You get a better constitutional case with religious discrimination than you do with gender discrimination. Also, the present administration is a whole hell of a lot more likely to defend a Christian than a woman.
[/QUOTE]
Kelly, with the question about why we all thought McSally was Christian, yer 0-fer-3. Please read the article.
Concerning the above two quotes, the regulation was put in place in 1995 (during Clinton’s term), by the local base commander.
Sua
I meant no one on this board, not no one involved in the case.
But is being defended by Central Command, who could override the base commander if they so desired.
Why is the military in the wrong? It requires the soldiers to wear clothing that conforms with local custom (and the regulations that apply to local women). I’m not saying the military is right or wrong - I’m saying that it is within the law.
Let’s take this out of gender and religion. The US military has a very important base in Atheististan. The country is not religious, but cultural traditions and local regulations require that men wear codpieces. Travelers in the country are not required to wear codpieces, but non-codpiece-wearing travelers are often harrassed by locals.
To avoid the risk of harrassment or assault on his soldiers, as well as to keep the local population from resenting the US Army’s presence in their country, the commander of the base issues an order requiring males under his command to wear codpieces when they leave the base.
Problem?
IzzyR - Of course it is sexual discrimination. That, legally, is going to get McSally nowhere - religious rights have greater protection in US law. As to whether it is “right” or “wrong,” I have no idea. I tend to think of it as a sacrifice for the greater good.
Sua
Yeah, and Clinton had almost six years to override the base commander. He didn’t. So, this ain’t a partisan issue, and if both a Democratic and a Republican administration are in agreement on the issue, perhaps it deserves a closer analysis on the merits.
IzzyR, yeah, a rule requiring all soldiers to attend Xian chapel on Sundays would survive the “uniform application” test, but would fail both the “legitimate military ends are sought to be achieved” test (both US and world history are replete with instances of multisect militaries being effective) and the “designed to accomodate the individual right to the appropriate degree” test (requiring an affirmative act of participation in a foreign religious service does not accomodate the religious beliefs of non-Xians in any way, much less to an “appropriate degree”).
Sua
This liberal-minded women’s-right-supporter pinko dude here thinks she’s barking up the wrong tree. Not only is she (apparently) disobeying orders from her superiors, but she is also showing discourtesy towards her Saudi hosts, and poor taste on her own part.
While I understand her apparent disdain for Saudi customs towards women (I worked for two years developing defense software for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and saw firsthand some of their attitudes and treatment of women), the simple matter is that she is a guest in their country, and should have the courtesy to follow their manners. If she finds it stifling, then she should request a transfer to a different position – not raise a stink with a lawsuit.
Let’s say that it becomes necessary for the Army to send non-combat military divisions (in all likelihood including women) into Afghanistan. Afghanis seem to have fairly similar ideas about appropriate women’s dress as Saudi Arabia does. Should the Army, for the sake of not angering the locals, require any female servicepeople to dress in burkhas or some other locally acceptable garb?
IMHO, if they don’t, it does reveal a certain amount of suck-upiness on their part towards the Saudi government.
I’ve got to side with the pilot on this one. I don’t care if she’s a ‘guest’ in Saudi Arabia (as far as I know, she was ORDERED there by the Air Force), wearing the Abayah is a requirement of their culture because of their religion. Shouldn’t all of our MALE pilots be required to be wearing beards, if this is the case? Wouldn’t want to offend the tender sensibilities of the saudis, afterall.
I heard one of her lawyers being interviewed on the radio yesterday, and he made the pont that it is ONLY the military women who are being ORDERED to do this. Other government employees? Not required. Civilians? Not required. (I’m sorry, toadspittle, but your friend may not have been required to wear the abayah. Perhaps her father TOLD her that, because he wanted to stay on the base commander’s good side? Or maybe to protect her from the local religious zealots, who have been known to beat women who aren’t wearing it).
