Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Women Claim Combat Ban Violates 5th Amendment

May 28, 2012 by  

Women Claim Combat Ban Violates 5th Amendment
PHOTOS.COM
Command Sgt. Maj. Jane Baldwin and Col. Ellen Haring believe women should be able to participate in combat.

Two female soldiers are suing the military, claiming that the restrictions on combat are unConstitutional.

Women are not allowed to serve in units whose main task is frontline combat. Command Sgt. Maj. Jane Baldwin and Col. Ellen Haring believe the policy is a violation of the 5th Amendment.

The 5th Amendment states that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Baldwin and Haring want due process.

The female soldiers are claiming that the ban prevents them from rising through the ranks.

“This limitation on plaintiffs’ careers restricts their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits,” the suit states.

Baldwin and Haring are not alone. In February, Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass.) sent a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, one of the defendants in the case. In the letter, Brown claims that the ban limits “their ability to develop a career path in the military and advance to higher ranks.”

The suing soldiers argue that in today’s military structure, women are on the battlefield. More than 800 women have been wounded in Afghanistan and Iran, and 130 have been killed.

Bryan Nash

Staff writer Bryan Nash has devoted much of his life to searching for the truth behind the lies that the masses never question. He is currently pursuing a Master's of Divinity and is the author of The Messiah's Misfits, Things Unseen and The Backpack Guide to Surviving the University. He has also been a regular contributor to the magazine Biblical Insights.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Women Claim Combat Ban Violates 5th Amendment”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • GALT

    HHHHHMMMMMMM……another fascinating journey down the rabbit hole of constitutional
    never, never land. Sadly, these people should actually KNOW they are subject to “admiralty and maritime” jurisdictions under the UCMJ. Not to mention that rank wise, Sgt Maj. and Colonel are pretty much the upper limits of rank for both Echo Mikes and Oscars, with the exception of the latter…….and the military is already top heavy in the Oscar dept. I guess the re-enlistment bonus’ and the automatic raise function as time served increases, plus the retirement pay after 20 and 26 years, in today’s economy….
    plus the other benefits, just aren’t enough? Career ambition now requires one to seek out opportunities to slaughter other humans as a necessary means to career advancement?
    The forever war beckons the forever warriors………clearly we should be grateful for such
    eager and patriotic cannon fodder………..after all, the theory of infinite growth demands
    that we take advantage of every option……..

    • Vigilant

      “Not to mention that rank wise, Sgt Maj. and Colonel are pretty much the upper limits of rank for both Echo Mikes and Oscars, with the exception of the latter…”

      If you had spent any time in the military you’d know that Command Sergeant Major is the highest enlisted rank, not Sergeant Major.

      Moreover, we’re not talking about “Echo Mikes” (enlisted men), we’re talking about “Echo Whiskeys” (enlisted women).

      • CJ

        Vig, showing your back side again, huh? Galt said “pretty much” meaning that, men OR women, SM or Col is are far as most can go, even if they are qualified for more. There are so few positions of top enlisted or upper commissioned that everybody who wants those ranks WON’T get them. That’s why there’s a selection process for them, hopefully only the best of the best. So Galt’s point is valid, and yours a focus on pointless triviality.

      • Vigilant

        “Vig, showing your back side again, huh?”

        Only to you, CJ.

      • Sharon Jeanguenat

        Actually, CJ is right, because the man DID say almost the highest. My oldest son was in the Navy when Clinton started cutting back our military, & he finally got out after 12 years because there was very little chance of advancement. And, they were discharging people for stupid reasons, just to get rid of them. And, I agree with the comment that all these women are interested in is the money aspect of the issue. I don’t believe there is ANY woman alive that could physically keep up with a typical man on a front line combat unit.

      • Phil

        The military rejects both men and women from certain jobs for various reasons. That can be for any number of reasons, to big, to small, vision or hearing will diqualify you from certain types of duty. Some people are to tall to fit in a fighter cockpit. or can’t pass a flight physical because of vision or hearing. I don’t think women should be in forward combat areas at all. Most women don’t have the upper body strength that men have. There is no room, place or time for modesty and women have female problems that are hard to take care of in the field in front of a group of men. Because of their rank the Col. and Sgt. Major would be above all of this. Ask the women of lower rank how they like to take care of female things around the men they serve with.

      • tiredofthecrap

        Unlike your assumption of Galt’s military service, I spent more than 30 years in the Army. You missed the mark because Sergeant Major of the Army (SMA) is the highest enlisted rank (not grade/pay grade) in the Army, not Command Sergeant Major (CSM) as you said. However, CSM and SMA are generally referred to as lateral promotions since there is no advancement to an actual higher grade…ALL of them are E-9s (unless they’ve bastardized that, too, in the last year or so). So, before you go trying to correct someone else, you might want to get your own sh-t straignt first!!!

