Army orders court martials for soldiers who get pregnant in northern Iraq

[Juddog]

There is simply no way you can get "accidentally" pregnant.
You can mitigate your risk but there is only one thing that can guarantee you wont get pregnant.
She new the results of her actions but made the CHOICE to have sex anyways and now she has to live with the consequences.

She slipped and fell on his penis. See - accidents happen!

 

[piasabird]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_iraq_military_pregnancy

General Reverses his courts Martial policy.

The main problem is that women in the military of younger child-producing age need to have children when they are younger when it is safer to have children. It is unnatural to expect otherwise. If the military does not enforce the same rules for all soldiers worldwide, then this is not legal under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

As I said earlier one possible sulution is no women in the military. The other solution is to admit that the women in the military must have special allowanced that men do not get. In the military work is not a 40 hour a week job; it is a 24/7 job where you are on call at all times of the day every day of the year. This is just unrealistic for most women. Women have children and that is the way the world works whether you like it or not.

There are no rear areas in the military in time of war if you work in the war zone.

So I wonder what they do now? Do they go on patrol while they are preagnant?

Do they deliver their baby and then immediately put the baby on a plane and send it home to other relatives?

What do you think happens?

What do you think should happen?

 

[fskimospy]

Women who become pregnant are removed from combat deployments currently. The length of time covers the pregnancy and some time afterwards, not sure how long.

This IS a problem that units and the military needs to address. Attempting to court martial people for getting pregnant is about the dumbest way possible to do it though. Not only does it impose a huge double standard as we all know how easy it would be for men to avoid punishment, but a court martial for having sex is a dumbass idea on its face.

I personally believe that we need to change the way we deploy women, the assignments they get, and the requirements for promotion. Make it a requirement that in order to make say... E-5 you have to have completed at least one (or two, whatever) deployments. Things like that. Far more effective than this policy.

 

[marvdmartian]

The part that always killed me is that a guy could (for instance) go lie out on the beach too long, get a bad sunburn, and potentially get written up for malingering because he caused himself to not be able to work his job for 2 to 3 days.......

.....but a woman can get pregnant, not be able to perform her job for 7 to 8 months, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nice double standard! :thumbsdown:

Solution? Encourage long-term birth control for those whose religious beliefs will allow it. For those who say they won't do birth control, encourage abstention. For ALL females, require them to have to put in a request to have children, so that their chain of command will realize there's going to potentially be a period of time that they could be working outside their normal job, and can take steps to fill that temporary gap. Finally, make "accidental" pregnancies punishable, especially for any female that continues to miss deployments because of pregnancy.

Any woman grown up enough to be in the military should know her body well enough to know when she can get pregnant, and take steps to prevent it.

 

[palehorse]

If the military does not enforce the same rules for all soldiers worldwide, then this is not legal under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

That statement is absolutely false.

So I wonder what they do now? Do they go on patrol while they are preagnant?

no, as always, they immediately get sent home (within 14 days of the positive pregnancy test).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm glad this was rescinded. Now women can put someone elses life at risk and get away with it. That's equal rights after all.

 

[Brainonska511]

Solution? Encourage long-term birth control for those whose religious beliefs will allow it.

You can't just force birth control pills onto people. They can have some serious side-effects for some people.

I'm all for equal rights and all and equal punishments, but what people seem to fail to realize is that there are physiological differences between the two sexes and there is no getting around that.

 

[jonks]

I quoted the text of GO#1 above, yet you ignored it. The GO has been in effect since we entered Bosnia in the late 90s. It explicitly states that non-married couples will not have sexual relations, of any sort, in a combat zone. It goes on to say that special authorization is required to possess or consume alcohol in the combat zones.

I didn't ignore it, I asked a very simple question which I'll repeat one more time, since YOU ignored it. How does the GO square with the JAG judge quoted in the article who said "you can still have sex, you just have to be careful"? If he's wrong, say he's wrong and I'll look into it further. At the moment I'll take his word over yours, him being a JAG judge. But maybe he is wrong, I don't know, that's why I asked you how his comments square with the GO.

