The Trump Admin's reasoning to get the transgender ban going is a little disturbing to say the least
Solicitor General Noel Francisco filed three separate briefs on Thursday requesting that the court — if it does not leapfrog lower courts and take up the trans military issue this term — allow the government to enforce its ban as the issue plays out in the legal system.
He said the department was being forced "to maintain a policy that it has determined poses ‘substantial risks’ and ‘threatens to undermine, disrupt unit cohesion and impose an unreasonable burden on the military that is not conducive to military effectiveness and lethality.’”
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-admin-asks-supreme-court-temporarily-allow-trans-military-ban-n948056
This flies in the face of a previous court that has said transgender soldiers don't really affect the performance of the military... they say letting them serve is not conducive to military effectiveness and lethality, and so simply having a transgender ban would increase that lethality.
So if we're going to open the doors and make all sorts of crazy policies that would make soldiers more lethal... what else would be allowed?
Let's put on our hypothetical thinking caps on what this could mean beyond a transgender ban which is appalling enough in it's own right...
Human experimentation to make more deadly soldiers? Can't have any silly policies not making them less lethal, right?
Kidnapping children (Not unlike the children of the victims of Operation Condor in Latin America... so it is in the realm of plausibility) and making sure the only home and family they know is the military, the only information they would have is propaganda.
What if it's 'found' to be more conducive to scrap that whole enlistment oath except for loyalty to Trump? A military that is loyal to one real man as opposed to some abstract concept of freedom or a Constitution could be something I would see a Trump-paid researcher saying.
= new reply since forum marked as read