The lawyer also made the point that Saudi women are forbidden to fraternize with our military men. So let’s make our women dress like THEIR women, and put them in danger of being mistaken for locals and attacked. Smooth move.
rjung - she’s not disobeying orders. According to her lawyer, she’s stayed on base for the last 13 months rather than put up with this WORTHLESS (IMHO) rule. And she’s been TRYING to get the rule changed through the proper channels, but she was ignored. Thus the lawsuit.
I say let the women go off base in their regular outfits (military uniform), and if the Saudis complain about it, then we should pull out and let Saddam have his way. Bet the Saudis shut up before the first transport leaves the runway
GilaB, I don’t know. The difference, I think, would be that if a woman was stationed in Afghanistan right now she would likely be on combat duty, or on base as women are not able to go into combat situations. I think the only sycophancy would be if the US military required women in Saudi Arabia to dress up when they are on combat duty off the base.
[li]McSally doesn’t have a leg to stand on.[/li][li]The military is well within its rights to enforce such a regulation.[/li][li]I can understand the military and political evaluations which underlie the regulation, and I find some merit in them.[/li]I think the regulation is antithetical to the values which our nation should embody and our military defend, and I wish that it had not been made. A better solution, IMO, would be to require female personnel to comply with Saudi law and to educate regarding appropriate behavior, dress, and protocol for operations in the Middle East.
Of course other government employees and civilians were not ordered to wear abayahs. They can’t be. Military personnel can be. I’m sorry, but part of the deal when you voluntarily join the military is that you voluntarily agree to the abridgment of many of your constitutional rights. Every military person I know is well aware of this, and damn sure McSally was aware of this, too.
Hell, said civilians can’t be arrested for showing up to work late. In the military, you can (AWOL).
Sua
And even if that’s so, what’s wrong with sucking up to the Saudi government? We suck up to ther nations all the time, they suck up to us. It’s called diplomacy. My god, this is not the playground at middleschool. And even if it were, we’ve already won the pissing contest. We can afford to be magnamanious if it makes things easier for us.
It’s not that I think that we should never go out of our way not to offend other nation’s sensibilities. It’s just that I think that if we’re going to do so, we ought to do it uniformly. Although I find the idea of having to abide by the rules given above repugnant, I think that there may be valid reasons for enforcing them.
However, the US has a disturbing history of not making waves to keep the Saudi monarchy happy, such as not pushing them for information on the 15 (out of 19) hijackers from 9/11 who were Saudis. I think that being sensitive and a good guest are good things. I also think that this may be part of a larger pattern of not wanting to make the Saudis unhappy ever, even if it would be in our national security interest to do so, as in the hijacking information.
I don’t understand this. I don’t see any moral imperitive to treat other contries equally. We grant concesions to Saudi becasue they have stuff we want–oil, and a foothold in the turbulent Middle East. We would care much less about offending the sensibilities of Luxemborg, because we don’t want anything they have. Everybody knows this, there isn’t even any deciet involved.
During the Gulf War, Esquire magazine had a fantastic photo of a female soldier in cams striking a “what’s the big deal” pose, while some Saudi men looked at her with obvious disapproval out of the corners of their eyes.
I don’t really understand the abridgement of religion issue, but if there is a precedent, as there seems to be, then her case is probably sunk.
Seems to me that she’d have much better grounds to chase the Secretary of Defence for sexual discrimination as Izzy R pointed out (why the importance of making it a claim for infringement of constitutional rights if there is some perfectly good sexual discrimination legislation lying around?).
Does it matter if she is off-duty? I guess she’d have to obey a direction of a superior officer regardless of whether she is on-duty or off-duty…but in relation to her mode of off-duty dress?
In terms of the politics of it all…well, I have some troubles with the appeasement of the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments in general terms, let alone on this particular issue. From the same edition of Esquire, IIRC, a Kuwaiti aristocrat was quoted as saying that there was no real need for Kuwait to help the coalition repel Iraq from Kuwait, as they had “white slaves from America” to do that for them. Something to that effect, anyway.
This is the same military that is allowed to get away with prohibiting women from most combat roles and not requiring women to register for the draft. Different rules apply to the military as regards sex discrimination.