 

[jonks]

Uhh no.

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2001Term/99-0401.htm

Just a first google example and there are others that are a bit better. Basically a female enlisted was trying to get male enlisted out of her room after a party. She couldn't do it with words or pushing him out so she grabbed a knife with intent to threaten him out. Her drunken mindset didn't think this would be a problem. He was also drunk but never saw the knife. When she asked him to leave again, he go upset and tackled her on to her bed. During the tackling, he got stabbed "accidentally."

He didn't even know he was stabbed and walked outside only to collapse on the ground from a collapse lung. His life was in no danger and doctors said the knife wound was shallow and glancing.

The kicker here is that normally she would have a right to defend herself, but since this was wartime, she got court martialed. He as well for his actions.

Anyhow, the definition of "accident" is something that could be prevented and should have been. That is how the military always views it. Meaning, there should be no accidents. We all realize that shit happens, but if you don't go out of your way to prevent it, then you are liable for it.

In the non military world, you stab yourself accidentally, the only one that suffers is you. In the military, you stab yourself accidentally during a time when the lives of others DEPEND ON YOU, then everyone suffers. The military doesn't take to kindly upon that.

This is the same situation. Preventing pregnancy is EASY. Don't screw around and it won't happen. Period. Getting pregnant as a soldier in war can put into jeopardy your life, the life of fellow soldiers, put the mission in peril, and may eventually put the lives of American civilians at peril. If you can't see this, then stop trying to look at the world of a soldier through the eyes of a civilian. Just accept that some things are different for a reason and move on.

I find your legal analysis to be, if I may be frank, seriously lacking. I don't know if you are a lawyer, but I could say to you in a condescending tone that you should stay out of legal matters since you are trying to look at the world of a lawyer through the eyes of a layman, and that you should just accept that some things are different for a reason and move on, but I won't. Well, too late. (Seriously though, you keep reiterating that civilians shouldn't voice opinion on things military which is pretty pretentious since everyone on these forums voices opinions in matters with which they have no direct experience. And there are other posters here who do have military experience who disagree with you so your view from the inside is hardly universal.)

Thanks for your definition of what an accident is, but the Rules for Court Martials defines accident as: "a death, injury, or other event which occurs as the unintentional and unexpected result of doing a lawful act in a lawful manner is an accident and excusable" RCM 916(f)

Your "accident" involves drunken conduct and an assault with a knife in close quarters against a larger opponent known to be a martial artist. She'd already been hit by him before she left her room and got the knife, and then returned to the room. She was found guilty of a court martial offense simply by brandishing the weapon as a threat, forget about the actual stabbing. Claiming the actual stabbing is an accident ignores the long trail of poor (and legally actionable) decisions that led to the ultimate stabbing, and the accident defense was rejected by the below court. An assault was commited even before the stabbing. An unreasonable use of threat of force was committed before the stabbing. She intentionally re-entered her room with a knife to evict the other soldier, and the charged assault following is therefore not accident. Her behavior was deemed legally reckless and unreasonable. I don't know if you are a lawyer, but those words hold special meanings within the law different from what they mean in the vernacular.

Applying the facts to the definition of accident as "an injury which occurs as the unexpected result of doing a lawful act", your example of the case above fails on every ground. First, the injury was in no way 'unexpected'. An innebriated woman brought a knife back into her room to use as a threat against a drunk martial artist who had already hit her and refused her multiple instructions to leave. A child could guess how that would end, and the Court in its infinite wisdom rejected accident on those grounds. Further, they found that her bringing the knife into the room to threaten was "unreasonable and reckless" and therefore not lawful. In short, this was no accident.