      • fastfood

        I left the military more than 30 years ago, so I’m a bit out of touch but do WO’s grades no longer exist?

    • Vigilant

      “I guess the re-enlistment bonus’ and the automatic raise function as time served increases, plus the retirement pay after 20 and 26 years, in today’s economy….
      plus the other benefits, just aren’t enough?”

      What does “today’s economy” have to do with it? Our service people write that blank check to this nation, payable up to and including their lives. Now you want to put a price tag on it? Disgusting.

      “…plus the retirement pay after 20 and 26 years…” You can retire after 20 years, or go to 30 years if you have the rank. What are you talking about? If you haven’t spent time in the military, then just STFU.

      • GALT

        Always nice when you decide to give us a piece of your mind, ( not quite so ) Vigilant, as it explains the deteriorating quality of your comprehension skills and rhetoric. There are several levels of retirement systems based on service exit…….as well as two year pay increases up to over 40……and you should be able to find the current pay rates for all ranks on your own, so I’ll just leave you with one link.

        http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/military-retired-pay-overview.html

        Btw an e-9 is an e-9 is an e-9 is an e-9. ( a challenging riddle for you )

        Now I freely admit that it has been a while, since I had a serial number that began with RA
        which depending on your research skills will provide you with possible info.

        I am also quite flattered by this “compulsion” you seem to have to respond to my posts,
        unfortunately the content is mostly “tedious” and irrelevant………and I had so hoped to
        be inspiring? Que sera, sera?

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Curious as to why you call yourself GALT considering your writing does not resemble the character of Ayn Rand’s Galt.

      • GALT

        What would life be without little mysteries that we can be curious about? Rand’s character was John Galt, her philosophy “objectivism” and Capitalism for her was The Unknown Ideal. She was a rather unique individual, and as with all such people, one takes those aspects which have value and adapts them to new information…….so there would be no point in attempting to mimic her or anyone else for that matter……..which may or may not
        be an answer to your question?

        Much of the challenge we face today, in attempting to discern truth through intellectual inquiry and employing logical reasoning is the discipline of comprehending the definition
        of the terms employed in pursuing that goal, both from an etymological as well as an historical context, which in the first case may be missing or incomplete and in the second subject to change at any given moment………..which is further compounded by the reality
        that for many questions, answers are elusive……subject to “ranges of probability” at best,
        and at worst, completely out side of that which is knowable.

        This state of affairs for human’s seems to be both intolerable and beyond general capabilities, for history seems to suggest that “any answer” is preferable to no answer,
        and that both deception and self deception provide certain advantages in completing
        one’s biological mission…….and that even greater advantage can be accrued to those who “provide” answers for “unprovable questions”, especially if one controls the means
        by which one can “achieve” the goal which these answers suggest is possible……..

        Rand was clearly influenced by her experience with the Russian Revolution, yet at the same time she never confused Capitalism with “money or finance”, so that while she maintained strong beliefs in individual achievement and intellectual property, her heroes
        were “producers” not bankers or usurer’s……nor were they corrupter’s of government,
        but victim’s of it……..so I doubt she would have approved of what has actually evolved, nor does it seem that she anticipated it. Many of those who employ “capitalism” as a mystical
        solution, fail to grasp these distinctions for what currently exists nor apply them to the foundational principles which Rand tried to express…..which also may or may not be an answer to your question?

  • http://www.ifonlyphotos.com Alex Frazier

    These women have not been “deprived” of life, liberty, or property. They have no case based on the fifth amendment.

    But ignoring that, there are practical reasons that women have no business on the front line. Just watch a man and woman argue. We think differently, act differently, etc. Some women, no doubt, can handle the pressures of combat. But most can’t. No soldier, male or female, needs to deal with the risk of a panicked woman in the middle of combat.

    That point of view is based on my general opinion of women, and not due to any specific woman. Again, I acknowledge that women can fight if properly trained, and some of them even have a mind for it. But as a general rule, nature itself has determined that women are weaker, more timid, less violent, far more emotional, etc.

    They just don’t belong on the front line.

    • don

      i thought we hqd women in battle. i remember seeing women in the wars isreal had with the arabs. they fought right along with the men. they have one of the best armies in the world. they have to live under the threat of being destroyed by their enemies. they are prepared just about for any situation. would’n tit be nice if it all stopped everywhere in the world. i guess this kind of thing has plagued mankind forever.i’d say if women are willing to fight right along with the men let them. in this day and age we did not raise our kids like the ones who fought in the world wars, korea and veit nam. i don’t think they have the toughness of the previous soldiers. i can see it in the workforce. would it be any different in the military?

