Court-Martialed For Pregnancy. Senators object! UPDATED
We ran a story on Dec. 20th, when General Cucolo first banned pregnancies under his command. Well, he took it a step further.
The crazy that comes out of the military sometimes is breathtaking. I wonder if this General is connected to the C-Street gang known as The Family?
VELSHI: Twenty-two U.S. soldiers serving in northern Iraq have just gotten two new orders from their general. Rule one, don't get pregnant. Rule two, don't get another soldier pregnant. Break those rules and you will get court-martialed. The general, Anthony Cucolo, e-mailed CNN explaining his decision, telling us -- quote -- "I need every soldier I have got, especially since we are facing a drawdown of forces during our mission."
LISA BLOOM, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: In my view, this is patently unconstitutional, Ali. There's a long line of U.S. Supreme Court cases that says that the right to be a parent is a fundamental constitutional right. That means it's a right of the highest order and worthy of the highest protection.
Now, the military does get great deference from the courts, which means, if they want to redeploy a pregnant soldier, as they often do, they can do that in the way that a private employer could not do. But they cannot threaten with court-martial or jail a pregnant woman or a man who impregnates a woman. In my view, this will not pass any kind of constitutional muster.
--
THOMAS KENNIFF, FORMER ARMY JAG OFFICE ATTORNEY: Well, first of all, I think he may be going into hiding soon, because I think this is a situation where you have a commanding general who is in charge of his own fiefdom in northern Iraq and probably thought that he could do this with the consent of his own JAG, who may -- we use a term in the military when JAGs are referred to as going native, meaning that they're basically acting as yes men for the commend.
I agree with Lisa fully that there are serious constitutional problems with this and military laws and military orders are not exempt from constitutional scrutiny. The Supreme Court weighs in on military case laws and military decisions all the time.
So, you know, I think when this gets more exposure, as it is now through the media, there's going to be some major fallout here, because there's no question in my mind this is a major violation of the right to privacy.
UPDATE: John Amato:
Four Democratic female Senators have demanded that this horrific policy by General Cucolo be rescinded immediately. This is insane stuff.
Four Democratic senators have written a letter to an Army general in Iraq asking him to rescind an order that threatened to court martial female soldiers who become pregnant while deployed in the war zone.
The policy by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III was instituted on Nov. 4, but it has triggered outrage among women's groups since it became publicly known in recent days.
"We can think of no greater deterrent to women contemplating a military career than the image of a pregnant woman being severely punished simply for conceiving a child," the senators wrote to Cucolo today. "This defies comprehension. As such, we urge you to immediately recind this policy."
The letter was signed by Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.
UPDATE II: Now the general is saying that no soldier will actually be court martialed.
The commander who instituted a policy cracking down on pregnancy among soldiers defended it Tuesday as necessary to maintain troop strength, but said no soldier would ever be court-martialed for violating the directive. The policy -- which would punish soldiers who get pregnant or impregnate another soldier -- was included in Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo's orders to troops regarding conduct while deployed under his command in northern Iraq.
Cucolo said that as a former public affairs officer, he realized when he created the rule that it would be controversial for those outside the military.
"When I wrote this, I knew there would be public interest, and I also knew there would be a period of time when many folks would opine and give their own personal thoughts and blog about it. And I am fine with that. That's America," he said. "But I was also willing to deal with this attention because this is important. I am responsible and accountable for the fighting ability of my task force. I've got to take every measure to preserve my combat power, and that's the reason."
Yes General, we will blog about it and you got your fifteen minutes of shame, but in the end it's just another attack on the ladies when all is said and done no matter how you care to view this issue. I didn't realize that serving in battle was a lot like "Animal House."
What kind of person thinks it is okay to make orders like that?
The military is like a foreign country to me, I never served and I just don't get it. Most of our military leaders sound insane to me but this really takes the cake.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
is covered by some special interest group armed with a machine gun.
The kind of person who will have one hell of a long political career in the far-reich wing of the CONservative repug party. Woman haters, war lovers, and the to-hell-with-the-constitution Teabagger crowd will deify this jerk.
is military parlance is called: An asshole.
No pornography!! WTF?
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Maybe all ladies in America need to go on strike. Vaginas/reproductive systems closed until further notice. That'll get some attention.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Even the most staunch GOPer would wilt with the lack of the pooontanggg.
And booze would only make it worse. And ya can only go fishin for so long. Sooner or later, ya gots ta go home.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Most hardcore conservatives in addition to being fairly hostile and angry towards women in general are also, I believe, deeply conflicted closeted homosexuals. If they'd only come out, the world would be a better place.