I don’t know the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but, from the fact that McSally’s lawyer hasn’t just said that it is an order without effect, I assume that the order is valid.
Sua
is a label of convenience in the military. It simply means that one has no duties that require specific action “at the moment”. There is no change in the status of a soldier. One is still subject to all lawful orders (and annoying + intrucsive != unlawful).
I’m sure you’re right. I don’t think it was the law that she had to wear the abayah, but rather that it was prudent.
There is such a thing as exercising good judgment. For instance, diplomatic immunity protects foreign diplomats in our country from getting arrested/hassled. But just b/c they can get away with breaking the law, doesn’t mean that they should. If diplomats routinely mow down pedestrians with their cars, we’re likely going to be less kindly to their governments.
What it comes down to is this: The U.S. wants to appease the Saudis. Like it or not, that’s our current foreign policy. This woman, as a soldier, is required to obey orders. Her orders are, in essence, to do everything possible to avoid pissing off the Saudis when she goes off of our base and into their country.
I’m losing track of you here. I said:
in response to which you brought up the Xian chapel issue:
Apparently you are differentiating between the Xian chapel and McSally on the basis of uniformity. So I say:
In light of the above, I think we’re back to square 1 on the original question. If you now say that your Xian chapel example is invalid because of other issues - OK, how about a case where the regulation was directly aimed at a specific religious practice but did serve some legitimate purpose?
Beyond this, I’m unsure how definitively you could state that requiring everyone to be of the same religion would not enhance the military. The fact that there are examples of successful militaries that lacked this feature does not necessarily imply that the feature would not enhance the military. And as you say
I’m unsure of what the “designed to accomodate the individual right to the appropriate degree” test is and how it fits in with the Goldman decision.
As to the discrimination issue, it may be that this is also part of the complaint - see:Female Pilot Sues Over Garb Rule. Also on the general subject, see:Saudi rule looser than Pentagon’s
OK, I see where we went off track, so let’s choose a different religious practice/regulation directly aimed at it. What I’m thinking of as an example is the practice of sacrificing animals in Santeria. To give the civilian context, in the City of Hialeah case, the city passed an ordinance banning the slaughtering of domestic animals within city limits (or something to that effect - I don’t know the details of the ordinance). While not labelled as such, it was very clear that the ordinance was directed at practitioners of Santeria. The Supreme Court invalidated the ordinance as violating the Free Exercise of Religion clause of the First Amendment.
Let’s take that ordinance and place it in the military context. First, if the military regulation said “Practitioners of Santeria in the military may not sacrifice animals,” I think the regulation would be unconstitutional - it is aimed at a particular religion and would allow someone of another religion that also calls for the sacrifice of animals (can’t think of one now, but I’m sure they exist) to continue the practice.
OK, let’s say it’s more general: “Members of the military may not sacrifice animals.” Probably unconstitutional as overbroad - there are, I’m sure, plenty of times a member of the military can sacrifice an animal when said sacrifice would have no (or minimal) effect on legitimate military goals.
Now, for nuance: “Members of the military may not sacrifice animals in barracks or on military property.” This would probably be constitutional - the military could probably come up with a good argument as to how this would disrupt military functioning, etc. And the Santeria practioners would have the option of practicing this aspect of their religion off-base.
Lastly, what if the regulation read “members of the military may not sacrifice animals, on or off military property, if they are stationed in a nation where such practices would offend local law or custom.” Again, I think this would be constitutional. It definitely impacts on the Santerian’s practices - there are no options for practice available to the Santerian - but the military would probably be able to argue that the legitimate military goal of maintaining good relations with the host nation trumps. I admit I may be wrong on this one - I’m not sure how far “designed to accomodate the individual right to the appropriate degree” requirement extends.
I think that the military is not allowed to aim for perfection at the expense of all rights. History would demonstrate that polyreligious militaries “work well enough” - we haven’t lost a battle or war because of religious intolerance in the ranks. I think such a military regulation would be looked upon by a judge under the “you gotta be kidding me” test. 