    • Nadzieja Batki

      The Command Sgt. Maj. Jane Baldwin and Col. Ellen Haring are Social Engineers. They both hate this country as much as they hate the men and women but especially the women. This has nothing to do with women’s or men’s capabilities in the military.These two want the military to be a Matriarchal Society with these two being the Tribal Chieftesses, the New Amazons anyone.

      • Over it

        Nadzieja
        You know nothing.You’re only a woman.You have no say. Be quiet and of real use- go scrub a man’s toilet.

    • Sharon Jeanguenat

      I agree! As a woman, even in my early 20s, I was no way physically able of competing with a man, even if he was older. There are things women can do that men can’t, but there are also things that men can do that women can’t. These women are only interested in making money off of this, & getting their ’15 minutes of fame’. And, I sincerely hope the military puts these 2 women right at the front, in the worst battle they can find, & then wait for them to complain. I know there are women who have honorably served with distinction in our armed forces, & I applaud them. However, these 2 women have no idea of the can of worms that they’ve just opened!

    • John Wilch (TSgt, USAF Ret.)

      Alex, I too served my time in hell (Combat) and I ran into some women that I would be willing to watch my six and there are some men that I wouldn’t want anywhere near me or my comrades.

      I damn near lost my kid Brother because of one of these wimps. While my brother (Machinegunner) and his assistant gunner were fighting off several NVA soldiers, oh, they were also wounded, he was hiding behind a tree. That idiot should not have been asigned to a front line unit in the first place.

      Give me someone that wants to be there in the first place.

      GOD BLESS THE US OF A and MAY SHE REIGN FOREVER!

  • eddie47d

    Yes woman who volunteer for combat service should be allowed to do so . Those who aren’t wiling to do combat service may well have to give up promotions. Considering that female military personal are occasionally subjected to rape by fellow soldiers how would they react if captured by the enemy? Emotional trauma (PTSD) can be just as cruel as a physical war wound. Women who serve in all branches of military should be equally respected as having served their country. Those who die in combat should be given the same honors at Memorial Day ceremonies as well as those who are wounded. God Bless all Veterans who serve honorably. .

  • http://n.a. shawn disney

    As a war vet, my 2 cents is that if war vets had been consulted about combat, there would be NO women anywhere near combat zones.

  • Mike Smith

    REAL MEN would never approve of women in harm’s way—unless and util there are not enough REAL MEN left to fight. Men and women are DIFFERENT and have different roles because that is the way Nature and Nature’s God designed us. If you disagree then GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY and go start your own!

  • Donald York

    I respect the ladies but,I can tell you from experience that Combat really is hell! I’ve known some women who are very strong in character, but when you are faced with the fact that you may very well die because bullets and grenades, artillery and a host of other factors increase your risk of dying, if i were you, i would’nt push the issue of wanting to be on the front lines. Women nurses are very much respected by all service people, and, if i want my records in good order, i would trust the woman to do them for me. Ladies, you can hold your head high for the jobs you’re already doing, but you should give up your fight for the combat role, in my opinion, it’s not for women.

  • Chester

    All of you are forgetting one small thing, Women in the military ARE being placed in harms way without getting official credit for frontline duty. When you are in a war where there is NO front line, any place in country is apt to become frontline territory at any time. These women have a valid point, without official combat duty, their advancement and retirement are severely affected, as it takes combat experience to advance beyond where they are now, even for, dare I say it, men.

  • Wolfowicz Pearle

    I am sure these women are vying for the futures of future and upcoming commissioned and noncommissioned women alike. It seems that they want to garner a place for women in the career management fields of the combat arms where men enjoy the greater percentage of promotion advantages and secure a more impressive resume after retirement. I will not attempt to argue the male vs female dilemma in the profession of the combat arms because that will be discussed many times over by various zealots from both genders.
    I agree a change has to be affected in the politics of military advancement and positions of authority but force integration of the genders is pretty well solved in TRAADDOC more so than in the FORSCOM. I wish them well in their cause. My question would be: Are these women that are suing the US ARMY, Active Army, or reserve forces?
    Their careers may not last long, citing violations of the constitution, if the end result of this case turns out to be capricious in nature.

  • JON

    If they want fight in combat, let them. They are highly trained.

    • Mike Austin

      Highly trained? Really. What MOS are they?
      Personally, I would only rely on them as a last resort. By denying the physical and psycholgical differences, they cannot use them in the capacity where they can contribute most effectively..

    • http://naver samurai

      This coming from someone who didn’t have the nads to serve? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      P.S. You need both love of country and fear of God to be a patriot.
      This leaves you out JON(?).