I think a lot of men, deep down, have *urges. Free love now! People would be a lot less uptight.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
I believe that also explains why the right wing homophobes also believe that it is a choice since they themselves could go either way, they are somewhere in the middle.
It worked for Lisistrada in ancient Greece.
In cold and calculating way this isn't much different from giving a court-martial to a soldier who through neglect injured him or herself, off-duty, in a way that prevented deployment. (If a soldier broke his leg skiing off-duty and was prevented from deploying, that COULD result (but wouldn't) in a court martial)
I bet the courts would defer to the mil in this matter if push came to shove. The real problem this represents is for Obama.
If he doesn't speak up soon, in addition to alienating his base further, the Right will viciously attack him for either promoting abortions with threat of court martial (i.e. the only way the ladies could save themselves would be to get an abortion) or they'll just go crazy (not unlikely) and say he's the anti-christ for discouraging human birth.
Better speak up Obama, the country needs to hear you repudiate this quick.
get the idea that a soldier can get court-martialed from engaging in physically legal behavior?
In my military experience, I NEVER saw that happen to anybody.
I was deployed about 50% of my time in the military.
I think you have swallowed an urban legend about the military.
What type of "neglectful" activities are you talking about?
But if you're not ready to deploy, you could be charged. The circumstances are irrelevant.
I believe I listed a neglectful activity. I saw a guy written up for getting so drunk he got alcohol poisoning, couldn't muster for duty the next day.
Saw a marine company be informed that any further cases of STD's would be accompanied with write ups.
I got an AR 15 for being 7 minutes late for work. @ 4am.
Actually, I got quite a few for that. That and telling them to fuck off.
They couldn't do too much to me.
I have a letter in my file saying I saved some guys life. What was I supposed to do? Leave?
It's all bullshit. The whole thing about rank and privilege is bullshit.
All they should have to do is their MOS .
Yeah, I know. There's always more to it than that.
No biggie.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
what you're saying.
But getting write ups is different than getting discharged.
To be clear, I don't agree, I'm just pointing out the mil has the authority to make this call, and it'd be doubtful that a civilian court would take that authority away.
Still its all mil BS, they can, but they won't. Some CiC is worried about not having a 100% readiness making him look bad in reports so he won't get that next promotion, its more a scare tactic.
My more important (i thought) point is regardless of the mil/civ argument about this, is Obama's reaction to it. He better have a good one.
Getting pregnant to get out of one's contractual duties with the military is just as reprehensible as getting pregnant to force a man into marriage. Think about it, guys.
Children resulting from either situation are little hostages, often mistreated or unsuppported.
I'm feminist, and as long as women take unfair advantage of the system, we will be subject to unfair treatment in retaliation.
I personally don't understand why servicewomen aren't given contraceptive implants.
It's funny how babies are a gift from god, and deserve extra-constitutional rights, but pregnant women are a blight on corporate America, and cut into profits.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
brings babies, not the reviled pregnant women. *sigh*
I've never seen change without a fire
how is the right to life an extra-constitutional right?
Yeah, well, I hope you know what I'm saying: I was adding emphasis. There are folks walking around your neighbourhood with fewer rights than a fetus.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
ones I know of walking around my neighborhood with less rights than a fetus are convicted criminals, and actually they have pretty much the same rights. In my state felons are not allowed to own firearms(I won't go into my thoughts on that in a non open thread or one not about that) or if a person is currently incarcerated they are not allowed to vote after they have served their time and/or probation/parole. Other than that they have the same rights as everyone else. With very few exceptions such as convicted sex offenders have restrictions on where they can live and/or work in regards to children if they were convicted of a crime regarding a minor.
Guess you don't have any gays round your neck of the woods.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
several that I know of. What rights do they not have?
You really do live in a neat and tidy bubble, don't you? No colouring outside the lines.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
But please explain to me what rights they do not have.
Marriage, and all the rights and appurtenances therein, be they legal or otherwise.
Before you argue otherwise, how would it be, how would you feel, if I/we/gov't took away your right to marry; you were not allowed?
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
same as anyone else. They have the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex that will consent to marry them. Same as I or anyone else has.
They also have the right to be with anyone or any number of persons in any type of relationship as they like, same as myself. And I wouldn't want anyone to take that away from me or from anyone.
Personally I feel gov should get out of the marriage business altogether.
You don't have any right to your partner's pension, as any surviving spouse automatically would. You don't have the right to make crucial medical decisions for your partner: you may not even be allowed into the hospital room to visit as you're not family. That's the world outside the nice neat lines. Think about it.
