I have personally served for a decade under Don't Ask, Don't Tell: an immoral law and policy that forces American soldiers to deceive and lie about their sexual orientation. Worse, it forces others to tolerate deception and lying. These values are completely opposed to anything I learned at West Point. Deception and lies poison a unit and cripple a fighting force.
As an infantry officer, an Iraq combat veteran and a West Point graduate with a degree in Arabic, I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.
I am committed to applying the leadership lessons I learned at West Point. With 60 other LGBT West Point graduates, I helped form our organization, Knights Out, to fight for the repeal of this discriminatory law and educate cadets and soldiers after the repeal occurs. When I receive emails from deployed soldiers and veterans who feel isolated, alone, and even suicidal because the torment of rejection and discrimination, I remember my leadership training: soldiers cannot feel alone, especially in combat. Leaders must reach out. They can never diminish the fighting spirit of a soldier by tolerating discrimination and isolation. Leaders respect the honor of service. Respecting each soldier's service is my personal promise.
The Department of the Army sent a letter discharging me on April 23rd. I will not lie to you; the letter is a slap in the face. It is a slap in the face to me. It is a slap in the face to my soldiers, peers and leaders who have demonstrated that an infantry unit can be professional enough to accept diversity, to accept capable leaders, to accept skilled soldiers.
My subordinates know I'm gay. They don't care. They are professional.
Further, they are respectable infantrymen who work as a team. Many told me that they respect me even more because I trusted them enough to let them know the truth. Trust is the foundation of unit cohesion.
After I publicly announced that I am gay, I reported for training and led rifle marksmanship. I ordered hundreds of soldiers to fire live rounds and qualify on their weapons. I qualified on my own weapon. I showered after training and slept in an open bay with 40 other infantrymen. I cannot understand the claim that I "negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard." I refuse to accept this statement as true.
As an infantry officer, I am not accustomed to begging. But I beg you today: Do not fire me. Do not fire me because my soldiers are more than a unit or a fighting force - we are a family and we support each other. We should not learn that honesty and courage leads to punishment and insult. Their professionalism should not be rewarded with losing their leader. I understand if you must fire me, but please do not discredit and insult my soldiers for their professionalism.
When I was commissioned I was told that I serve at the pleasure of the President. I hope I have not displeased anyone by my honesty. I love my job. I want to deploy and continue to serve with the unit I respect and admire. I want to continue to serve our country because of everything it stands for.
Please do not wait to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Please do not fire me.
Very Respectfully,
Daniel W. Choi
1LT, IN
New York Army National Guard
I'd love to hear from some of the other members of his unit, the people under his command.
Politics
Comments
Wonderful.
That shows more integrity, honor and ethics than Bush, Cheney, Beck, Limbaugh, Dobson and Coulter could ever muster if they all were to collectively disavow all of their current poltics and actions, give their collective wealth to help society and try and redeem themselves by working in a soup kitchen 24/7 until they die.
And we're going to be a lesser country without him in the armed services.
Scott
Posted by: Scott | May 15, 2009 9:42 AM
I'd love to hear from some of the other members of his unit, the people under his command.
And I'd love to hear the smarmy, weasely, spineless and dishonorable replies from the president and members of Congress.
No, I guess I wouldn't. I don't have to.
Posted by: 01jack | May 15, 2009 9:47 AM
"That shows more integrity, honor and ethics than Bush, Cheney, Beck, Limbaugh, Dobson and Coulter ..."
Given the choice between any of the above or Lt Choi, I know who I'd rather share a foxhole with.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | May 15, 2009 9:54 AM
It's an idiotic, discriminatory policy that cheats the military of quality personnel like Lt. Choi, hopefully Obama and congress will listen to their what their own officer corps are telling them and end it immediately.
Posted by: dogmeatib | May 15, 2009 10:18 AM
I wouldn't touch Coulter's foxhole with a ten foot pole.
