Joe Biden has moved to correct a “great injustice” by pardoning thousands of US veterans convicted over six decades under a military law that banned gay sex.

The presidential proclamation, which comes during Pride month and an election year, allows LGBTQ+ service members convicted of crimes based solely on their sexual orientation to apply for a certificate of pardon that will help them receive withheld benefits.

It grants clemency to service members convicted under Uniform Code of Military Justice article 125 – which criminalised sodomy, including between consenting adults – between 1951 and 2013, when it was rewritten by Congress.

That includes victims of the 1950s “lavender scare”, a witch-hunt in which many LGBTQ+ people employed by the federal government were viewed as security risks amid fears their sexual orientation made them vulnerable to blackmail. Thousands were investigated and fired or denied employment.

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was bigoted propaganda branded as a consideration, and the Lavender Scare was horrifically layered oppression. It was basically, “We’ve decided your sexuality is scandalous, forcing you to hide it, which makes you at risk of being blackmailed, so we’re charging you with a crime.” Fucking despicable.

    These pardons are excellent. It’s such a shame thousands of veterans had to live so long with criminal records for who they are, not even what they did.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      We’ve decided your sexuality is scandalous, forcing you to hide it, which makes you at risk of being blackmailed, so we’re charging you with a crime.” Fucking despicable.

      While obviously not near the same level of criminalizing someone for part of their core identity, I’ve felt the same way about the US government’s treatment of pot smokers. Can’t get a security clearance if you’ve smoked pot within the past 7 years because it’s blackmail leverage ignoring the fact that it’s only blackmail material when the government considers it verboten

      • ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        You can 100% get a clearance if you’ve smoked within 7 years of applying for one. Hell, you can get a clearance if you smoked within the last year. You just have to a) disclose the fact, b) be able to show mitigations as to why smoking weed won’t be an issue while you have a clearance, and then c) not do it while you have a clearance. It ends up being not so much about the fact that you smoke weed as it is that you’re not following the law, and that’s the real clearance risk (from their POV). Getting a clearance is really about proving you’re trustworthy to the investigator.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          There are agencies, iirc mostly law enforcement, that consider it a strict bar. It also depends on the level of clearance, and how much they need you. An Army private getting a secret clearance to present weather to the general on the daily isn’t getting nearly as much scrutiny as a nuclear physicist. But nuclear physicists willing to work for the government are a finite resource. It’s all clear as mud and the fear of losing your career over some stupid persecution is real.

          • pishadoot@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            You’re mixing some things up. Yes, some agencies will have some POLICIES about not wanting to hire personnel with a history of drug abuse/use, but that is separate from the clearance adjudication process.

            A secret clearance is a secret clearance, and you’re correct that it’s much simpler to get a basic secret than it is a TS-SCI or to be read into certain programs. But there isn’t a “FBI” secret and an “Army” secret.

            There’s no timeline for how long it’s been since you’ve smoked pot, or number of times, or anything. I think a poster said that it’s about whether the investigation finds you trustworthy enough for the level of eligibility they’re investigating you for, and that is correct - and there isn’t a hard and fast rule necessarily.

            If you do an investigation and are asked if you’ve ever used any illegal drugs and you say no, but in your criminal record you have a possession charge, that’s bad. You’re obviously lying, and not even being smart about it. If you say you used to smoke trees every day and are blazed right now, that’s bad because you obviously don’t give af about laws and stuff (not my opinion, this is the opinion of the Fed that still thinks it’s illegal). If you say you used to smoke with your friend for a couple months in college a year ago but stopped and think that was probably a dumb decision, that’s not necessarily bad, it all depends on how the interview goes. They’ll ask for the names of who you smoked with and how you got the weed - so they can check if you were hanging out with known cartel members or just some other joe schmoe at UCWhatevs.

            At the end of the day it’s all based on context and a ton of factors. They dig a lot deeper and have a much higher standard for more selective clearances or programs, which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone? But it’s all about whether you’re trustworthy to keep certain sensitive information from unauthorized people.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I understand all of that, I was just keeping it simple for Lemmy. And there’s no functional difference between a pass from DCSA with a note of prior drug use in the last 3 years and a fail from DCSA for those agencies. It’s a distinction without a difference in their eyes. But there is also different pipelines for Military and Civilian clearances. If you come to the government with a military clearance they will want you to get an upgraded check and interview. It’s a lot easier than a new clearance for most people but it’s still a thing. This was per the State Department for FSO’s last time I checked out that process.

              So we can dig into minutia all day long if you want.

  • Tinidril@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I like the part of the election cycle when some good things are allowed to happen.

    I don’t even blame Biden for waiting. Americans have such short memories that getting elected means having to hold some things in reserve, and getting reelected or passing the office on are genuinely important factors. It just sucks that people had to wait.

    Congrats to everyone helped by this!

    • ModernEraCaveman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      If only there were a way to enact policies that would provide long term tangible impact to people’s lives such that they could wake up every day and say, “yeah the president is doing a good job…”

      Im not discounting what he’s doing, I’m just saying that there’s a reason why FDR got elected three times and would have been elected more if term limits weren’t instituted.