You might think that's equal in some twisted way, but I sure as hell don't.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
of one case in my family, where a man and a woman were partners in life that didn't get any of that. It was my Great Aunt and Uncle, they lived together as partners in everything but sex(that I know of anyway) she had no recourse to his pension, they had to get power of attorney for medical decisions, etc. How is that any different from what your talking about? Should they have been allowed to get married by the Gov?
Or my wife's friend, he is "married" to two women, same deal.
Is that equal? Again any union between consenting adults should not be sanctioned or prohibited by the government imho.
You're a nice guy but sometimes very obtuse.
The people you mentioned had a choice and chose not to use it. Others don't.
In the meantime, gov't is involved and that's the way it is.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
I think your pretty nice also, but as for being obtuse.
What choice did my Aunt and Uncle have? Or the friend with two wives? Aunt and Uncle could of chose to marry someone else. Same as a homosexual couple can.
Menage a trois group could of chosen to marry one and left the other in the cold. Whats the choice in that? Other than choosing which one gets screwed and not in the good way. Although in all honesty he did find a somewhat creative way around some of it, they had legal papers drawn up that gave medical decision rights to both of the others on an equal basis(I don't know how they determined a tie-breaker though) and he divorced and married the other every year with prenups that the other two would get an equal share of the estate. I shudder to think of what his lawyer bills were/are, but he makes a decent living and I guess he can afford it or at least makes do to afford it. About all that did that a homosexual couple couldn't do is give his wives a legal access to his SS if he died before them. And what guy wouldn't with two wives? Hell I think about shooting myself with just one, I couldn't imagine two(that is a joke).
So, we actually agree! It seems the aunt and uncle chose not to marry??
I have no problem with the 3 party marriage. Why not? I could easily see myself married to two men. Marriage is a legal contract, it can be altered. For those that talk about the sanctity of marriage, let's talk after we ban divorce. Religious people are free to marry in their churches, in the eyes of god, and they claim that's who they care about anyway.
Equal rights in marriage. Say yes. Now, about my dog... (that was a joke)
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
the Aunt and Uncle couldn't marry at least not to each other, something about brothers and sisters can't marry.... they had no choice other than to marry someone else. Same as a homosexual couple.
And yes we agree (sorta anyway) partnership is a legal contract. In my eyes marriage is a covenant in the eyes of a higher power, whether that higher power is Yahweh, Allah, Shiva or whatever name you call the silver goat with a gold star burst on its chest. Which is why I say get the Gov out of marriage (and partnerships).
So, back to my original point: you're not all equal. The government only allows the partnership between one man and one woman. Other partnerships, specifically I'm refering to m/m f/f, are not recognized, hence many of the benefits of a marriage (type union) are denied.
Marriage. So much in a word-- it tires me. If people want that covenant before god, then that's a matter to take up with their church. (In my opinion.)
Anyway, I'm Canadian and I have enough equal for me. I don't really care what the union is called.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
... court martial, why did he originally say they would?
Cuculo thought he could impose his Taliban-esque attitudes and get away with it.
This mysoginistic swine should not be in charge of anyone, and should be immediately removed from command.
It's not just the pregnancy-- no porn, no alcohol. It seems they want a lot of abstinence only, good-little Xians. American Taliban is right.
It's OK to put your life on the line, but...
Maybe they want to go all (100%) merc. It seems to me, that's a Pentagon wet dream: total control, no accountability to the public.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Isn't birth control available to the soldiers? And I understand that the men involved face equal repercussions; this isn't just directed only at the women (the printed set of orders I saw on tv news said "redeployment", not court-martial). It's a warzone, certainly people are going to be intimate and I understand that, but we cannot deny these people are there because they agreed to serve initially (don't get sidetracked by multiple deployments, etc. in this argument) and it is a violation of that contract to make yourself "unable to serve" as directed. No one is going to get court-martialed for being pregnant, let's be serious. But then again, in a war zone it shouldn't also be a laissez-faire thing either. Seriously, having sex is a choice one makes and I respect that, but when on duty in a war zone? With no repercussions? Seriously? Am I completely off-base in this?
You are NOT off base. You are absolutely right. All these folks decrying this rule need to get real.
Not only that, they all volunteered. If they'd been drafted against their will and sent to fight, I would most probably not be critical if a female got herself intentionally impregnated as the only way to get sent home, as an act of protest. That's not what's going on here.
WTF?
U wouldn't be critical if a female intentionally got herself pregnant IF she was drafted?
Who the fuck are you to criticize what she should or shouldn't do?
She can get pregnant any time she wants and the military has options on her enlistment/appointment.
They don't all "get sent home".
The military takes a chance with any woman who serves that she may get pregnant. They don't give up the right to a family just by wearing the uniform.
