Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Langevin: Don't veil women in service
Providence Journal ^ | 5/10/2002 | JOHN E. MULLIGAN

Posted on 05/10/2002 5:27:14 PM PDT by JoeMomma

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. James R. Langevin yesterday drew a reluctant House into Air Force Lt. Col. Martha McSally's fight against the Islamic dress code for U.S. military women in Saudi Arabia.

Langevin won the promise of a full House vote on his measure to scrap the regulation, which Rhode Island native McSally has challenged in federal court. His amendment would forbid the Pentagon to buy abayas for servicewomen in Saudi Arabia or compel them to wear them.

"Women make first-class soldiers and should not be treated like second-class citizens," Langevin told the House during debate on the defense budget bill for 2003.

As a practical matter, McSally had already won her point when military officials rescinded the regulation requiring female pesonnel to wear the abaya -- a traditional robe that covers women from head to toe -- when traveling off their base in Saudi Arabia.

But McSally has refused to drop her lawsuit because officials have continued to recommend strongly that women wear the abaya, chiefly as a security and safety measure.

The military has maintained that uncovered servicewomen might be in jeopardy from Saudi Arabia's religious police.

Langevin's amendment had a roller-coaster ride on the way to the House floor. On Wednesday night, key GOP members indicated to him that it would be one of the amendments allowed on the floor yesterday. Later, they voted against pemitting a vote on his measure.

But last night, Langevin won agreement for a compromise amendment that would let the military reimpose the abaya rule in certain extraordinary circumstances deemed "essential" to their military mission.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: congress; enforcingreligion; intolerance; military; misogyny; religiousfanaticism; rightwingbiggovt; saudiingrates; tyrrany; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last
GOOD NEWS! Someone is finally standing up to those intolerant types in Saudi Arabia who are determined to force their brand religion on American female military personnel.

Sad thing is that it's not anyone from the President's party. U.S. Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI) is proposing that the Pentagon should be forbidden to buy abayas (Islamic religious dress for women) for women stationed in Saudi Arabia.

I wonder if the House GOP will stand up to Bush's bowing down before intolerant religious fanatics.

Oh, I forget -- shhhhh -- Saudi Arabia is our ally ...

1 posted on 05/10/2002 5:27:14 PM PDT by JoeMomma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JoeMomma
If we're in their country, we should follow their rules. You seem to be forgetting that the U.S. bases are not sovereign U.S. territory, but rather belong to the Saudi Arabia. They could kick us out if they wanted to.

Servicewomen not wearing traditional clothing is like a giant "F*** YOU!" to the local populace which can also serve to increase resentment.

As much as you may not like Saudi Arabia, the last thing the world needs is a SA controlled by extremist Islamic fundamentalists.

Remember that one of bin Laden's major qualms with the US was the mere presence of soldiers in Arabia's holy sites. How much worse would the problems be if servicewomen flaunt their disrespect for their customs at the holy sites?

2 posted on 05/10/2002 5:37:02 PM PDT by gd124
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeMomma
When in Rome do as Romans do.

When invited to someone's home, don't be a dork and insist on bringing unwelcome habits.

If she doesn't want to be a team player, she should go play on another team.

Stateside colleges will give her all the clothing freedom she wants.

Why do I think Mr. Langevin would complain that visitors here can't assimilate into our culture? My paranoia.

3 posted on 05/10/2002 5:37:03 PM PDT by AzJP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeMomma
To see how effective this multi cultural senstivity has been, refer to "the Arab street". So lets cut the crap and just admit that westerners are superior to arabs.
4 posted on 05/10/2002 5:39:41 PM PDT by rageaholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gd124
Servicewomen not wearing traditional clothing is like a giant "F*** YOU!" to the local populace

Good. The local populace has earned a giant "F*** YOU!"

5 posted on 05/10/2002 5:47:27 PM PDT by rageaholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: gd124
Saudi Arabia to the US Military: "Defend us, don't offend us!"
7 posted on 05/10/2002 6:26:54 PM PDT by Koblenz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JoeMomma
Suppose the Saudis decide they don't like women to have weapons?

Or talk back to their betters (men)?

Or resist when they are "cultivated" against their will?

8 posted on 05/10/2002 7:07:28 PM PDT by ZOOKER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gd124
Like it or not, we need acess to the Saudi airfields in the upcoming battle with Iraq. I can't say much more without violating the loose lips policy, but let's just say this whole McSally deal isn't helping things for our security needs.
9 posted on 05/10/2002 7:18:19 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gd124
If we're in their country, we should follow their rules.

