DADT: Naser Abdo, Conscientious Objectors, and Morality Repeal

Naser Abdo is in the news again for allegedly planning an attack on Fort Hood. One of the interesting things about this story is that the Army apparently recommended that Abdo be separated from the Army as a conscientious objector (CO). I’ll explain how this relates to DADT in just a bit. First, however, I want to examine the CO discharge recommendation.

Some reports state that the Army granted Abdo CO status. However, I don’t think that’s exactly true and here’s why.

I emailed the Fort Campbell public affairs office (PAO) on June 9 of this year, asking for the status of Abdo’s CO case. The PAO emailed me the following response which I reprint verbatim:

Mr. Hair,

Because this case is still pending, there is limited information I can provide. However, I can tell you this, on May 13th, 2011, the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Army Review Boards Agency recommended that PFC Abdo be approved for separation from the U.S. Army as a Conscientious Objector in accordance with Army Regulation 600-43. Because PFC Abdo is pending court-martial for possession of child pornography, his discharge will not be approved until all disciplinary actions have been resolved.

Any other comments at this time would be inappropriate due to the case being in a pending status.

Bob Jenkins

Director of Public Affairs

Fort Campbell Public Affairs Office

This information matches later news reports and is an important difference from saying that the Army actually granted him CO status because this is what I think the Army had planned.

The Army probably didn’t want to offend Islam even as it had a problem that it needed to address. Discovering that Abdo may be guilty of possessing child pornography possibly provided a way to address that problem while also pandering to Islam. In other words, the Army may have thought that it now could recommend that Abdo receive a CO discharge for his Islamic beliefs even as it thought that it never would have to grant it, and instead would be able to discharge Abdo for something seemingly unrelated to Islam. This isn’t significant in the larger story but this possible scenario is worth noting.

Now, how does Abdo and his recommended CO discharge relate to DADT?

People such as Andy McCarthy and Patrick Poole have analyzed the significance of recommending a CO discharge for Abdo. Yet I haven’t seen anyone point out this: the Department of Defense (DOD) now has endorsed an honorable discharge for a Muslim solely because of his Islamic beliefs even as it has repeatedly said that it will not discharge anyone morally opposed to the Armed Forces repealing morality.

Think about that and then consider this story.

We have been told that it was “unjust” to deny sodomites from serving in the Armed Forces. In fact, not only was the misnamed DADT never unfair to sodomites, it granted them preferential treatment. The best example of this comes from a June 27 AP article entitled, “3 in Air Force seek discharge under gay ban.” This article explicitly reveals that while a morally-bound Serviceman could not get out of his contract simply because he wished, all a sodomite had to do under DADT was announce that he was a sodomite and he would be honorably discharged. Of course, the repeal of DADT won’t end preferential treatment for sodomites; it simply means the ways they get it will change.

I have my own opinions on what these two separate stories about DADT mean in the larger scheme of things. But for now, I’ll let each reader form his own conclusions.