KORG 70,000 BC should be the standard for treating women?
There are a set of rules and regulations.
Gettin knocked up is against them. I'm not sure about married women in the military. I think they get maternity leave.
Which raises the question. If they can get it, why can't the single women?
Oh man, here it comes.
I can't see anyway around the military having to give in to abortions on demand.
An before anyone starts in on me on this.I'm pro choice.
YS: When you were in the Chair Force, did women get maternity leave when they got preggers?
Ok I changed it. Can't be pissin off all the women folk around here.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
is all part of military life. In my experience, a woman getting pregnant is not automatic cause for discharge from her enlistment/appointment.
It all depends on the needs of the military.
I have.
Look numbnuts, like it or not the military has rules. They signed up. They made a binding contract. If you want to see women barred from military service, keep arguing that they should be able to get pregnant anytime they want.
If gay soldiers start having lots and lots of gay orgies in the barracks, what do you think will happen to the current (glacially slow moving) progress on repealing DADT?
Why do you think that is not what is going on here? Just because they are volunteers doesn't mean they aren't using pregnancy to get sent home. Plus they are letting down their fellow soldiers (we can't say comrades anymore, right?) by leaving them short handed in a combat situation. Combat is an extremely dangerous and emotional environment. It becomes very easy to forget how you got there or why you came there even if being deployed there gave you a cash bonus for enlisting in a combat arms position. That bonus is long since spent and forgotten about but the obligation remains.
...don't volunteer. There's a Monty Python sketch that comes to mind...
getting these ideas?
"and it is a violation of that contract to make yourself "unable to serve" as directed."
WTF? Military folks get hurt doing shit off base on their own time regularly. We just patch 'em up and give 'em light duty while they heal.
Again, WTF?
Not off base , same thoughts came to me . If women want to serve then they too have obligations . I'm stuck here in the war zone again , OK lets see here , get pregnant and I go home , hmmmm . Accidents happen of course but to freely allow this opens the door to abuse , absolutely .
Yes, that's exactly why women get pregnant, to get out of unwanted obligations. You nailed it.
major snark
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
are you saying that it doesn't happen? How many verified cases have there been of soldiers purposely injuring themselves to get out of their duty?
Pregnancy and the ensuing birth last a lifetime, with all the emotional and financial ties and obligations therein.
If a woman wanted to get out of duty it would make more sense to injure herself, like any man, as you said.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
from shooting yourself can last a lifetime and/or end your lifetime. Along with financial ties for the injury ie rehab, constant pain, loss of earnings from limited ability to work etc, along with the emotional ones.
If a woman wants a child or at least wouldn't mind one, seems to be a hell of a lot better option than shooting yourself, at least to me.
And I never said man, I said soldier they can be male or female you know, if they couldn't be female this would never have came up, would it? ;)
Now maybe haliburton will quit raping women in Iraq and afghanistan!
..well, I figure that if any one soldier gets pregnant by rape, it opens up an entire can of worms that they really really want to keep closed. Now, rape involves investigation, you know, if it's handled right. How about, say 20 guy's gang-rape??? Will all the guys as well as the woman face court-martial??? Really??? Or just the one, out of the twenty, whose DNA matches?? What about the other 19???
If it's by rape - will the military pay for an abortion??? (NOOOO!!!!!! say/scream the conservative a*holes)
Also, if any one male and/or female soldier is so so so very important, why not speak out about the DADT???? Hundreds of extremely capable soldiers are being expelled because of that.
How many soldiers end up pregnant? Those who become pregnant willingly? How many get ousted because of DADT??
Give me a believable figure. Then seriously defend your position, you asshole. You cannot. Period.
You simply want women out of the Military - your Commander-in-Chief should take heart!
That's all I have to say about that.
as a result of sexual assault will not be punished under this rule. I would assume that the standard code of military justice would still apply and the rapist(s) would still face court-martial for the assault.
There is a WAR on, people, not an orgy up at Hef's place. I am as "liberal" in my politics as they come, but I see the wisdom in this order. Deterring pregnancy deters sloppy behavior. The spectre of harsh punishment for pregnancy (or causing said pregnancy) might possibly make sure that some soldiers keep their mind on their duty and might, just might allow them to live to come home and tell the tale. I think the order is a good one, but not strong enough. A mandatory abortion should be in the order if the soldier in question wants to stay in the military.
I disagree with the wars wholeheartedly, and I really don't care very much what happens to "our" troops who volunteer for military service (including members of my own family). You want it, you got it, I say, but, all in all, they have no business starting families in a war zone and should get harsh punishment if caught doing so.