      • jim

        Hello. Which country are u going to love? The one of 1776 or the one of 2012?

      • jim

        Or for that matter, which God? Yours, mine, Christian, Muslim, Judaic? How about the one who sponsored love thru the inquisition? Or better yet, lets create our own….scientology anyone? How about koolaid and Jim Jones? Which God is going to lead us? Maybe its the one who issued the Commandment, Thou shalt not kill. If we follow that God, what do we do? I know, let’s be like Adam, who was told not to do something but decided to follow his (Adams) own will and disobey. Where does this end? I tell you where. Lets follow Denis Diderot who wrote in the 18th century, “Justice will prevail when the last priest is hung with the entrails of the last king.”

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      jon says: If they want fight in combat, let them. They are highly trained.

      Highly trained? Did you happen to notice the exquisite MANICURE on the woman in the photo, jon? I think she would much prefer a aesthetic’s salon to a battle-field.

      These two women are not interested in entering the battle-field, as they are in advancing the feminist, and the homosexual agenda! Pull your head-out, little BOY!!!

      • http://naver samurai

        I heard that’s why his girlfriend dumped him, because he was small and couldn’t staisfy her. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        P.S. You need both love of country and fear of God to be a patriot.

  • Dwight Mann

    Barefoot and pregnant. . .
    That is my response. . .

    • Nadzieja Batki

      The response is stupid but it is yours.

  • Doc Wood

    What everyone seems to miss (even the Col. and SGM. is that if women want to be equal and be able to go into combat their whole careers have been a farce. They have different PT standards, different lartine standards and dont what they will smell like after a 5 or 6 day patrol. Who carries their extra ammo or how do they get their pads or kotex. Ever smelled a woman on her period after 2 weeks without a bath? I have been to combat 3 times and not a woman in site, we did however have a few women ask not to participate in a resupply convoy. Also when Desert Storm went down, how many women intentionally got pregnant so they wouldnt have to depoly? Thats called dereliction of duty in my book and they should be court martialed for it.

  • http://personallibertydigest Joel

    I started to write,stopped, read what I was writing and saw it was leaning towards PC, (political correctness). I hate PC, it’s social engineering. These two women are obvious. A rainbow flag flies over a tent in Afghanistan, two men in an airport one in uniform in a lip lock, this kind of crap makes me puke! If not that, look at the commands lost because of women at sea. Remember, it was Adam and Eve not Dave and Louie, and look what happened when Adam trusted Eve. Women that want combat don’t remember Jessica Lynch and the Men that had to get her out all because we couldn’t stand the thought of what the enemy was doing to a woman. Bless her heart but she is still crippled today! Women in combat, NO WAY!!

  • BryanVarner

    Women should not be in combat,what do they think would happen if they were captured by the enemy.they would be raped.it is hard to be promoted in the infantry anyway i know.besides they are not strong enough to carry a 50lbs ruck sack 20 or 30 miles in a day.what about hand to hand combat?they would not stand a chance vs.a man.women should not be any place were there is combat,they should be in the rear with the gear!!

  • Ted Crawford

    I see many here who question the abilities of women in combat. I am less concerned with this, given the examples of the Israeli Army and the history of the various resistance forces during WWII. Women have, it seems to me, proven they can serve with distinction in combat situations. My concern lies along a different path.
    In this country males are taught to shield females, as much as pratical and possible, from the more unsavory aspects of situations. Should this habit spill over int a combat situation a commander might hesitate to give an order putting a female into harms way. Even though she might be better positioned to accomplish a task, he might give the order to a male in a lessor position. This would cause unnecessary deaths and the unnecessary lose of engagements. While this would surly be overcome with time, my other concern, the desensitizaion of both male and female would be increased with time. Fundamentially, I feel, changing the culture of this nation!

    • Mike Austin

      Don’t use Israel as an example. We are not fighting in one state that is our homeland as a last defense. That is the only acceptable place for women in combat. Defending the home. Do you know any Israeli’s? I do. They are not happy with going on duty with females in harsh conditions. Some are tough but not all and it brings down morale. The IDF has no choice. We do.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Thanks Mike.

