5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
September, 13 2010, 02:29pm EDT
Contact:
Doug Honig, ACLU of Washington, (206) 264-2184
Robyn Shepherd, ACLU National, (212) 519-7828 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
ACLU Seeks Reinstatement of Air Force Major Discharged Under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Landmark Case of Maj. Margaret Witt Goes to Trial Today
TACOMA, Wash.
The landmark case of Major Margaret Witt, a decorated U.S. Air Force flight nurse dismissed under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, goes to trial today in U.S. District Court in Tacoma. The ACLU of Washington is representing Maj. Witt in challenging her discharge. The trial is expected to last seven days.
"I want to serve my country. I have loved being in the military - my fellow airmen have been my family. I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job," said Maj. Witt. "Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."
In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Air Force must prove that discharging Maj. Witt was necessary for purposes of military readiness. While the ruling left in place the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the court found that before discharging a soldier, the military must prove that the individual's conduct hurt morale and unit cohesion. The case was remanded to federal district court for trial under the appellate court's standard of review.
"Maj. Witt has been an exemplary member of the military with a distinguished record of service. To discharge her simply because of her sexual orientation is unfair to her and also is unwise for the military, which needs her skills," said ACLU of Washington Executive Director Kathleen Taylor.
Maj. Witt's trial will proceed as scheduled despite a recent ruling by a federal district court in a separate case that struck down the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy as unconstitutional. That ruling should be persuasive authority here, but is not yet binding on the federal court in Tacoma.
"Maj. Witt's case illustrates once again the baseless nature of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy," said James Esseks, Director of the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. "The policy is founded on the idea that openly lesbian or gay service members will detract from morale, but the evidence here shows that Maj. Witt's colleagues didn't care that she's a lesbian. Congress should not wait for more courts to rule, it should finish the job and repeal this law."
Maj. Witt was a flight nurse assigned to McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma. During her 19-year career in the Air Force, she served in the Persian Gulf, received many medals and commendations and always had superb evaluations from her superiors. In 1993, she was selected to be the "poster child" for the Air Force Nurse Corps recruitment flyer.
Maj. Witt served in Oman during Operation Enduring Freedom and received a medal from President Bush, who noted that she had delivered "outstanding medical care" to injured service members and that her "outstanding aerial accomplishments...reflect great credit upon herself and the United States Air Force." In 2003, Maj. Witt received another medal for saving the life of a Defense Department employee who collapsed aboard a government chartered flight from Bahrain.
From 1997 to 2003, Maj. Witt was in a committed relationship with a civilian woman. In the summer of 2004, Maj. Witt was notified that the Air Force had begun an investigation into an allegation that she had engaged in homosexual conduct. In November 2004, she was placed on unpaid leave and told she could no longer participate in any military duties, pending formal separation proceedings. In March 2006, the Air Force informed her that she was being administratively discharged on grounds of homosexual conduct.
The military has provided no evidence that her sexual orientation or conduct has caused a problem in the performance of her military duties. To the contrary, the ACLU has submitted declarations from military colleagues testifying that her forced absence is harmful to her unit's morale.
Representing Maj. Witt are ACLU-WA Legal Director Sarah Dunne and Sher Kung, a Perkins Coie Fellow, and ACLU-WA cooperating attorneys James Lobsenz of Carney Badley Spellman and Aaron Caplan of Loyola Law School.
The trial brief can be found here: www.aclu-wa.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2010-08-31--Pl%20trial%...
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Majority of American Jews Oppose Trump-Netanyahu War on Iran: Polls
"This data is a wake-up call for anyone claiming to speak for the American Jewish community while beating the drums of war," said Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street.
Mar 30, 2026
Two separate polls released Monday show that a majority of American Jews oppose the US-Israeli war on Iran as the assault drags on into its fifth week, with increasingly dire regional and global consequences.
The surveys were published by the liberal advocacy group J Street and the Jewish Electorate Institute (JEI), a research organization. Both polls of Jewish Americans showed majority opposition—60% and 55%, respectively—to the US-Israeli war on Iran.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's president, said in a statement that "this data is a wake-up call for anyone claiming to speak for the American Jewish community while beating the drums of war."
"Most American Jews see this war for what it is: A reckless, unforced error by a president who has no clear, achievable goals or an exit strategy," said Ben-Ami. "This poll proves that the ‘pro-Israel’ position is the pro-peace position—and that means stopping this war before more lives are lost."