You reap what you sow, and we wanted a mixed sex military. The old hawks warned us of this decades ago, and guess what? The ol' bastids were right!
Now, all you salivating for my blood, take a cue from The Human Torch's lexicon, and "FLAME ON!"
Come on, they're in the MILITARY! Their country just spent a measurable sum training and outfitting them to serve a DUTY. Screwing around would NOT be included in that job description. Women wanted to be able to serve in the military alongside men as SOLDIERS, not as 'comfort women'.
It's not all orgy type behavior - women do get raped!!
Sure, for the men it may be an orgy, but trust me, for the women it ain't!
What about that? You don't address that in your 'I don't agree with the war and I don't care about the soldiers who enlist'.
Secondly, you don't see upperclass, sorry we're in a classless society, let me re-phrase. You don't see Upper Income people enlist - not it's those who cannot think of anything else to support themselves and/or their families.
You're not a Liberal, you're not Progressive. Please. And since you call yourself Samdog, I'd even say: Please, Bitch.
just wrong.
What about the dude who fucks the locals and gets in legal trouble for violating the invaded country moral laws?
What about the dude who fucks around and gets an STD?
Guess what - they don't get CMd.
They get defended or treated medically. Then they get an earful from their superiors and go back to work.
But the dude still shortened the efficiency of his company.
"What about the dude who fucks the locals and gets in legal trouble for violating the invaded country moral laws?"
Here in Korea, when a local girl gets raped, the soldier gets a midnight flight back to the USA. End of story.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
raped. But I get your point.
That's how the army works. I live beside the US base here.
What's on paper is nice, but not usually the way things happen.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
..that one problem he had with women on his crew is some of them will get pregnant to avoid deployments.
Like Lynn Cheney, to get him out of the Draft???!!!???
..'we' as in the USA, weren't at war.
Right now, the women who serve, they serve the country as much as any man. Period.
...female soldiers able to do their jobs in a war zone while pregnant? Even if they are, is that the kind of thing we want to do, let pregnant women fight in wars?
.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
No one is advocating that female (or male) soldiers act irresponsibly and get pregnant.
Where the objections are is the area of invading someone's very personal space, unequal application of the rule, and applying it to rape survivors in the military who are afraid to come forward with their rape and/or are not treated right by their superiors if they should try to report that rape.
I've never seen change without a fire
I don't believe that for one second. A woman who's pregnant won't have to deal with her superiors, period. She would no longer be active in the military.
Second, if anything, this makes it worse for the males, because it creates the pressure for consensual sex to turn into false allegations of rape by women, so as to relinquish themselves (particularly if theres a "significant"(not) 'other' waiting at home..) from "accountability" and punishment.
Give me a freakin break already. Feminazism, coined by someone popular here.
Do You?
Pregnant women(married) work up till their due date.
Or very close to it. Just shut the fuck up already.
And they have other women of higher rank who monitor them.
really, just STFU!
What is your conceptual, continuity?
when they are at a permanent command, but sorry, I highly doubt a woman will serve in a combat zone til delivery. My time in the Navy says that wouldn't happen.
..
What is your conceptual, continuity?
You fuckin idiot, just about EVERYONE in my fathers side of the family were VERY HIGH ranking members in military, as in the very highest. My father was one of the only ones that didn't join despite the family's history.
Under these new rules its much easier for a woman to come clean about rape and not the opposite as what was put forth, which was my point. And women do not work in WARZONES up til their due date, LOL.
Maybe there is hope.
Oh, and btw, when did you serve?
Or are you speaking from your families experiences.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Never served thankfully.
.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
That is great that my rebuttals got Censored.
I'll repeat it again. What exactly are you trying to imply here? Did you serve? Does this give you a sense of (any kind of) empowerment somehow over me (lol, that makes me laugh)?
Figured what out? None of my stances have learned anything here to improve from you. I been saying previously what i just said already.
there is no personal space in a combat zone. Your argument is a non-starter.
If the rules were carried out unfairly, you would have a point, but that hasn't happened yet.
People in the military shouldn't be fuckin around.
Not to mention getting pregnant in the military has a (likely very Much) higher chance to result in some guy who did it to relieve himself of responsibility from it. Though the threatening of elevated punishment seems a little much.
Now, let's talk about the women who get sexually harrassed and/or raped.
Sure, they 'shouldn't be sexually harrassed and/or raped', however that's just what is happening.
They're not sexually harrassed and/or raped by other women!
DADT anyone??!!!
Can you not read? Maybe as it might seem from your post that english is not your first language. That would be fine.
But you still seem competent, if not adept. In the news post it says that victims of Rape etc. will NOT be punished. It said it IN THE NEWS HEADLINE and elsewhere in the article.
