Okay, I realize she has a point but, judging by her looks, perhaps the Saudis do too! Burka or paper bag perhaps would even be even more appropriate!
Posted on 05/02/2002 1:05:32 PM PDT by meandog
Female Fighter Pilot Presses Ahead with Lawsuit
CNSNews.com) - Attorneys for U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Martha McSally are pressing ahead with their lawsuit against the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, even though the Pentagon has modified its policy on U.S. military women wearing a Muslim abaya.
The abaya is a head-to-toe covering that women are required to wear in public in many Arab and Muslim nations.
At a hearing in federal court in Washington on Wednesday, attorneys for McSally plan to challenge a Defense Department motion to dismiss McSally's lawsuit.
McSally, who is based at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, filed the lawsuit last December, challenging a U.S. military policy that required her and other American military women to wear the abaya anytime they left the U.S. military base.
The policy also required women to be accompanied by a man when traveling off base and to sit in the back of military vehicles.
McSally named both the Defense Department and Rumsfeld in her lawsuit, which claimed the abaya policy violated her constitutional right to equal protection as well as her freedom of speech and religion.
She is being represented by the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization, and a team of Washington attorneys.
In December, when the lawsuit was filed, Rutherford attorney Steve Aden commented that even though McSally commanded the enlisted and junior officers around her, "She is ordered to sit in the back seat, wear this Muslim attire and in essence pretend she is a Muslim woman until they get to the base, at which time, she can take the abaya off and become a superior officer again."
Aden called it "political correctness run amok" and demanded that the policy be changed.
Mandatory vs 'Strongly Encouraged'
In fact, the Pentagon did change its policy about a month after McSally filed her lawsuit.
The Pentagon said American military women in Muslim nations would no longer be required to wear abayas. Although their use was no longer required, women were nevertheless encouraged to continue wearing abayas when traveling off base, in a nod to the host nations' sensibilities.
In a statement this week, the Rutherford Institute noted that the Defense Department -- in filing its motion to dismiss McSally's lawsuit -- claims to have resolved the issue by changing the abaya policy's language from "mandatory" to "strongly encouraged."
But attorneys for the Rutherford Institute said such language "still presents concerns about coercion of female military service personnel."
McSally's attorneys point out that the U.S. government continues to purchase and issue Muslim garb for American servicewomen, something they call a clear violation of the first amendment's establishment clause.
"In military culture, strongly encouraged is perceived as tantamount to a direct order, allowing the DOD to continue its discriminatory policy under another name," said John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute. "We are hopeful the court will see past this charade and order the case to move forward."
McSally's attorneys also accuse the Pentagon of retaliating against McSally as a result of her opposition to the abaya policy. They say McSally's superiors have refused to recommend her for a command position.
Okay, I realize she has a point but, judging by her looks, perhaps the Saudis do too! Burka or paper bag perhaps would even be even more appropriate!
'Abaya' beer, OK?
One looks like a guy and the other look like a not to good looking gal.
If in fact they are the same person, then I agree 100% with the paper bag look.
Oh, and by the way...where I come from an A-10 ain't no fighter.
*BLAM*! (shoots herself in foot second time) "OW! OW!"
*BLAM!* (shoots herself in foot three times) "OW! CRAP! THAT _REALLY_ HURTS!"
*BLAM*! (shoots herself in same foot fourth time) "YEOW! SH*T! THAT REALLY, _REALLY_ HURTS!!"
*BLAM!* ...
Brought to you by the Saudis. I wouldn't wear their smelly, filthy clothes either.
My wife and I were watching her on Fox or something and my wife said, "She's no fighter pilot". I said, "How can you tell?" My wife said, "Her neck is too skinny - You and all of your old squadron mates have 17 1/2" necks." Bullseye!!
OK, post a shot of yourself and we'll decide if we need to pay attention to your views.
Many ,many people have died due to following orders they knew were stupid.For instance, tthe revered Lee sent thousands to the grave by ordering an infantry attack against massed cannons!Yet his officers didn't refuse an obviously stupid order.
Just how many of her detractors have had the guts to serve ?
As regarding "fighter pilot", the Warthog is no F-16 firing air-to-air missiles for kills from kilometers away but a get down to the trees tank killer and support aircraft. It lacks the speed to escape enemy fighters and must depend on the F-series to "cover upstairs" while the A-10 being closer to and liable to be hit by ground to air defenses carries out its mission.
Damn few cowards are going to perform such missions even in training.
It is a shame so many expect the soldiers/sailors/airmen to put up with institutional stupidity or throw away their career.
Uh, the problem here is that we have the option to say NO. And we COULD have. That's the difference.
What you seem to forget is we are in Saudi Arabia because they are allowing our military to be there.
Therefore, you bet your sweet bippy we do as the Romans do when we are in Rome. How DARE this woman try to dictate to both the Saudis AND her commanding officers what she will and will not do.
If this goes through, the military will be further undermined.
This woman needs and deserves a court martial and a dishonorable discharge. Now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.