      • Marten The Canadian Libertarian

        Good point, I agree with that

  • Wyatt

    No matter how highly well trained any combat soldier is , there is a shock to the senses that actual combat induces .And until one experiences that there is no way to tell how one is going to react . As a rule women do not handle this well , that is in no way to infer that they are inferior in anyway . Many women have fought bravely along side men in combat , but that said , modern warfare or any warfare is no place for women unless absolutely no way to avoid it . These women may think they want to put on a jockstrap and go to war in a combat company but trust me when I say , they are lucky that they are not on the front line .The enemy we face today is every bit as ruthless and unmerciful , if not more so , than those we faced in Viet Nam or anywhere else in this world . Why any woman with common sense would want to face the possibility of rape and torture if captured is beyond me . They should be thankful they are not required to serve in a combat unit . But I suppose these two are part of the new Gay Corps of Obama and need to prove just how big their Johnson and balls are

  • Sirian

    What seems odd to me is that they are basically saying that there are intentional limitations insofar as advancement within the ranks of women serving. Money and Benefits? Both while I was in the Navy and my wife in the Air Force there were both women Admirals and Generals as well as plenty of top level enlisted. No, none within a SEAL Team. Sorry, Demi Moore doesn’t count. In the realm of “frontline combat” desires, so be it. If they’re seeking out a bronze, silver or even a CMH, have at it. How long that desire would last is another side to this equation that more than likely wouldn’t last very long. They think there is an abundance of PTSD cases now, allow women on the “front-line” and it will increase exponentially! Then what?

  • cawmun cents

    Look at things from an historical perspective.
    In some cases,women had to fight alongside the men.
    But historically when armies marched,it was only in a support role that women went along.
    Some point to Israel as an example.
    But they are a tiny group of folks in an area where every hand is needed.They are surrounded by enemies on every side,and may lack the people power to engage the enemy if all resources are not available.
    This is simply not the case in most modern nations.
    So that argument is quickly debunked.
    Historically armies have been made of men for a reason.
    Men thrive in a battlefield envronment.They dont need to wash,they dont need to have seperate latrines.They dont need separate chnaging areas.
    Women are designed for a support role.
    Men are designed to carry weight and each other if need be.
    Emotionally/mentally women have the advantage over men.But since men never grow out of the”lets play army stage”,we are uniquely designed for combat.
    Whereas women wonder why violence is necessary,men thrive on it.
    It harkens back to the macho side of our mentality.
    These people are taking the gender roles to the extremes,and not considering the larger picture here.
    But then again,isnt everything being twisted to support some kind of agenda?
    -CC.

  • Billy

    My suggestion is to form a battalion of women and let them compete in actual combat with a battalion of men. Point for point, no handicaps.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      But that is not what those two women want. Even if they got the desires of their puny hearts they would still say they didn’t get what they wanted.

  • Larry

    If the women are so dead set on getting on the front lines, fine let them. with the following conditions.
    1) when you get to the front line you get treated just like the other solders, no special favors or protections or anything else, fail to do you job like any other front line deployed individual and you now face UCMJ charges and you are out of the military.
    2) First time you can’t deploy because you have a female induced problem you are disqualified for military service period.
    3) You get pregnant to keep from deploying to a combat zone, you are other than honorably discharged from the service period.
    4) you go to the front lines and get a hang nail, and start complaining, you get your ass kicked until you get it together just like everybody else.
    5) here is the biggy, If these women want to speak for all the females in the military let them, every female in the military services are now front line elgible not just the ones that volunteer, it is all or nothing just like the males in the military. lets see how long that one lasts before the females start complaining about the work, conditions etc.

    • THG 1956

      I agree ….Great ideas !!!

  • Bill

    I’ve got a great idea. Put all the homosexuals in units that are front liners. The more that meet their demise the quicker we can rid ourseloves of this society wrexking disease.

  • Ron

    If women are physically qualified fine put them on the front line, however, they all need to be in the selective service system, all citizens male and female. Why should woman be left out of the draft system? Why do we put up with this double standard? I am tired of hearing women bitch about the glass ceiling crap, how they are not treated as equals when in fact they must be treated so delicately in a work force situation. F*** the sensitivity training bull.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      Ron says: If women are physically qualified fine put them on the front line, however, they all need to be in the selective service system, all citizens male and female. Why should woman be left out of the draft system?

      Why heck, why not bring the children, as well? That way, both Mom and Dad can look after them while dodging bullets, and save themselves babysitting money, and postage stamps! Its a win win, wouldn’t you agree? Why heck, bring the grandparents, as well; wouldn’t want to offend anyone, or leave anyone out, now would we?

    • http://naver samurai

      I see you have never been in battle, have you Ron? Why do you think Israel took women out of combat roles, except for last effort defenses? They were compromising the missions by being there. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      P.S. You need both love of country and fear of God to be a patriot.

  • jim

    Everyone! Read the book, War is a Rackett by General Smedley Butler. If this doesn’t't kill your enthusiasm to die for oligarchic interest, nothing will!

    • Philip who would need two girls to drag him

      Pretty naive in this day and age of islamofacist homicidal maniacs.

