Also:

Apparently, the evil of teh gay!!11 is an eviler evil than the evil of the terrorists in our War on Terrorism. (Which, actually, we're not fighting anymore, but I guess kicking gays out of their jobs is more important than liberating Iraqis and stopping people from, y'know, acts of terrorism.)

Update: my good chum Ouroboros says:

Umm. He's allowed to be homosexual, he's just not allowed to be homosexual in the Army. Their policies may not make a whole lot of sense, but they're not doing anything illegal, or anything they said they wouldn't do.

First of all: They may have done something illegal, but more on that in a second. My problem with it is twofold: One, it's intolerable idiotic, because why the hell would we possibly have a high demand for linguists, and our military's not at all overextended, so of course they should spend eight months dedicated to a pointless witch-hunt.

Now, let's look at some DoD directives which dictate the procedure for "Fact-Finding Inquiries into Homosexual Conduct," kindly found here. I quote:

Commanders or appointed inquiry officials shall not ask, and members shall not be required to reveal, whether a member is a heterosexual, a homosexual, or a bisexual. However, upon receipt of credible information of homosexual conduct (as described in section C., above) commanders or appointed inquiry officials may ask members if they engaged in such conduct. But the member should first be advised of the DoD policy on homosexual conduct (and rights under Article 31, UCMJ, if applicable). Should the member choose not to discuss the matter further, the commander should consider other available information. Nothing in this provision precludes questioning a member about any information provided by the member in the course of the fact-finding inquiry or any related proceeding, nor does it provide the member with any basis for challenging the validity of any proceeding or the use of any evidence, including a statement by the member, in any proceeding. [emphasis mine]

And I quote from the article:

"The director brought everyone into the hallway and told us about this e-mail they had just received and blatantly asked, 'Which one of you are gay?'" Copas said.

Copas later complained to the director and his platoon sergeant, saying the questions violated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

"They said they would watch it in the future," Copas said. "And they said, even specifically then, 'Well, you are not gay are you?' And I said, 'no.'"

So, a commanding officer gets a random email, probably signed by a "John Smith", and decided it was "credible information". I'm also not quite sure about this:

On Dec. 2, investigators formally interviewed Copas and asked if he understood the military's policy on homosexuals, if he had any close acquaintances who were gay, and if he was involved in community theater. He answered affirmatively.

Does knowing homosexuals put you at higher risk or something? Obviously, if you're involved in local theater and you know some gay guys, you're unfit to serve, or...something.

But my real problem with the situation is far less specific than any one person's conduct in this one instance. My problem is primarily with this, from the same DoD directive linked above:

6. The Service member bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

I know at least one member of the armed forces very well. If I were to send an annonymous letter to her commanding officer stating that she is a lesbia, and maybe invent a few 'incidents' to give it a bit of detail and depth, then the onus would be on her to "prove" that she is in fact heterosexual.

Fine: If you want to spend huge amounts of time and money disrupting, if not destroying, the careers of otherwise able, capable, and willing service members, fine. Quite honestly, when it comes to gay rights, there are (in my opinion) more important battles to fight before taking on the behemoth of the military.

However: we live in a nation where the basis of our entire judicial system (and therefore, the root of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and pretty much everything) consists three words: Presumption of innocence. Until the prosecutors prove it in some investigative or judicial matter, you're innocent of the accusations. If an American is accused of a wrong by the government, any branch of the government, it borders on unconstitutional to say "Until you explicitly prove otherwise, we assume you're guilty."

Also, c some interesting stuff on federal civilian discrimination. America? Crazy place.