"but in the end it's just another attack on the ladies when all is said and done no matter how you care to view this issue."
Get off the high horse
Except that in a just world, the people who are so gung-ho in favor of this rule would gain a womb overnight, have some control freak wanting to monitor said womb, become pregnant post-haste, then unceremoniously fired from their jobs or thrown in jail.
That would bring a smile to my face.
I've never seen change without a fire
...I only HOPE some control freak would put limits on what I do with it. We have too many people in this world already who are willing to stand up for any lame cause, be it right or left, and far be it for me to bring another one so-inclined into the fray.
don't care about the troops (except to control the ones with uteruii), there's not much use in trying to get any further understanding across.
I've never seen change without a fire
...if anything because for a lot of them it's the only way they see themselves to have a career.
When I was 16/17 I wanted to join the Police and/or Military in the Netherlands. I was turned down simply because I was too young.
I understand the reason to join the military and to join, in and by itself, there's nothing wrong with it.
My problem begins with when women get discriminated against, get harrassed, get raped. THERE'S NO RECOURSE FOR THEM!!!
What, you think they're less capable, less patriotic????
We should allow them to just bring countless people to their desire that they can not take care of into a world that already has trouble sustaining the current number of people in it naturally, just like that one lady recently who had what was it 8 or 18 children, and the one before that etc.
I don't think female U.S. military personnel in northern Iraq are significant contributors to unsustainable population growth.
i know, i was extending her basic idea/outlook to its final destination.
I felt she coined that phrase like a slogan because she believed it represented what was most moral. And when i said unsustainable population growth, i said it with 'this world', not with families/parents being able or willing to support or not.
Really, only YOU could have written that gibberish!!!
I just figured that comment was hallucinogens gone bad.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Responded above
Mine too.
Seriously, its EXPLICITLY AND CLEARLY STATED that BOTH parties "involved" in a pregnancy in the military would (have been) be "punished".
Forgive me if i'm not up to date with current modern, uhh Militant i guess, feminist philosophies, but i didn't really think you can get pregnant with ONLY wombs...
What, did you want me to list women's entire anatomy?
I've never seen change without a fire
Are you tryin to purport it is possible?
This is interesting. Tell me what you know.
Although I don't know how you give a turkey baster a court martial.
...full well knowing that it would bring way more 'hassles and costs'.
Q: Who's the father?
A: Well, I was gang-raped, so it could be any one of them. ALL OF THEM RAPED ME THOUGH!!
Q: Oh, I see, so you don't know who the father is???
A: FUCK YOU!!!!!
Now he's backing down on his threats? What sort of wussy generals do we have in this country?! Make a decision and stick to it jacka...
No sex, drugs or alcohol for experienced combat soldiers, near the front, from the USoA? Good luck with that.
NO SEX WITH FELLOW SOLDIERS, be they male or female.
Female soldiers get raped.
Local women get raped.
How about chemically castrating male soldiers??????
*Abstinence only.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
..phew, and we know that worked out well!!!
They're all good ol' wholesome people who learned abstinence in the USoA. No need for condoms.
You can regulate and legislate all you want.
Human nature will win every time.
This puts those officers and politicians in a conundrum.
Abortions will have to be available.
But that will go against their personal and political beliefs.
Political beliefs will win out every time. As they should. As long as that belief represents the majority of their constituents.
That's why they got elected. supposedly anyway.
If the military acquiesces and allows abortions on demand for the female soldiers serving. What does that say?
How will the religious right respond to that?
I know how that would work out. Never happen.
So, what do they do next?
There's nothing else they can do. They have to allow abortions on demand. OK, Let me rephrase that. They will have to allow choice.
If they want women to serve they will.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
..I guess you have a very strong point.
However, the thinking used to be that the Whites were far superior than the (take your pick) Blacks/Coloureds/Negroes/******s/Jews/Spigs/Asians. Oh, I forgot the Savages/Natives. I'm sure there are more.
But see, strict regulations were put in place and to most extend enforced. It doesn't mean that Racism no longer exists - it now means that it's no longer acceptable in the 'eyes of the law'.
Does it still exist???? You can count on it, unfortunately.
See, the same is going on with Women's Rights, across all classes and races. Women are still seen as something less.
Look at this HealthCare Reform debate. One of the major concessions???? A woman's right to determine her own body.
By some hypocritical males, that right is being taken away.
Abortion - horrible!!! No way the Federal Government will pay for it!!! Nor should Private Insurance!!!
Birth Control - horrible!!! No way the Federal Government will pay for it!!! Nor should Private Insurance!!!
