One very important component in obtaining a parole date is having confirmation of transitional housing. For most prisoners, this can be a serious challenge.
However, for veterans this challenge should be an easy obstacle to overcome. Unfortunately, there is a bump in the road. The Veterans Administration will not issue a letter saying that the prisoner has a bed waiting for him or her.
However, VA transitional housing centers will pre-screen a veteran to determine eligibility for placement and then issue a letter confirming that once he or she arrives at a specific location, he or she will be placed at that time.
President Obama’s five-year plan went into effect in 2010. It is now mandated that homeless veterans be housed and the VA classifies incarcerated vets as homeless.
The five-year plan says one of its programs for justice-involved veterans is “Transitional planning for Veterans discharging from the justice system.” The parole board rejects the wording explaining the VA procedure.
Inmate R. Willis was recently issued a letter from the Inglewood VA center confirming he has been pre-screened and upon his arrival he will be placed in a bed. This succeeded because Willis case was handled in court, not before the parole board. His release was contingent on transitional housing, more specifically, a letter stating he had a place to go.
A VA official reports he is working to rectify the parole problem.

Editor’s Note: Ron ‘Yana’ Self is a highly decorated Marine and a resident of San Quentin State Prison. During a battle, Self was saved by an openly gay Marine.
On April 28, 1963 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declared, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
King adamantly contended that all Americans should have equal access to the American dream. However, in spite of the great strides the Civil Rights Movement brought about during the 1950s and 1960s, many Americans still experience discrimination. While King was referring to people of color, his argument for inclusivity applies equally to other groups of people like gay men and women who are denied the same opportunities as heterosexuals. In many states, homosexuals are still fighting for the same civil rights given to heterosexuals.
At the Federal level, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been the policy and culture of the military for decades. In this ethos, gays are discouraged from disclosing their sexual orientation for fear of being dishonorably discharged. Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” enables the military to have a broader selection of eligible applicants from which to choose and will eventually eliminate this complicated and prejudicial policy. More importantly, it will aid in uniting all service men and women within the United States of America’s Armed Forces by lifting the invisible veil of discrimination.

DON’T ASK DON’T TELL

Those who support maintaining “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy often argue that allowing homosexuals to serve openly will undermine the unity of the military, and that asking heterosexual troops to work alongside those who are openly gay will prevent troops from trusting one another to the degree they must in order to be effective. This argument is baseless and unpersuasive. It has been my experience that some gays already do serve openly despite the official policy. While deployed overseas conducting combat operations, I was shot and knocked to the ground; only semi-conscious and immobilized, I was still under fire and unable to defend myself. Had rescue not come I would have undoubtedly been killed within moments. The marine that was to my immediate left just before I stepped into the clearing was openly gay. But that has no relevance in a firefight. He had the courage to come out in the open in a hail of gunfire and drag meto safety. He was shot 11 times doing so and died by my side shortly after reaching cover. Chuck was one of the bravest men I knew during my time in the Marine Corps. His ultimate sacrifice demonstrates that serving openly does not degrade the cohesiveness of military units.

“As time goes on military leaders are beginning to understand that excluding gays from the military is not viable”

During times of war, it would be wise for Americans to rally together and bring forth our best and brightest to assist the war effort. Allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces increases the number of talented men and women available. Additionally, those potential recruits would not be subjected to the demoralizing invisibility imposed by the veil of discrimination. As the United States approaches its eleventh year of war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, our troops are stretched beyond their limits. Most military personnel are going on their fifth and sixth tours of duty and there is no end in sight. It is common sense to permit gays and lesbians to serve openly with the honor and pride they deserve.

PRESIDENT OBAMA

Of late, the movement to end “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” has gained a tremendous amount of momentum. During a recent press conference President Obama related what one of his generals had told him: “One of our Special Forces people is a gay man. He is big, mean, and kills lots of bad guys; we have no problem with his sexual orientation.” Military commanders, as well as political leaders, have stated publicly that the policy is antiquated and needs to end. On May 30, 2010 the House of Representatives passed a bill to repeal the policy.

MILITARY LEADERS

As time goes on, military leaders are beginning to understand that excluding openly homosexual men and women from the military is not viable. We need as many good people as we can get to fight the two wars in which we are engaged. Most importantly, we need to encourage both our armed forces personnel and our citizens to live up to the values that this country is supposed to represent. For those doing the fighting on the front lines, the sexual orientation of the people on your left and right makes no difference as long as they do the job they volunteered for in a competent and proficient manner. Bullets flying through the air do not differentiate between gay and straight men or women; they kill indiscriminately.

The United States military and allied forces face increased risk due to the disclosure of classified documents, according to the Pentagon. Last June Julian Assange, founder of the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, released 400,000 pages of classified documents pertaining to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
U.S. personnel are being placed in harm’s way because of Assange’s postings, according to Pentagon spokesman Geoff Murrell. He summed it up during a press conference reported by John F. Burns and Ravi Somaiya of the New York Times on Oct 23. “These documents […] were a gift to ‘terrorist organizations.’” This “gift” provides terrorist groups with patrol tactics, troop strength, specific weapons systems deployment, and other vital information related to how and under what circumstances troops are used.

ROAD MAP FOR THE INSURGENTS

Furthermore, the documents describe what the call signs (i.e. names) of specific U.S. and allied units are and gives enemy personnel a road map of how to defeat the U.S. military, according to Murrell. An example he gave is that enemy insurgents can now better prepare how to ambush U.S. and allied forces. Additionally, insurgents now have an enhanced view of how primary and secondary units respond, thus enabling the enemy to more effectively conduct offensive operations.
I believe that from the moment those documents went public, every Marine and soldier, as well as every mission currently underway in Iraq and Afghanistan, was compromised.
Pfc. Bradley Manning is a former Army intelligence operative currently under detention in Quantico, Va. Manning is suspected of leaking the information to Assange in agreement with Assange’s decision to place the documents in the public domain. The release of secret information introduces the public to a flawed game of “Hide and Seek.” The point of this game is to remain hidden from the person(s) who are doing the seeking. A successful game is one where the person hiding is not found. In Assange’s version of this game, he interjects himself by drawing a map that leads the seeker (insurgents) directly to the persons hiding (coalition forces). “GAME OVER.”
 
Assange’s decision to leak classified documents places U.S. military personnel in grave danger, consequently putting our allies’ personnel in danger as well. In addition to the harm to our U.S. personnel, our Iraqi and Afghan counterparts are being hunted down because of the postings. Amnesty International and Reporters without Borders have joined the Pentagon in condemning Assange’s postings for placing people’s lives in greater danger.
Burns and Somaiya also reported an illustration of this: “A Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan […] said in a telephone interview that the Taliban had formed a nine-member ‘commission’ after the Afghan documents were posted ‘to find about people who are spying.’ He said the Taliban had a ‘wanted’ list of 1,800 Afghans and was comparing that with names WikiLeaks provided.”
The military relies upon those men and women for information regarding the location of insurgents. Based on military history, the key to winning any campaign in a foreign country is in winning over the hearts and minds of the people that live there. WikiLeaks information compromises our ability to keep our allies out of harm’s way.
Assange says he firmly believes that all the documents should be in the public domain; the world should have equal access to the information released by WikiLeaks.
According to Burns and Somaiya, Assange stated that the release of the documents, “constituted the most comprehensive and detailed account of any war ever to have entered the public record” and, therefore, the public is entitled to have access to this information. Assange defends his decision to leak the records in the interest of “tremendous good and [the] prevention of harm” ignoring the fact that U.S. policy forbids any military personnel from leaking classified documents to the public. Manning is said to have handed over these documents to Assange, who in turn posted them on the World Wide Web, violating national security under the 1917 espionage act. The act states, “any one releasing classified or secret documents with the intent of causing intentional harm can and will be tried.”
If the breach accrues during a time of war, the individual can be executed for treason. Not only does the release of these documents violate national security by leaking classified information, it has also caused a diplomatic embarrassment, eroding our credibility with other world powers by demonstrating the country’s inability to safeguard classified information.

MILITARY’S REPUTATION TARNISHED

The perception of our country becomes one that is not trustworthy, causing the U.S. military’s reputation to be brought into question. The posting of the classified documents is duplicitous on Assange’s part and greatly handicaps our ability to ensure the safety and greater good of all free people.
Furthermore, the information posted by WikiLeaks dramatically compromises our ability to combat terrorist organizations and conduct military operations globally. Most importantly, it further endangers the lives of our military personnel – for no other reason than Assange’s distorted sense of self-righteousness – at revealing this holy grail of classified documents.
Editor’s Note: Inmate Ronald G. Self was a Marine who served in the enlisted ranks as well as the officers corps.