Posted by: Alan | May 15, 2009 10:19 AM
I proud to unveil the new Army recruiting slogan for 2009-10.
"US Army - lions led by asses."
Posted by: DingoJack | May 15, 2009 10:22 AM
Jon Stewart bashed Barack Obama last night for not stepping in on Dan Choi's behalf, saying he broke his promise about repealing DADT. I was under the impression that since DADT was a legislative bill, there was nothing Obama could do until either Congress repealed it or SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional. Am I correct on this?
The real question is, why is it taking so damn long to repeal this? You'd think this would be one of Congress' first priorities.
Posted by: Brandon | May 15, 2009 10:38 AM
@Brandon - Obama does need Congress to completely overturn the ban, but can easily issue an executive stop-loss order that ends the investigations and separations while the policy is reviewed and changed.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | May 15, 2009 11:03 AM
Choi's letter reminded me of the reaction I had when I first read MLK Jr's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail".
Read in my youth, Dr. King's letter was my initial awakening that our founding ideals weren't mere dogma I was forced to memorize by my teachers in order to get a passing grade. Instead it represented the merits of those values and principles in a context that was anything but abstract; and how fragile the exercise of those rights were if good people remained passive. Choi's letter validates the importance of what MLK Jr. reminded us of from his cell, and who stands against those values while all the while dishonestly claiming them.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 15, 2009 11:07 AM
Brandon, what CPT_Doom said. For a 30 page version, here's a detailed paper from the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 15, 2009 11:52 AM
I'm sorry. While I agree strongly that military service should legally remain a choice for all, even gay persons...I am less convinced that such service, especially now during an aggressive, destructive, unnecessary war, does not merit paens to the glory of the American military. Nationalism can be a toxic religion, too, and I am not convinced that those who choose to serve in Iraq are not drinking the koolaid.
Still...very eloquent.
Posted by: Brian | May 15, 2009 1:07 PM
"It taught us to "choose the harder right over the easier wrong" and to "never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won." The Cadet Honor Code demanded truthfulness and honesty. It imposed a zero-tolerance policy against deception, or hiding behind comfort."
Apply the above to the situation as it is.
"never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won."
Obama could, with the use of a pen, change policy. But in doing so he would be handing the GOP an easy victory, an advertising slogan and a club to beat him with. He would greatly lower his chances of making a second term. And when Jeb Bush took office in three years the issue would instantly revert, at the wave of a pen, to DADT or the far worse case of what existed before DADT.
What sort of victory do you want? DADT was a very marginal victory. But allowing gays in by presidential degree is actually far less a victory because it will be undone and could undo all the good accomlished so far.
I realize gays in the military suffer but you can't use their pain to justify a cheap, self-indulgent and self defeating act that will be more traumatic, three years as openly gay then a purge of all gays when the next administration comes in, than DADT. As the guy said:"It imposed a zero-tolerance policy against deception, or hiding behind comfort."
"The Cadet Honor Code demanded truthfulness and honesty."
The truth is, and honesty demands, that the reality of the situation has to be accepted and dealt with on its own terms. That no matter how much pain the gays in the military are suffering now if you want real, permanent, change the driver has to be the military itself. That DADT was as far as change from the outside can be pushed.
Change is slowly coming about. Quietly. Personnel shortages and debilitating loss of experienced personnel and critical specialties, made worse by the discharge of gays, are inflicting pain on the military. There is a lot of discussion going in wardrooms and officer's messes. The simple fact that entire units can know about a gay's sexuality for a considerable time without protest or expulsion shows that change is coming. That slowly the troops and leadership is being won over by the simple persuasion of necessity and acceptance of gays within the general population.
It is hard to accept the unjust discharge of gays from the military when a wave of a pen could change it but this cheap and easy path is a trap and temporary. Instead we must "choose the harder right over the easier wrong".