      • jim

        Hello. Have u read the book? It’s online. The predicate for wars today is to waste resources (materiel) and make money. That’s why we haven’t won anything since ww2. Companies have become monopolies, can charge whatever they want by inflating the prices, and we pick up the tab. They don’t give a whip about the human costs….most veterans struggle to get therapy, counseling, etc. My favorite contemporary example is Rumsfeldt, who said troops wd have to use the substandard hummers as they were. No extra armor for them….they must be used up and wasted so more can b built!

        • Marcus Poulin

          And Companies were not monopolies 1941-1945????? Right there you just discredited your points.

  • http://donnapaulmax@hotmail.com Donna

    I agree with Ted Crawford – men will put themselves in harms way trying to protect women.
    Plus our young people are being used as pawns all over the world to fight unrighteous wars – we are running out of men who want to fight these continuous wars, and so now
    the idea is to get the public used to the idea of using women in their place. Women would
    fight to protect their husbands, children, or freedoms if they were at stake, but most of us have no desire to fight wars that wicked men have devised for us for oil, or dominion, or power. Its bad enough we have to send our sons out to do their dirty work, let alone our daughters. We all need to catch on to what is happening and not buy into this new
    assault on us as puppets for someone else’s agenda. .

    • Nadzieja Batki

      I will disagree with you that women will fight to protect their husbands, their children, or freedoms if they were at stake. Read History and find that we would not be at our time in history if your statement was correct.

  • Stephen

    As much as some members of our culture want to eliminate the lines between gender, they still remain. Men are better suited for some things and women are better suited for others. This is how God designed it from the beginning. A real man will naturally protect a woman. In a prisoner of war situation this would create a national security problem. The enemy will use this natural response of a man to protect a woman to obtain sensitive military information from the man. It is a recipe for disaster.

    • THG 1956

      I agree , I think it will make SOME men weaker

  • DavidL

    Male chauvinist arguments aside, If a woman wants to go into combat she should be allowed to do so. As long as she meets the physical and mental qualifications for the job, she should not be disqualified from serving simply because of her gender. I say this as a combat veteran of Vietnam.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      If the wants and desires of these women shorten our American soldiers lives in combat, the women are aiding and abetting the enemies.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        I should have added this to my comment. The wants and desires of these women will make them murderers and thieves if they get soldiers killed in combat because of their wants and desires. The women will rob the wives of these soldiers by having their husbands killed. They will rob the childrenof of their fathers. They will rob the future generations of the progeny they would have had.

      • DavidL

        I hear you, but I have seen men, because of either stupidity or cowardice or both, get other men killed in combat. The key, of course, is qualifications and training. You train, train, and train, but the reality is that you never know how someone is going to react in a combat situation until they get in it.

    • Philip who would need two girls to drag him

      Problem is, there’ll be “necessary” accommodations that will need to be made for it to work only reasonably well, or else some other “constitutional” amendment will be drug into the debate (for the greater good of course) in the interest of fairness.

  • http://www.facebook.com/davidhendrick.behrens David Hendrick Behrens

    If women are fit to fight and can stand the hell and won’t mind living with men in fox holes or bunkers and hearing daily fowl jokes and talk and living in hot or cold or wet or in mud or sand or jungles and don’t mind not bathing and showering for months and or being dirt and smelly or eating cold food and drinking warm water that you carry to last for days, plus carry all the equipment and ammo you need for days and never know when you will fight to the death or get wounded or killed or seeing friends killed or being wounded and caring for them… Then let them join in combat, if they want to………………. Namvet 66/67 FMF-Doc, Marines……………………………………………………………………………

    • Philip who would need two girls to drag him

      Spot on. Problem is, there’ll be “necessary” accommodations that will need to be made for it to work only reasonably well, or else some other “constitutional” amendment will be drug into the debate (for the greater good of course).

      • jim

        Constitutional issues “drug” into the discussion? Yeah, like how about whether or not a war is constitutionally declared as such, or not? It’s time to start sending the grandkids of our leaders into combat…..forbid officer roles to any of them. And Also the one percent crowd….all into combat now! Look at the Romney offspring. Where are they? Mansions? Yachts? Campaigns? They must be send to Afghanistan now, as a condition of his (Nitts) candidacy. And when the obama (lower case deliberate) offspring are of age, hand them a weapon and ship em to the front lines as well. They can foxhole next to the bush chillin and chelsea.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        You make a GOOD point, Jim!

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      I don’t know, David, i find it difficult to believe that, in a hand to hand combat against men, women soldiers could pass the mustard! I mean, really….think about it; would you risk your life just to be politically correct, or avoid being called a male chauvinist? Perhaps i’m old school, but in an all-out-fire-fight, where your life, and the life of your company is on-the-line, i’d prefer that my back-up be all male; and i’m pretty sure i could get an Amen on that from the guys, at least in private, anyway! No offence, but the battlefield is no place for a women, that is just plain, ridiculous!

