Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley Fired for Criticizing Islam at Joint Forces Staff College
Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley Fired for Criticizing Islam at Joint Forces Staff College
by AWR Hawkins 20 Sep 2012
In the Spring of this year, US Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley was condemned by the Joints Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and relieved of teaching duties at Joint Forces Staff College for teaching a course judged to be offensive to Islam.
The course he taught, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism, was an elective course that Lt. Col. Dooley's superiors judged as presenting Islam in a negative way. His superiors were persuaded to come to this conclusion after receiving an October 2011 letter in which 57 Muslim organizations claimed to be offended by the course.
The fact that Lt. Col. Dooley is a highly decorated combat veteran with nearly 20 years of service under his belt apparently held little or no sway with the JCS. As a matter of fact, JCS Chairman General Martin Dempsey "personally attacked" Lt. Col. Dooley on C-Span on May 10, 2012, during a Pentagon News Conference.
Yet the craziest part of all this is that "the course content, the guest speakers, and the method of instruction" for the course was all approved by the the Joint Forces Staff College "years ago."
So, here you have someone who has been teaching a course that has been approved by the JFSC being fired for the content of the course. But, that's not all. The DADT repeal has already begun inhibiting speech among the services, and not bigoted speech, either. A recent letter from the Chief of Chaplains to congress contained the following examples:
•A senior chaplain on a major stateside military installation recently was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge for his insistence that, in accordance with federal law and military regulations proclaiming the chapel as a “sacred space,” the chapel would not be used to celebrate “marriages” between same-sex couples.
•A chaplain was threatened with early retirement then was moved to an assignment where he could “be supervised” after he forwarded an email to his subordinates that was a thoughtful reflection on the military’s former “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
•At Andrews Air Force Base a senior NCO asked a chaplain for assistance over an incident that occurred in the public food court. Two sailors under his command were eating and talking when one of them mentioned he might want to be a chaplain someday but didn’t know how the new regulation allowing homosexuals to serve would affect that plan. Another service member at the next table who was listened to the conversation stood up and berated the two sailors for talking about the new policy and reported the “incident” to the NCO. Unsure of what to do, he instructed the soldier who want to become a chaplain that he needed to be more careful in public.
•A chaplain on funeral duty with some enlisted sailors heard them discussing how they felt it was unfair that fellow service members that chose the “gay” or lesbian lifestyle were allowed to choose their roommates, but as heterosexuals they were unable to do the same.
•A service school that trains officers experienced a recent incident in which a male service member sexually harassed another male service member through text messages, emails, phone calls and visible confrontations. The targeted member was not interested in a same-sex relationship, but the offending male insisted the two would make a good couple. The harassment was reported, but no disciplinary action resulted.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/chaplains...ZbtFdgtP6U4.99
However, the Obama administration has specifically stated that it will not enforce conscience protections in the Defense Appropriations Act. They consider the following to be unacceptable:
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Reported in House - RH)
SEC. 536. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND CHAPLAINS OF SUCH MEMBERS.
(a) Protection- Chapter 53 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1034 the following new section:
`Sec. 1034a. Protection of rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and chaplains of such members(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 53 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1034 the following new item:
`(a) Protection of Rights of Conscience- The Armed Forces shall accommodate the conscience and sincerely held moral principles and religious beliefs of the members of the Armed Forces concerning the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality and may not use such conscience, principles, or beliefs as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment. Nothing in this subsection precludes disciplinary action for conduct that is proscribed by chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
`(b) Protection of Chaplains-
(1) For purposes of this title, a military chaplain is--`
`(A) a certified religious leader or clergy of a faith community who, after satisfying the professional and educational requirements of the commissioning service, is commissioned as an officer in the Chaplains Corps of one of the branches of the Armed Forces; and
`(B) a representative of the faith group of the chaplain, who remains accountable to the endorsing faith group for the religious ministry involved to members of the Armed Forces, to--
`(i) provide for the religious and spiritual needs of members of the Armed Forces of that faith group; and
`(ii) facilitate the religious needs of members of the Armed Forces of other faith groups.