Posted by: Art | May 15, 2009 1:30 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | May 15, 2009 1:49 PM
Art,
Nonsense. Racial segregation, despite the clear and obvious way it was harming the military, would never have simply faded away if left to the generals (politicians) to eventually "come around" and decide they didn't need it any more. The military has never been a driver for change within itself -- militaries throughout history have suffered from enormous inertia, such that they will literally rather die en masse than change the way things have always been done. Change has to be imposed from above -- that's why we have a civilian government and not a military dictatorship.
You sound a lot like those "the military is not a social experiment!" apologists, always trotting out the same arguments, whether it's about blacks, women, or gays -- "Yes, yes, discrimination is unfortunate, but these things take time, don't you know?" It's always convenient to tell other people that their rights are secondary, that there are bigger fish to fry, that we can't be too hasty even if we're "sympathetic."
Overturning DADT will hand Jeb Bush victory in 2012? Nonsense. This isn't the 90s. Yes, there will be screaming and caterwauling and the right wing noise machine will claim Obama has destroyed the military, but the military will continue to funtion quite well, undestroyed, and most people will realize that the right-wingers are full of it, as they always have been. Will Obama really, truly, lose votes from people who would have voted for him if only he hadn't let gays into the military? Come on.
Posted by: Inverarity | May 15, 2009 2:02 PM
It isn't just Choi who has been discharged. An inordinate amount of DLI trained translators have been discharged simply for being gay. DLI has attracted a large number of gays since its inception, and I can't speculate as to why. It's been that way since its inception. But now the war on homosexuality is seriously hurting our ability to conduct the war on terror. John Stewart really hit the point home last night.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=227351&title=Moral-Kombat
Posted by: Robert Faber | May 15, 2009 2:45 PM
I understand the focus on important military personnel like Arabic Translators but I would like to point out there are many ordinary soldiers who are discharged for being gay. Even a common ordinary grunt has rights too.
Posted by: Owen | May 15, 2009 3:26 PM
Why can't the Atheists get their own version of don't kiss, don't tell. Then there would truly be none of us in foxholes.
Posted by: teammarty | May 15, 2009 4:13 PM
Inverarity, the real question is will O'Same lose any votes from the left when he caves to the right (the only side of the aisle he ever reaches to) again?
Posted by: teammarty | May 15, 2009 4:16 PM
Art:
The truth is, and honesty demands, that the reality of the situation has to be accepted and dealt with on its own terms.
That some twisted rationalization you've got going there. You acknowledge that homosexuals and bisexuals must hide who they are and you call that honesty? I call it living a lie. Regardless of whether of not a Presidential order is the right course of action (and I think it is), calling what DADT forces homosexuals to do in order to serve "honest" is anything but.
To your greater point about the danger of ending DADT by executive order today is well taken. But I'm not convinced. There will always be another election on the horizon. I think doing it sooner rather than later will allow more time for any negative reactions to blow over before the next election. It would be hard to use against him if folks have seen it working fine for three years. Add to that a couple of poster boy stories about contributions made by openly gay service men and women, and he's golden.
You say that support has been quietly building, that it's being discussed "in wardrooms and officer's messes." I agree. In fact I say it has quietly built to just where it needs to be. Everything I see, from the polls, to the comments of the troops, to the letters from command, tells me we're right at the tipping point. I think it's time for the Commander-in-Chief add his weight.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 15, 2009 4:45 PM
just can't resist...but then we will have married couples serving togather on the front line! Won't be fair to the straights! They do not get to kill togather!
Posted by: Jim | May 15, 2009 5:56 PM
Sorry Inverarity but your wrong. The history of the military is not generally lagging the larger society.
The history of blacks in the USMC parallels what might be the course of gays in the military. Executive action got blacks into the military in WW2, trained and used as support troops. It was military necessity and acts by the general staff that got them into combat and largely accepted. The final presidential order, for the most part, formalized an act that had already been accomplished.
Clinton provided official cover for gays into the military with DADT and he paid a high price politically. The military has/is shifting toward general acceptance of gays under DADT and acceptance has increased largely driven by practical necessity. The discharge of gay linguists and specialist has been quite painful and well noted within the services as critically weakening their ability to succeed. A presidential action formalizing the acceptance should be coming but it will be instigated from within the military itself.
At some time in the future your going to see a group of flag-grade officers showing up at the Whitehouse and publicly stating that if we are going to maintain a protracted military effort gays will have to be fully accepted.
There will be some language included to emphasize the fact that gays are under the same rules outlawing sexual harassment, fraternization, and abuse of rank to comfort the conservatives a bit. Then, publicly forced by the demands of the situation, Obama signs the order formalizing the change.
IMO that is how it will go down. Because it won't work the other way.
Posted by: Art | May 15, 2009 6:23 PM
Jim: The family that slays together stays together.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 15, 2009 6:50 PM
When the MOS was opened to women, they quickly became the majority of linguists. When keeping them "out of combat" became important, units suffered. I was a platoon sergeant in an ASA company in Germany which had 70% female linguists. We were informed at one division meeting by the division command sergeant major (the 3rd ID, 1980) that we would be "taken to safe positions behind the lines" - and I and one of my squad leaders informed him right back that we'd have to be taken out in handcuffs, since the company would be crippled and the guys would die. He was a bit taken aback, but I believe (I got out of the service in '83; there were many reasons but this is one of them) that the predominance of women in the linguist field is still fact.
That said, perhaps gays are also better able to pass the placement/aptitude test than straight males? Or perhaps just less apt to select other career fields?
Posted by: The Ridger | May 15, 2009 7:27 PM
Nice try, Art. I didn't say the military has lagged behind society -- in fact, usually it's a bit ahead of society at large (widespread desegregation and promotion of women to upper ranks happened in the military before it did in the civilian world). What I said is that this change has generally been forced upon them; we didn't wait around until everyone from the generals to the rank and file soldiers to so-called military supporters in the civilian world were "ready" for it -- in fact, in every case, there was great wailing and gnashing of teeth and dire predictions about how this was the end of the American fighting force. Eventually, though, most everyone settled down and accepted the new reality -- those who couldn't got out.
We've already HAD flag grade officers, including the JCOS, tell the President that DADT has to go.
Clinton paid a high price for DADT because it was a weaselly attempt to have it both ways. It didn't placate either side. But in the end, it certainly wasn't DADT that weakened his presidency.
Notice that DADT is now largely accepted by everyone -- the president ordered it, and now everyone knows that gays are in the military and no one makes a fuss as long as they don't stick their necks out and get identified. The right-wingers are trying to hold onto that last desperate piece of ground by keeping gays from being fully and openly accepted in the military. No one is seriously trying to turn back the clock and get the military to once more actively seek out gays for prosecution and discharge in some futile attempt to make sure they're buried deep in the closet and can never come out, because they know that's a non-starter.
If Obama issued a stop-loss order while waiting for Congress to "review" the policy, people would scream, and then it would get done, and in a few years, gays in the military would be a fact of life that everyone lives with. Some people will still be unhappy with it, just like there are still people who think letting blacks or women become officers has ruined the military, but they have to keep their mouths shut, for the most part, because they lost and they know it.
So the Democrats will lose the White House and Congress and all progress will be lost if we're too hasty and don't do this the "right" way? Pushing for gay rights in the military will doom the Republic? Really? I smell a concern troll.
Posted by: Inverarity | May 15, 2009 8:34 PM
DADT has to be one of the stupidest "policies" ever devised. I,personally, do not care what kind of a sexual you are, if you are honestly trying to defend our country against invasion or enemies. And there have been plenty of fine people in the military(though the military is not an institution that I care much, one way or another, though it's necessary, so to speak) who happen to be LGBT. They should just be allowed to serve, without having to bother with all this garbage.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | May 15, 2009 9:14 PM
I think I'm smelling something far worse.
According to the following poll, a majority of people agree with lifting the ban.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1292
Posted by: Owen | May 16, 2009 2:39 AM