  • Philip who would need two girls to drag him

    The rules were in place when these two soldiers joined. If I was wounded and needed to be assisted to safety, I would think that a 180 lb Iowa farmboy could stand a better chance at getting me to safety so that I could continue the fight. I do not admire these two soldiers for these legal actions.

  • cerebus23

    Should be up to the women if they want to serve combat or support.

    Men tend to handle immediate stress better than women and women tend to handle the after effects of stresses better.

    But combat training should teach everyone how to think and handle immediate stresses, and why you have all that training to have set responses and behaviors to any given situation. So you have them to fall back on when things go sideways and you do not panic.

    Yes women cannot in general match the physical strength of the average male, but the mind is as big a factor in combat readiness as physical strength.

    And if women choose that path more power to them, i see no reason to discriminate against anyone that wants to serve and possibly die for their country. Be they female or gay.

    • Bimbam

      I see… you have to feel good about it too. Chuck reality… just feeel gooood! No mind they send a retard to do brain surgery on you. As long as everyone feeeels gooood about it.

  • GunbearerM1G

    Just a thought………..If our benevolent (lol) politicians had their daughters as well as their sons drafted into a combat zone, they would think twice before going to war because they wouldn’t want their precious daughters to come to no harm. Men, on the other hand, seem to be expendable for some reason. Our men are no less precious in the eyes of the Lord than the women are.

  • jim

    The one percent crowd laughing at everyone of you debating who gets to die in fake wars and how. Either way, they make money off of peoples service BY SPENDING RESOURCES! Notice how “we” (actually they) never decidedly win any of their “wars.” It’s always (peace with honor), etc. Since monopolies control the production of tanks, guns, humvees, etc., the more they destroy, the more they make. All off the backs of well intentioned citizens trying to believe in something. Usually patriotism is the ruse, fueled by an event or threat. I am appealing to all of you to call their games and stop diveying each other up to death. No matter who has served or when, they have tried to live honorable lives…..and their intentions are noble. It’s Just that the moneyed shxt at the top choose to misappropriate these lives for gain. So stop now! Understand that each of u are valuable…..but most importantly to each other. Remember! They are only One percent. Regards

  • The OLD Warhorse

    HMMMMMMMMMM. A Colonel (the highest rank that can be attained without a political appointment (Note: General Officers are ALL political appointments)); and a Command Sergeant Major (the highest enlisted rank), are complaining that they have somehow been held back by not being allowed to be assigned to a “Combat” Unit. Wonder what their MOS/Specialty might be.

  • Henry

    War is hell and any woman who wants to deal with flashbacks is crazy.

  • Sharon Jeanguenat

    Well, if they want on the front line, then put them out there. But, the first time, they run screaming, or expect special consideration because they’re ‘females’, then dishonorably discharge them.

  • Sharon Jeanguenat

    @overit YOU are a male chauvanist pig! No where in this country are women ‘subservient’ to men. If you want that, then move to the Middle East, & get you a Muslim woman.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003624642108 Leonard W. Giddens Jr.

    Please put them on the point. Let them have it. Just what we need more one eyed, one arm female. Man what a bunch of idiots. These two don’t speak for the majority of female in the arm services. Just stand and watch all the females finding excuses when it is time to move forward.

  • http://httpaol.com sean murry

    As a vet i know women have no business in a combat zone.

  • metroman

    I’m sure women are lining up to get to the front lines. The front lines will have robots soon and no one will be on the front line. I wonder how many woman can take 5 or 6 deployments in a hitch. Oh, you have no Constitutional Rights when you join and Ladies i suggest you watch a couple movies before you rush to the front line. Try A Few Good Men, Platoon, and an old one called the Battle of the Bulge. Good Luck.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Methos1914 Marcus Poulin

    What are they talking about that we lost women in Iran?????????????? We did lose troops to Iranian EFP’s in Iraq. But unless these women we lost in Iran were CIA Clandestine Services, Marine Recon, Navy SEALS, or Army Delta Force, or Air Force Combat Controllers..all of which are (more than frontline troops they are Special Forces which aformentioned in this article they are all excluded from))..we didn’t lose ANY women in Iran!!

    • jim

      Hello. Companies were not quite then (42-45) monopolies, but they were becoming so thru the 50′s and have been since the early 70′s. Just consider how many companies manufacture any given item. How do you think they are able to get away with charging $600.00 for a hammer? No accountability. No competition. It’s true in every area , in every item. Copters, missiles, tanks, etc. Just read the book…….I. wd b interested in your thoughts thereafter. Regards

  • Bimbam

    Another liberal ruse. If we apply the 5th Amendment than the women would be BARRED from combat because then they would DEPRIVE the men of the 5th Amendment in combat UNLESS they PASS THE SAME TEST AS THE MEN and be combat able! But they are physically unable too!!!

