Day 3, Volume 2 & 3
From: http://online.logcabin.org/day-3-vol-ii.pdf and http://online.logcabin.org/day-3-vol-iii.pdf
After recess, continuing with Joseph Christopher Rocha. This
transcript contains timestamps.
MR. FREEBORNE, Defense atty.
Q. = MS. MYERS. Plaintiff atty (LRC)
A. = THE WITNESS: Joseph Christopher Rocha,
11:05
DIRECT EXAMINATION (cont'd)
BY MS. MYERS:
Q. What did it mean to you to be accepted to the Naval
Academy Preparatory School?
A. It is the single most significant moment of my life. It
guaranteed me admission to the Naval Academy if I kept doing
what I was doing.
Q. And what did it mean to you to have the possibility to
attend the Naval Academy?
A. That was -- well, it's the biggest dream I've ever had.
...
11:10
Q. After you started the Naval Academy Preparatory School, did you
have time to reflect on your experience in the dog-handling unit?
A. It was the first time that I really was able to reflect on what
happened, because I was permanently away and it was over. At the
Naval Academy Preparatory School, what they pressed on us -- they
stressed the most was the years of commitment, that we were looking at
a career, that we were looking at 15 to 20 years. And I evaluated how
I had done nothing wrong, how I had followed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
as closely as possible, yet been subjected to such extreme abuse; and
looking forward to a career at the Naval Academy or as an officer, I
realized that it could just as easily happen again.
Q. Did you have any other concerns about your career as an officer,
knowing that you had this long-term commitment?
A. Having just left a small unit, a small community, it's very
intrusive, I realized at the Naval Academy Preparatory School that the
Naval Academy would be no different and that the officer corps would
be no different. It would be a small group of people who would be
well-informed as to who my significant other was, when I had children,
when I got engaged. I was confident that it was a matter of time
before I was disgraced with a discharge.
So I had to decide whether I would get ahead of the game and get out
as someone who had served honorably in the Middle East or someone who
had been caught as a midshipman or caught as an officer.
Q. And what did you decide to do?
A. I decided to come out.
...
11:28
Q. Do you think that your inability to report the harassment
you experienced because of your fear during the time you were
in the dog kennel unit was directly related to the "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" policy?
MR. FREEBORNE: Your Honor, same objection. It also
calls for speculation.
THE COURT: The objections are overruled.
You may answer. Do you remember the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: I'm confident that, at least
personally, had "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" not been the policy, I
would have felt confident to report the abuse when it
escalated, and not fear reprisal.
Q. And why is that?
A. Because it is against our policy to haze, but as a gay
servicemember, I had no protection.
Q. Do you think that your sexual orientation affected your
ability to perform as a Navy servicemember?
A. No. I'm confident that I performed just as well, and many
times exceeded the performance of my peers.
Q. Would you want to rejoin the military if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is
no longer the policy?
A. I want nothing more than to continue my career in the armed forces.
...
End of this witness. Next witness for plaintiff coming up.
Aaron Belkin, founder of the Palm Institute, which does research on
issues related to DADT.
Much of his initial testimony discusses his papers, books, research
methodology, peer review, studies of foreign militaries etc.
Over the objections of defense, he is admitted as an expert witness
as a political scientist, social scientist and researcher on the
subject of sexual minorities in the military.
Q. = MS. FELDMAN, plaintiff atty.
A. = Professor Aaron Belkin, witness
...
1:38
Q. Professor Belkin, have you studied the impact of allowing
gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military on unit
cohesion?
A. Yes.
Q. And in your experience, what is the unit cohesion
rationale?
A. This is the idea that gays and straights cannot form bonds of
trust. And those bonds of trust are necessary for the combat
effectiveness of military units. And so if you allow gay and lesbian
servicemembers to acknowledge who they are honestly, then straight
servicemembers would realize that their peers are gay or lesbian, and
any bonds of trust that had developed would soften or disappear, and
new bonds of trust would not -- it would not be possible to perform
new bonds of trust; therefore, readiness, combat effectiveness, would
deteriorate.
...
1:42
Q. Have you reviewed any research on U.S. military service during the
Gulf War?
A. The Randy Shilts work is about that, yes.
Q. And what did that research find?
A. That there was a pattern in which gays and lesbians had been in the
process of being discharged. But once the war started, commanders
deployed gay and lesbian servicemembers to the front lines, so
suspended their discharge proceedings. They served in combat; they
came back; and the discharge proceedings were reinstigated. Shilts did
not find any detriments to performance or cohesion in the Gulf War.
...
1:44
Q. You mentioned Rhonda Evans.
What were you discussing with regard to Rhonda Evans?
A. So Rhonda Evans did a study for the Palm Center where she looked at
the history of gays and lesbians at war in the United States since
World War II, and she found discharges of gays and lesbians always
goes down during wartime.
The reason that that's interesting is because if a unit cohesion
rationale were true, you would suspect that the first thing the
military would want to do once a war starts is increase the number of
gay discharges to make sure that all the units are cohesive. But the
exact opposite thing happened in World War II -- I'm sorry,
Korea-Vietnam and then Gulf War I and -- that's not right --
Korea-Vietnam/World War II.
...
1:46
Q. What was the findings of the Flag & Officer report?
A. Well, they found that when commanders discovered that someone was
gay in their unit and had the choice between following the law and
discharging them and breaking up their team, or violating the law and
keeping their teams together, they chose the latter course, and that
that was actually better for cohesion and performance.
...
2:07
Q. For identification purposes, what is Exhibit 77?
A. It's my study of gays and lesbians in the British
military.
Q. Based on your research of the British military, what was
the impact of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the
British military?
A. It was a nonevent; there was no negative impact on cohesion, morale,
performance, or recruiting -- sorry, cohesion, morale, readiness or
recruiting. I believe that some other recruiters testified that their
jobs had actually become a little bit easier, but we didn't have
statistical data to back that up.
Q. Can you please turn to the following exhibit, Exhibit 78.
For identification purposes, what is Exhibit 78?
A. That is the study of the gays and lesbians in the Israel
defense forces.
Q. Based on your study of gays and lesbians in the Israel
defense force, what was the impact of allowing gays and lesbians to
serve openly in the Israel military?
A. There was no impact.
Q. Would you turn to the next exhibit, please.
For identification purposes, what is Exhibit 79?
A. That's the study of gays and lesbians in the Australian
military.
Q. Based on your research of the Australian military, what
was the impact of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in
the Australian military?
A. There was no impact.
Q. Finally, please turn to the next exhibit, Exhibit 80.
For identification purposes, what is Exhibit 80?
A. That's the study of gays and lesbians in the Canadian
military.
Q. Based on your research of the Canadian military, what was
the impact of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the
Canadian military?
A. There was no impact.
Q. Are you aware of any study finding that a country that
allows gays and lesbians to serve openly have experienced any
detriment to military performance as a result of allowing
homosexuals to serve openly?
A. No.
Heh. Quite a lot of other discussion regarding the experiences of
foreign militaries is provided, as well as more detail on the
concept of Unit Cohesion. As usual, read the transcript if
you want more :)
This concludes Volume 2.
Volume 3 continues with this witness, followed by cross examination
by defense.
That's it for day 3.
Thanks for doing this! I don't have the time to read all of the transcripts right now, so I'm glad I can still follow along. I'll bake you a batch of cookies for your effort =)
ReplyDeleteThanks Alan. I will look forward to them :)
ReplyDelete