A good example of how this is reciprocated is the Saudi prince demanding that his flight not be handled by female air controllers.

You rock, Col. McSally. Go for it.

10 posted on 05/10/2002 7:52:45 PM PDT by Charlotte Corday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gd124
Normally I agree but we should be giving a giant F U to the terrorist Sauds.
11 posted on 05/10/2002 8:07:36 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Charlotte Corday
A good example of how this is reciprocated is the Saudi prince demanding that his flight not be handled by female air controllers.

That story never passed the smell test with me. Arab princes have been traveling to Texas for decades. Are they trying to tell me this just happened for the first time on this visit?

12 posted on 05/10/2002 9:51:26 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
I agree. It sounds much too much like a wild rumor for me to believe without some evidence.
13 posted on 05/10/2002 9:53:53 PM PDT by gd124
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gd124
Ever serve in the armed forces? I have, and I wear the UNIFORM of the service. The Air Force kowtowing to Islamic extremists is sickening. The fact that an officer who was serving her country could not even wear her uniform outside the base is a absolutely pathetic. She took an oath to the US Constitution, and earned the right to wear the uniform, not a religiously bigoted full body veil.

It is more than time we told the Saud family to stuff it. If they want to live in the 14th century, I say we halt all military aid and let Saddam run roughshod over them. Then we need to go in and wipe these f*cking Muslims off the face of the earth.

It is nice to see you supporting Islamic fundamentalists (the same ones who cheered the deaths of Americans on 9-11) over the an US Air Force officer.

14 posted on 05/10/2002 10:05:47 PM PDT by fogarty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JoeMomma
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and longstanding U.S. military policy, soldiers and sailors on leave or liberty in foreign countries are subject to the laws of those countries -- no matter how screwed up they may be. If our people violate those laws, they are subject to prosecution not only by foreign authorities, but also by their military command for the same and related offenses.

We may disagree with Saudi laws (as far as I'm concerned, their sponsorship of terrorism makes them our enemies), but we have no business sending our service personnel out to break them. If female soldiers don't want to comply with local laws while on liberty, then they should be confined to base.

This is a military security matter in Saudi Arabia, not some women's rights demonstration in Berkeley.

Imal

15 posted on 05/10/2002 10:06:13 PM PDT by Imal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
"Like it or not, we need acess to the Saudi airfields in the upcoming battle with Iraq..."

Wrong answer. There are other options. Loose lips.

16 posted on 05/10/2002 10:06:54 PM PDT by fogarty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Imal
"Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and longstanding U.S. military policy, soldiers and sailors on leave or liberty in foreign countries are subject to the laws of those countries -- no matter how screwed up they may be."

So I guess if some back-asswards country demands our black soldiers and Marines should be bound and tied to follow in back of white leaders when they go out on town, we need to follow that as well?

Wrong answer. The fact of the matter is this officer took an Oath to the US Constitution, not some f*ckin' 14th Century Islamic bigoted regualtion. If the Air Force forced her to wear a Islamic veil instead of her uniform - for whatever reason - I'd say it's the Air Force that's screwed up, not her.

17 posted on 05/10/2002 10:10:47 PM PDT by fogarty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JoeMomma
OK, so the deal is this. When I'm living here, in the USA, I get to deal with the personal habits, hangups and hygene of every single different third world persuasion that exists on this benighted planet, and if I even THINK of complaining about it I'm an "evil racist". Yet, when our SOLDIERS are over there, protecting their worthless terrorist posteriors from Saddam, we have to have our women wear veils to keep from "offending their sensibilities". Do I have this right? Am I missing anything?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I feel the need to vomit....

18 posted on 05/10/2002 10:12:52 PM PDT by Billy_bob_bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imal
Clarification: I'm referring only to leave/liberty situations. Female personnel in uniform are in uniform, and should never be required to wear an abiya or anything else in situations where a uniform is appropriate.

If that's what's going on here, then a clear understanding needs to be made that U.S. service personnel will wear U.S. uniforms. Period.

If U.S. uniforms are problematic for the locals, then security arrangements, or, more fundamentally, formal relations with the host nation need to be re-evaluated.

Imal

19 posted on 05/10/2002 10:13:33 PM PDT by Imal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fogarty
I didn't say I liked it, it's just a hard fact. Of course there are other options, most requiring longer flight times for our air operations or crowded air corridors. We need as many options open in that area as we can. Now is the worst time for a fight over McSally's issue.
20 posted on 05/10/2002 10:15:32 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson