Military.Com Forum Moderator in Violation of Federal Law

I believe it is wrong, and unconscionable that Military.Com would employ, as a volunteer, or in any other manner, an individual, as a forum moderator who stands in proud violation of Federal Law.

It is conceivable, that in connection with this situation, that Military.Com could be pulled into federal court charged with a party to a conspiracy to violate federal law, by knowingly allowing an employee to use its premises to violate federal law.

Please make a note that the deletion of this thread could be seen as an obstruction of justice as well. Moreover, the deletion of any thread or post which contains evidence of the violation of federal law could also be considered as an obstruction of justice as well.

I am speaking of the moderator who posts in the Gays in the Military forum area under the screen name “Bleah”, and who proclaims publically, and without ambiguity, that he is both an active duty member of the U.S. Military, and a homosexual, placing him in violation of U.S. Code, 10 U.S.C. § 654, more commonly referred to as the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy towards Gays in the Military.

The thrust of this policy is described on an official DOD website as Follows:

quote:

The DoD policy states that sexual orientation is a personal and private matter and is not a bar to military service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. Military applicants are not asked about sexual preference as part of processing into the armed forces. The policy also states that the services may not initiate investigations solely to determine a member's sexual orientation. Commanders may initiate an investigation only on receipt of credible information that a service member has engaged in homosexual conduct such as stating his/her homosexuality, committing a homosexual act or entered into a homosexual marriage.

The First Legal Point, is that the moderator “Bleah” is on the public record stating his active duty status in his publically accessible profile which can be viewed HERE.

The Second Legal Point, is that the moderator “Bleah” has publically affirmed his homosexuality, at least five (5) times on this one discussion thread as follows:

quote:

1. Posted Wed 20 September 2006 09:28

"I generally do stay pretty neutral, but when you accused me of being demon-posessed, you pretty much gave me a hunting license and painted a bulls-eye on your chest."

quote:

2. Posted Wed 20 September 2006 21:23

"Try to keep it clean while I'm in bed with my guy, ok?"

quote:

3. Posted Thu 21 September 2006 06:58

"(Demonguy is sooooo gay and fighting it. I've been there. I didn't get quite so weird with the rationalizations, but the 'preahcer me' in the past did blame this on demonic influence before I allowed common sense settle in.)"

quote:

4. Posted Thu 21 September 2006 11:06

“In my view, the government of a pluralistic, secular society built upon human rights and common law limits the government. People in such a society haev the natural right to do whatever they want as long as it does not deprive another person of their life, liberty, health, or property. My relationship does none of those, so the government is limited from exercising any sort of sanction for or against it. That is why DADT is immoral, because it empowers the government to prefer one relationship over another without due justification.”

quote:

5. Posted Thu 21 September 2006 20:02

“I am gay. I have lived in the barracks. I have lived on submarines. Some people there knew I was gaym, some suspected, others had no idea. There was no breakdown in unit cohesion or discipline because I was respected on the same basis as any other crewmember: how ell I do my job, and the professional standard I set for my own behavior.”

The Third Legal Point is that it appears that Military.Com has knowingly recruited a known active duty member of the U.S. Armed Forces, who is a known homosexual, and that they have consented to his violation of Federal Law from the onset.

quote:

Posted Sat 23 September 2006 22:34

“This is normally a volunteer position, but I was actually asked to serve in this (unpaid) position by one of the administrators here. I declined for quite a while before they finally got to me.“

I believe that Military.Com has a responsibility to dismiss this individual immediately from any further administrative duties at Military.Com, for the simple reason that he stands in violation of federal law, and moreover, I believe that the owners of Military.Com might have a legal duty to report the violation of federal law which has occurred in their presence, and to which they are a party to, to the appropriate authorities. Failure to do so may lead to some federal legal liabilities. For example, the following notice is included on the website of the Department of Defense Inspector General.

Anyone, whether uniformed or civilian, who witnesses what he or she believes to be a violation of ethical standards and/or the law, including but not limited to fraud, waste, or abuse of authority, potential leaks of classified information, or potential acts of terrorism, should report such conduct through the chain of command or either directly to his or her respective service Inspector General or directly to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense Hotline at 800-424-9098 (e-mail: hotline@dodig.mil)

click here for the source page

If Military.Com moves with great speed to get the appropriate information into the hands of the DOD Inspector General, the less likely it will be, it seems to me, that they will face any federal legal liability.

The Law is the Law. It must be obeyed.