Viagra - well, that's an understandable problem. Hell, most of our Senators here are dealing with ED!!! Haha!! OF COURSE IT SHOULD BE COVERED BOTH FEDERALLY AS WELL AS PRIVATE INSURANCE!!!
God forbid our 'ManHood' gets taken away!!!
I detest all the men who try to take away the rights to a woman's own body. Period.
My comment was referring to voluntary sexual conduct.
A victim of sexual assault is something entirely different.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
for chemical castration as a show of unison with the troops he commands?
What a good leader.
Where were all the allegedly "pro-life" Republicans? Still trying to think their way through this issue.
Out of this issue. They'll remain silent.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
...they're only 'Pro-Life' as long as said life is still in a woman's body. Therefore controlling the woman.
Silly. They're not Pro-Life. Silly. They're PRO-WAR, PRO-PROFIT. They don't see anything wrong with killing those who are already born!!
Yeah, oh well, collateral damage, shoot we wish we could avoid it!! Hey, HEY, wait YOU WOMAN, you are NOT going into that clinic to kill that little-cell-that-nobody-can-see-except-a-microscope, are you???!!! KILLER!!!! BABY KILLER!!!!!
BOMB IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, IRAN, WHICHEVER HORRIBLE NATION THAT HATES US!!! BOMB THEM ALL!! SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS - THAT'S WHERE THEY HIDE!!
BOMB THEM ALL!!!!
Oh wait, are we about to provide Federal Funds for abortions???? Oh NO!!! WE CANNOT KILL INNOCENT LIVES!!!!
...where the f*** are the other/rest of Democratic Senators and where those same f***ing few female Republican Senators weighing in??? As well as the rest of the Republican Senators!
You either like/love the Troops or you don't. You can't go around pick and chose those you want. Our troops are all volunteers, they all want to serve their country. Male and Female alike. period.
I beg someone to disagree with me!
. Just kiddin.:)
What is your conceptual, continuity?
an insult, and wants to talk down to me when he knows better. See some of you gentlemen in another thread. :)
I've never seen change without a fire
walking around with their knuckles barely off the ground.
I know the type, making smartass comments or lazy questions instead of doing their own thinking.
To You?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Who thinks being a Feminist is an insult????
This isn't the 60s anymore. To be feminist these days means something totally different. Try to pass off broader perspective or even wiser thoughts as "talking down", if only it doesn't compromise feeling superior.
To the guys above me in this nest sub thread or whatever it is, think you might need to go outside more?
...but I guess you already left...
I know the guy is trying to run an army, and I see his predicament, but does anyone really think this will be fairly and even-handedly applied to both men and women?
My guess is, kinda not. Men are men. I know: been one all my life.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
...you must be a guy.
Women already KNOW this will only apply to women. Not men. Period.
Now, be as outraged as we (women) are and speak out about it!!!
;) I've bin around a bit sista!!
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Are you a sociopath?
That means you too, John Amato.
What General Cucolo did is not unconstitutional. It's not gender bias. It's not "insane stuff."
This is a simple matter of personnel readiness in a combat theater.
There are standing general orders against having sex in combat theaters. If you do it and get caught, you can be subject to non-judicial punishment or court martial.
Banning pregnancy in combat theaters is no different.
If a soldier in a combat theater gets pregnant she has to leave. That negatively affects cohesion and morale. A large number of soldiers have to devote themselves to out processing the soldier, transporting her from the combat theater, obtaining a replacement, getting the replacement trained, getting the replacement transported to the unit, and getting the replacement integrated into the unit. All of this degrades morale, cohesion and esprit de corps.
Telling soldiers not to get pregnant in combat, and not to make each other pregnant is merely an extension of the no sex in a combat theater general order, and is designed to conserve fighting strength. It doesn't degrade women, it doesn't deprive women of their rights, it doesn't subject women who are sexually assaulted and become pregnant to prosecution, and it doesn't let men who make women pregnant of the hook.
General Cucolo's order is a matter of well thought out common sense. It's designed to treat women THE SAME as men, and people need to quit treating him and the Army as though they are stupid or are treating women as something less than human.
Hear Hear!
Have you guys read the complete text and title of this thread?
You know, the part where it says" Sexual Assault".
Otherwise I understand completely.
Perhaps they should make harsher penalties for rape.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
I am more focused on this part:
"VELSHI: Twenty-two U.S. soldiers serving in northern Iraq have just gotten two new orders from their general. Rule one, don't get pregnant. Rule two, don't get another soldier pregnant."
that this policy does not apply to victims of sexual assault who may become pregnant. Rape brings out a whole different set of policies and laws to be enforced.