In contrast, pregnancy resulting from safe-sex, while not impossible, is both unintentional and unexpected. And if we can clear up whether GO#1 applies we'll know whether that sex itself is a lawful act. In short, this fits the very definition of accident. These two events have nothing in common and only strenghthen my position. So, thanks for that illustration.

Your personal definition of accident as something that could and should have been prevented would not have saved the soldier from conviction either. What she did was not an accident because it could and should have been prevented, as the court said, by calling for MPs. But people who practice safe sex are generally shocked to find out they are pregnant. Pregnancy could and should be prevented, by practicing safe sex. If after reading the facts of this case up to the point of the stabbing, I can't imagine anyone was shocked or even surprised at what resulted.

As to your "kicker" that she "normally would have had a right to defend herself" but during wartime somehow doesn't have that right:
1) what are you talking about? I saw nothing in the ruling regarding this and it sounds facially untenable
2) what war are you referring to, Bosnia? If that constitutes wartime, when are we not in it?

I do agree with you that preventing pregnancy is easy. You practice safe sex. Real accidents will happen with weapons and with sex, even when practical precautions are taken. Court martials for true accidents are bad policy and provide perverse incentives, which is why they tend not to be done.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

x2.

Oh, and when a soldier recieves orders they are deploying, they shouldn't be able to get out of it by getting preg. You signed, you're going or you're out.

Sadly its a very common thing among women soldiers who do not want to deploy overseas to a combat zone. This decision is way overdue. If women want to be treated equally then they have be held to the same standards. If they are going to deploy overseas then suddenly getting pregnant is not an excuse. Either this order stands or women should not be allowed into the military period unless they agree to be on some form of military issued birth control during their service so as to make sure there is a honest effort to actually meet out their duties in the military. Not to mention the cost, time and effort of replacing personnel if some dittzy chick decides the sand and hot whether is not to her liking.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

That statement is absolutely false.


no, as always, they immediately get sent home (within 14 days of the positive pregnancy test).

Hopefully with a dishonorable discharge.

 

[jonks]

UPDATE: ADIOS COURT MARTIALS:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/25/iraq.us.soldiers.pregnant/index.html

Sadly its a very common thing among women soldiers who do not want to deploy overseas to a combat zone.

Given that the date of a pregnancy can be fairly accurately pinpointed I wonder how "very common" this actually is.

 

[theflyingpig]

Stupid liberals, ruining the military one step at a time. Now soldiers will get it in their heads that if they complain about something enough it will go away. Never mind your orders, if you don't like them, then complain like a liberal fool and you'll get your way. The liberal media will see to it. The pussification of America has extended to the military. Pathetic. Everyone knows this.

 

[jonks]

Palehorse: is this the operative GO No. 1 to which you cited? http://www.tac.usace.army.mil/deploymentcenter/tac_docs/GO-1.pdf

The only prohibited sexual activities are:

q. Sexual contact of any kind with Iraqi nationals, foreign nationals, or local nationals who are not members of coalition forces

r. Cohabitation, residing, or spending the night in living quarters of any kind with a member of the opposite sex. The following exceptions apply:
1) Subject to the availability of adequate accommodations, lawfully married spouses are permited to reside in the same living quarters, and
2) In situations of military exigency, mixed residency may be required

Nothing in (q) about forbidding sex between soldiers of equal rank. Is there another order in place?

And (r) merely says that you can't overnight bunk or live with a member of the opposite sex unless you're married and they have room for it; nothing about afternoon delight.

So again, I don't see anything in this order about "no sex at all in Iraq". You and Humble keep telling me I'm a civvy who doesn't know jack, I'm asking a simple question: what order says "no sex", and if such an order prohibiting all sex exists, why would they need this order to specify who you can't have sex with?

Oh, and Humble, this marine echoes my points, and adds a few of her own. Should she shut up too because she doesn't know what she's talking about? http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=52D85A39167415B83AB71F299B2619FC?diaryId=3582 Amazing how she and I came to essentially the same arguments and conclusions despite me not having enlisted. Huh.