J Street's poll shows that 77% of Jewish Americans don't think US President Donald Trump "has a clear plan and mission for the war." In JEI's survey, 41% of those who expressed opposition to the Iran war said they were against US military action because "we should not go to war without clear provocation and clear objectives."
Jim Gerstein, principal at GBAO Strategies—which conducted the poll on behalf of J Street—said that American Jews "have clearly formed views on the war in Iran."
"A large majority opposes the war, and they do not think Trump has a plan and mission in Iran," said Gerstein. "Jewish voters hold overwhelmingly negative views of both Trump and Netanyahu—Jewish opposition to the war and those leading it is unmistakable."
The surveys mark the latest evidence of widespread US public opposition to the war on Iran. Nearly 60% of American voters overall believe that, one month in, the war has "gone too far," according to a poll released last week, and around 70% oppose a ground invasion of Iran as Trump deploys thousands of troops to the Middle East.
The opposition to the war among Jewish Americans stands in stark contrast to the strong support among Jewish Israelis. The Israel Democracy Institute released a poll on Friday showing that 78% of Jewish Israelis support the assault on Iran.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Children Among Those Killed by US With Mysterious New Weapon Fired on Iran: Reports
The Precision Strike Missile has never before been used in combat by the US military.
Mar 30, 2026
As experts and investigators analyze one of the first strikes carried out in the US-Israeli war on Iran, mounting reports point to a ballistic missile that had never been used before by the US military in combat—but which may have struck a residential area, a sports hall, and a school in the southern city of Lamerd.
Along with being accused of bombing a school in Minab, killing more than 160 children and teachers, the US reportedly attacked several facilities and civilian areas near an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps facility in Lamerd, killing an additional 21 people, including children.
While analysts have found a US Tomahawk cruise missile was used in the Minab attack, munitions experts interviewed by the BBC and The New York Times in recent days said footage of the attacks and images of the targets after they were struck suggest a short-range ballistic missile called a Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) was used to bomb a sports hall, school, and residential neighborhood in Lamerd.
The missiles are newly developed and are designed to detonate just above a target and propel small tungsten pellets into the surrounding area.
As the Times reported, the PrSM is manufactured by Lockheed Martin and has the capability to hit targets at a 400-mile range, "but additional details about the weapon, including its expected accuracy and the quantity of explosives it carries, remain unknown to the public."
The Times reported that munitions experts had analyzed footage of a weapon in flight over a residential area about 900 feet from the sports hall and school, showing the missile erupting "in a large fireball midair."
Another video showed an explosion in midair just above the sports hall and nearby school, and photos of the aftermath showed the sites with numerous holes, presumably from the tungsten pellets.
The Times also verified a video that showed a plume of smoke rising in an area close to the other strikes at the same time, and local media reports said a cultural center had been hit in that attack. The target couldn't be independently verified.
Late last week, the BBC also reported that the PrSM was likely used on residential buildings in Lamerd on the first day of the war.
Experts at the defense intelligence firm Janes and at McKenzie Intelligence told the BBC that the shape, length, and size of the explosions created in verified footage they analyzed indicated the weapons were likely PrSM missiles.
"US Central Command has admitted to using PrSM in strikes from the desert of an unnamed Gulf country against Iran in the early phases of the conflict," McKenzie Intelligence emphasized.
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Dan Caine also celebrated the use of the PrSM in a press conference on March 13, reported the BBC, saying the US military had "made history" and carried out attacks with "precision and determination that comes from relentless training and trust in each other and in their weapon systems."
But a spokesperson for US Central Command on Saturday told the Times that Pentagon officials are "aware of the reports and are looking into them," and claimed US forces "do not indiscriminately target civilians."
The US has also not officially taken responsibility for the attack in Minab that happened on the same day as the ones in Lamerd, but fragments of a Tomahawk missile that were found at the site are among the mounting evidence pointing to the Trump administration as the perpetrator.
The sports hall in Lamerd was reportedly being used by a children's volleyball team at the time of the strike; fourth grader Helma Ahmadizadeh and fifth grader Elham Zaeri were among those killed while at volleyball practice, according to an Iran-based journalist, Negin Bagheri.