Being a currently serving member of the military and having been deployed to Iraq, I know sexual assault is a real problem. I was friendly with the chaplain during my deployment, and she told me that the number of female soldiers who confided to her that they had been raped or that they'd been the victim of an attempted sex assault would stun anyone who knew -- most decide not to follow up.
THAT'S the part of the culture that needs to be changed. Male soldiers need to know that sexual assault won't be tolerated, and female soldiers need to know that if it does happen, they can safely report it and be secure in the knowledge that the chain of command will take it seriously.
But that's why I think women should not serve in any combat theaters.
Men become a primeval being. They lose(some of them) their bearings on acceptable conduct. They think they could die at any moment. So they become something that is less than they should be.
That's the truth.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
The women I work with in the Army National Guard every day are by and large extremely capable and professional. They work even harder because they know they have to be better to be thought of as just as good.
And the women I was deployed with were all among the best soldiers in Iraq -- they took it seriously, they were very professional, and they were willing and able to FIGHT.
The solution for men and women serving together in combat is for everyone to behave professionally, and for transgressions of the rules to be reported and dealt with, rather than minimized or ignored.
Are the women capable enough to know that getting pregnant in a combat situation is a bad idea? This general doesn't seem to think so. That's not good for a cohesive force.
One got pregnant at the mobilization site. On purpose to get out of deploying to Iraq? Who can say for sure? But she married her guy and stayed home. He still deployed, though.
First of all - a woman doesn't get pregnant by herself. Apparently only Maria, Mother of God, managed that.
Now, are MEN capable of knowing enough that having sex with a female in a combat situation may make them into a Father? This general doesn't seem to think so either.
Fuck you. You don't know what you're talking about, and if you did, you wouldn't say what you just said.
Period.
If it worked.
But we're talkin the military here.
I'm sure the women you've described are everything you've said.
But, I wonder. What they don't tell you.
I did 3 years in the 7th Inf Div. 75-78.
I suspect things haven't changed that much.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
...apparently a country that the US spends BILLIONS of dollars on each year, well, women serve comfortably and ably.
Now what do you have to say??? huh???
It's YOUR attitude that impedes things - not others. Thank god.
Got 5 guys busted for rape when I was in.
So, You can stick it where the sun don't shine.
And the only reason I'm being nice to you is because I agree with most of what you say.
Geeezzuuzzzzzzz. get off your fuckin high horse and try to get what I've been sayin.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
...exempts anyone, male or female, from a few orthodox sects of Judaism. Go figure.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Oh I think Mudshark's perceptions of what the military was like in the late 1970s is probably right. The last all male classes at the military academies (Class of 1979), adopted as their motto "Leadership, Courage, Wisdom and Bravery." In fact, the initials stand for "last class without bitches." The Air Force Academy class of 1979 still had that on its web site the last time I checked -- www.lcwb.com.
The current reality is much different. Women in uniform are not treated as well as they should be all the time, but circumstances are much better than they were.
Martha Rainville became the first woman Adjutant General of a state National Guard in the mid 1990s, and has since been followed by others.
There's at least one woman serving as deputy commander of an Infantry division now. If a woman can be a deputy commander, even though she's not an Infantry officer, her job will require her to act as the division commander in his absence. If you're qualified to be the deputy commander, guess what? You're qualified to be the commander. It's just a matter of time before a female general officer gets command of an Infantry division.
The best battalion commander in my state just ended her command tour (I was her subordinate) so she can go to Afghanistan as a brigade staff officer. She was THE BEST battalion commander in the state, regardless of gender. I know all her peers, and I've worked for or with most of them. They're all perfectly fine, capable officers. She's just better. If she decides to stay in the military, I have no doubt that she'll be a general.
The best brigade commander I worked for was also a woman. Again, her gender didn't matter. She was a successful battalion commander. (I commanded a company under her.) She was a successful company commander. She was successful as a battalion and brigade staff officer. And all that experience and training made her the best brigade commander in my state. Again, her male peers were all good officers, some of whom have gone on to become generals. She was just better than they were.
So gender matters less than it used to, but it's not a perfect system, at last not yet.
Run out of words?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Please.
C'mon, muddy, 1R14S is treating you respectfully. I know you. You're better than that kinda comment. :D
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
directed that at Dutch and not me. At least I hope it wasn't me. I'm trying to make my points without resorting to anger and swearing. As a soldier, that's not always easy...
I'm done.
This has descended to a point where I don't want to participate .
I can understand her feelings and her passion on this topic.
But I think emotions have won the day here.
Have a nice night folks.
Be well.
And have a Merry Christmas.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Comments are closed on this entry