`(2) No member of the Armed Forces may--
`(A) direct, order, or require a chaplain to perform any duty, rite, ritual, ceremony, service, or function that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain, or contrary to the moral principles and religious beliefs of the endorsing faith group of the chaplain; or
`(B) discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain, including denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with a direction, order, or requirement prohibited by subparagraph (A).
(c) Regulations- The Secretary of Defense shall issue regulations implementing the protections afforded by this section.'.
1034a. Protection of rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and chaplains of such members.
The administration has stated that it will not enforce these provisions, even if they are passed into law. And, given that the adminstration is forcing military doctors to perform abortions, whether they have an objection or not, it's unlikely that any other conscience clauses will be permitted to interfere with the imposed agenda.
- Six weeks into basic training, Manning was sent to the discharge unit because he was fighting with other recruits and talking back to the drill sergeants. The decision to discharge him was revoked.
- Manning was reprimanded while at Fort Huachuca for posting three video messages to friends on YouTube, in which he described the inside of the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility" (SCIF). Despite this, he graduated from AIT and received a TS/SCI security clearance (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information).
- While stationed at FT Drum, he began dating Tyler Watkins, a an openly gay student at MIT with ties to the university's hacker community, and he posted on Facebook about it, regularly traveling 300 miles to Boston on visits.
- While at FT DrumManning displayed emotional problems and had been referred to an Army mental-health counselor.
- Manning wrote to a gender counselor in the United States, said he felt female, and discussed having sex reassignment surgery.
- While home on leave, Manning attended a party at Boston University's hacker space, and lived as a woman, dressing in women's clothes, wearing a wig and going out.
- Manning made no secret of being gay, keeping a fairy wand on his desk in theater and outing himself to his roommate.
- After "being told he would lose his one day off a week for being persistently late, he overturned a table, damaging a computer that was sitting on it, and in the view of one soldier looked as though he was about to grab a rifle from a gun rack, before his arms were pinned behind his back. Several witnesses to the incident believed his access to sensitive material ought to have been withdrawn at that point. The following month, he began posting on Facebook that he felt alone and hopeless."
- "Manning sent an e-mail to his master sergeant, Paul Adkins, saying he was suffering from gender identity disorder and attaching a photograph of himself dressed as a woman.
- "Manning told Lamo that his commander had found out about the gender issue before his arrest, after looking at his medical files at the beginning of May.[/B] He said he had set up Twitter and YouTube accounts in Breanna's name to give her a digital presence, writing in the Lamo chat: "i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy ... the CPU is not made for this motherboard.'"
So, we have a Soldier with a history of authority issues, who violates OPSEC while in training, but still gets a clearance, and then keeps that clearance while being openly gay, cross-dressing and exhibiting mental health issues, including a violent outburst that required physical restraint. We're not exactly talking subtle, here. Now, if you were his commanding officer, even if you don't pursue disciplinary actions or have an issue with his being gay, would you allow him to carry a weapon and continue his access to classified material, or would you have suspended his clearance and reported him up the chain? That's not a matter of bias, it's concern for the Soldier, himself. Manning was exhibited all of the associated behaviors of suicidal Soldiers. He should have been removed from his position for his own safety, if not the good of the others around him, not to mention the United States. Why wasn't that done?
The introduction of women in large numbers into the force without maintaining separate facilities has, as I've repeatedly stated, produced massive unintended consequences, including proliferation of affairs, sexual misconduct, harrassment and mission failure. Just recently, a recruiter and a female enlistee were involved in a murder suicide over their illicit relationship. Sex between service members is corrosive, whether straight or gay, but we can keep men and women apart to some degree through separate sleeping and latrine facilities, but once you separate gender from orientation, you now have men and women with same-sex attraction in close quarters with no safety mechanisms. As a result, we are seeing horrific numbers on sexual misconduct, with no means of prevention beyond counseling and training, but given that we have been trying to train nature out of Soldiers for two decades with poor results, how do you propose that we deal with it?