Zaeri's father "described her as an avid volleyball player, who would always turn up to the sports hall 20 to 25 minutes early," the BBC reported.
The outlet also said the youngest victim of the suspected PrSM strike was two years old.
At Drop Site News, Mahmoud Aslan reported on the attack on the sports hall shortly after it took place, before analysts linked the bombing to the PrSM.
Hossein Gholami told Aslan his 16-year-old daughter, Zahra, had been training in the facility when he "noticed a strange gathering of people at the corner of the street leading to the sports hall."
“The screaming was rising from a distance," said Gholami. "A colleague ran toward me, waving his arm, and said in a shaken voice: ‘Zahra, the hall, there has been an explosion.'"
“The continuous screaming of the injured mixed with the sounds of secondary explosions," said Gholami, whose daughter was killed in the attack. "The ground was covered in debris and shattered glass. It was difficult to move with all the rubble. Ambulances arrived after about twenty minutes, but most of the injured were in critical condition. The smell of blood and burns covered everything."
“Every time I close my eyes," he said, "I see her face, her smile, and I hear the sound of the explosion."
Keep Reading
Show Less
EPA Ripped for 'Routinely' Failing to Label Cancer-Causing Pesticides
"If the agency is going to allow such chemicals to be freely sold at Home Depot, Walmart, and farm supply stores, the very least the EPA must do is require a clear cancer warning on the label," said one critic.
Mar 30, 2026
The US Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly failed to warn consumers of the cancer risks posed by pesticides—even when its own research has found those products to be carcinogenic, a pair of green groups said Monday.
The Center for Food Safety studied the EPA's permitted risk level in active components of both currently approved and legacy pesticides. CFS researchers found that the EPA allowed pesticides with a cancer risk "as high as 1 in every 100 people exposed, a far greater level than the EPA’s benchmark of a 1-in-a-million chance of developing cancer."
"Of the 570 unique pesticide chemicals that EPA’s Office of Pesticide program has classified for carcinogenic potential since 1985, over one-third (200, or 35%) are either possible human carcinogens (127) or likely to be carcinogenic to humans (73)," the CFS report notes. "The status of 62 others (11%) is uncertain, because EPA lacks sufficient data to make a determination.
A second report, from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), shows that of the 200 pesticides that are possible or likely human carcinogens, 125 are still registered for use.
CBD analyzed the labels of every pesticide currently approved by the EPA and found that the agency has placed cancer warnings on just 69 of 4,919 pesticide labels (1.4%) "containing an active ingredient that the agency has designated a 'likely' human carcinogen." Additionally, the EPA has put cancer warnings on just 242 of the 22,147 pesticide labels (1.1%) that "contain an ingredient the agency has designated as a 'possible' human carcinogen."
CFS science director Bill Freeses said in a statement Monday: “It’s bad enough that the EPA approves cancer-causing pesticides. But if the agency is going to allow such chemicals to be freely sold at Home Depot, Walmart, and farm supply stores, the very least the EPA must do is require a clear cancer warning on the label. Warnings save lives by incentivizing users to wear protective equipment that reduces risk."
Lori Ann Burd, director of environmental health at the CBD, said on Monday that “it's dumbfounding that the EPA has failed to require any cancer warning on thousands of pesticide products sold to the public that the agency itself has linked to cancer."
“Why should anyone have confidence in the EPA’s ability to keep tabs on the pesticide industry and protect us all from harmful poisons when it won’t even compel companies to put long-term health warnings on pesticides it knows are really dangerous?" she added.
Last month, CFS, CBD, and others denounced the EPA's reapproval of the pesticide dicamba—which scientific studies have linked to increased risk of cancer and hypothyroidism in high-dose exposure—for certain cotton and soybean crops.
The new CFS and CBD analyses come ahead of next month's oral arguments in Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell, a case before the US Supreme Court in which Bayer, the Germany-based pharma giant that bought Monsanto in 2018, is seeking substantial immunity from future lawsuits filed by people in the United States who used glyphosate-based products like Roundup weedkiller and were then diagnosed with rare pesticide-linked cancers. The company has paid out billions of dollars to settle such suits.
CBD and other advocacy groups have also warned that the industry-backed Farm Bill currently advancing in the Republican-controlled Congress weakens or delays pesticide safety regulation, preempts state-level cancer warning rules, and shields chemical companies from lawsuits.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular