Army sued over plan to put women on front lines of combat

Two lawsuits have been filed seeking information about the U.S. military’s plan to use women to “close with and kill” the enemy, based on reports that suggest having women in “tip of the spear” fighting units such as the Rangers and the Navy SEALs may be counterproductive.

The Obama administration announced two years ago it would make female military personnel eligible for assignment to direct ground combat units, including the infantry, beginning in January 2016. Under the military’s structure, women would be ordered into such positions.

Various military agencies and units since then have been analyzing the safety and effectiveness of the strategy along with the Center for Military Readiness, an independent group.

Lawyers with the Thomas More Law Center have submitted a number of Freedom of Information Act requests for details on behalf of CMR and its president, Elaine Donnelly, without effect.

So the law team announced it has filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Special Operations Command in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan and a second against the Army in federal court in Washington.

Both are on behalf of Donnelly and seek records “related to the effectiveness of women in direct combat roles.”

Since founding CMR in 1993, Donnelly has researched and reported on social policy in military service. She recently has worked with Erin Mersino, senior trial counsel for Thomas More, on the information requests.

“Adherence to the FOIA is crucial because it allows the public access to our government,” Mersino said. “The documents we requested under FOIA are time sensitive. Permanent decisions regarding women in the infantry are projected to be made as soon as January 2016. The public should be informed of such important matters that directly affect our national security.”

It looks like you are simply picking & choosing what you wish to take out of my comments & questions, kinda how the Left reacts when their narrative is already set & then they look for excuses to make things look according to plan. Please forgive me if I am talking over your head.

Maybe I should have worded the question differently. I thought I was asking a question by saying "is it not?" at the end of the sentence. Silly me, I should have known better. I sincerely apologize. I also added the "benefits" part at the very end of a sentence which had other reasons in which people join the Military, & you may not be aware of this, but usually when people list several things w/in a sentence it is oftentimes done in terms of priority, w/ the last one being the least important...& that's where the benefits part was written, at the very end. There's no need to be upset about that, 'cuz whether you are willing to admit it or not, people DO join the Military for that reason, & whether the %'age of that is high or low, I'm not sure.

When it comes to the definition of "involuntary servitude", I will go back to the people who wrote the 13th Amendment in order to find out for myself, thank you very much. I myself am an Originalist by nature, & I believe that the Constitution should be followed to the letter, exactly as those who wrote it intended. BTW...since the phrase "involuntary servitude" is completely separate from slavery & jail/prison incarceration in the 13th Amendment, WHAT ELSE could it be used for? What other types of involuntary servitude are there? Why would a forced Military Draft NOT be among the items that were prohibited by the Involuntary servitude Clause? Are Military Drafts voluntary or involuntary? I'm not taking sides, I'm just asking an honest question that you may or may not be able to handle.

THANK YOU for your service.

You are welcome.

The draft was intended as a national obligation to select, train, and organize young men for war. A national obligation in the sense that paying taxes and duties was required of a free people to sustain their nation. Those young men who were drafted into the services were part of a pool of candidate citizens who were physically and mentally qualified for the rigors of combat service. All of those young men understood that it was part of their citizenship and the needs of their country and I will always admire those who were drafted and served with honor (both of my grandfathers were drafted into the army in WW I).

You have misconceptions about the service, too. Being in the armed forces is not slavery. As an old-time Marine once told me, "all Marines are equal in value: some are rendered respect because they have greater responsibilities and they are required to return that respect back to you". That's why all salutes are returned by officers. As a Marine enlisted man, I had the absolute right to see the Commanding General and everyone in between if I believed I had been wronged by a superior - it's called "Request Mast". I never had to use it because I was always treated fairly and my leaders always shared the same dangers and more than I did. We had rights and respect that civilians have never dreamed of.

Warfare is and always will be a requirement to protect what we have and who we are. Sometimes, the obligation to serve and defend this country has to be more sweeping than ordinary times and when that obligation is called for, it should be fair and universal.

It is never slavery - and those who call it that are probably only justifying their own cowardice.

YIKES!!! I never said, or even thought, that being in the armed forces was slavery. Where did you get that idea?!? I always believed that slavery was the ownership of one person by another.

To me, being in the armed forces is an HONOR, something I wish I could have done but must admit that, even to this very day, I am somewhat bitter about my not being allowed to do. My heart was in the right place -- & despite my epilepsy, I could have done something: I could have scrubbed the bathrooms w/ a toothbrush, done KP, or made the beds of those who were out fighting. etc., etc. Reagan became POTUS 5 months after I graduated high school, & IIRC, most of the Military admired him & he seemed to have brought pride & dignity to those who wore the Uniform. I bet it would have been a blast having him as CiC (as compared to Marxist/pro-Muslim traitors like Obama). WOW!

Well, I really wish that you could have served with me. Sounds like you would have been a great member of our team. Just a rotten break.

The reference to slavery is the term you used -involuntary servitude - the very definition of slavery. I am sorry that I came off so stridently, but I have had several discussions with strongly anti draft types on our Free Republic, so I’m sort of hair trigger on the subject.

Anyway, sounds like you’re a great guy - so I’ll put a smile on my face and wish you a Happy Easter.

The 13th Amendment separates slavery from involuntary servitude completely. They are not one & the same:

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Congress may (?) have chosen to prevent a military Draft from being included in the definition of involuntary servitude by using Section 2 of the 13th Amendment after its Ratification by the States, I have no idea. But I am curious on what the writers of this Amendment intended to include in the definition of that phrase.

Thank you very much, & I hope you had a wonderful Easter, too.

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.