    CASE CLOSED! NEXT!

    • http://www.facebook.com/Methos1914 Marcus Poulin

      Agreed Bimbam! These women were Never concerned about our 2nd Amendment Rights yet their 5th Amendment Rights are sacrosanct.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      Of course they’re not physically capable, BimBam! Anyone with some common sense can see that, except of course, liberals, feminists, and homosexuals; for if they had it their way, they would send children to the battle-field.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Methos1914 Marcus Poulin

    Eddie you are wrong.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society.

    Feminists are determined to impose what Gloria Steinem called “liberation biology” that pretends all male-female differences are culturally imposed by a discriminatory patriarchy.

    History offers no evidence for the proposition that the assignment of women to military combat jobs is the way to win wars, improve combat readiness, or promote national security.

    Women, on the average, have only 60 percent of the physical strength of men, are about six inches shorter, and survive basic training only by the subterfuge of being graded on effort rather than on performance. These facts, self-evident to anyone who watches professional or Olympic sports competitions, are only some of the many sex differences confirmed by scholarly studies.

    Denial of physical differences is an illusion that kills. That’s the lesson of the Atlanta courtroom massacre where a 5-foot-one, 51-year-old grandmother police guard was overpowered by a 6-foot-tall, 210-pound former football linebacker criminal; so now three people are dead.

    Every country that has experimented with women in actual combat has abandoned the idea, and the notion that Israel uses women in combat is a feminist myth. The armies and navies of every potential enemy are exclusively male; their combat readiness is not diminished by coed complications or social experimentation.

    The 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces voted to maintain the exemption of women from assignment to combat in ground troops, combat aviation, amphibious ships and submarines. But already 33 servicewomen including mothers have been killed and 270 wounded in the war in Iraq.

    The Army is wondering why it can’t meet its recruitment goals. It could be that the current 15 percent female quota is a turn-off to men who don’t want to fight alongside of women who can’t carry a man off the battlefield if he is wounded. Forcing women in or near land combat will hurt recruiting, not help.

    No country in history ever sent mothers of toddlers off to fight enemy soldiers until the
    United States did this in the Iraq war.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    One of the unintended consequences of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was the dashing of feminist hopes to make America a gender-neutral or androgynous society.

    New York City’s fireMEN dared to charge up the stairs of the burning Twin Towers, and the firefighters’ death tally was: men 343, women 0.

    It is a testament to their courage and skill that many thousands of people were successfully evacuated despite mass confusion. The fewer than 3,000 officeworkers who died were mostly trapped above the explosions and could not have been evacuated under any scenario.

    The feminists had made repeated attempts to sex-integrate New York’s fire department through litigation, even though the women could not pass the physical tests. They even persuaded a judge to rule that upper body strength is largely irrelevant to firefighting.

    September 11th called for all the masculine strength that strong men could muster. Firefighting is clearly a job for real men to do the heavy-lifting, not affirmative-action women.

    President George W. Bush sent our Special Forces to the rugged and remote Afghan hills and caves to get the terrorists, dead or alive. Fighting the Taliban is a job for real men.

    When the national media interviewed some of our Marines, one of our guys said, “There’s no place I’d rather be than here.” America is fortunate that the warrior culture has survived 30 years of feminist fantasies and that some men are still macho enough to relish the opportunity to engage and kill the bad guys of the world.

    Watching the war pictures on television, we almost expected to see High Noon sheriff Gary Cooper or John Wayne riding across the plains. I suggest the feminists go to see the movie “Black Hawk Down” and reflect on the reality that women could not have done what our men did in Somalia.

    For several decades, the feminists have been demanding that we terminate the discrimination that excludes women from “career advancement” in every section of the U.S. Armed Forces, assuring us that hand-to-hand combat is a relic of the past and that all our wars will now involve only pulling triggers and pushing buttons. Tell that to our troops who trudged over land mines and jagged rocks where there are not even any roads.

    In the eighties and nineties, the feminist assault on the right to be a masculine man became increasingly obvious and hostile. It was not just a semantic parlor game when they insisted that the words manly, masculine and gentleman be excised from our vocabulary.

    The feminists are playing for keeps. They attacked the right to be a masculine man in the U.S. Armed Services, the kind of man who would rush into a burning building to save a woman or search the Afghan caves for Osama bin Laden.

    The feminists have intimidated our military into using a training system based on gender-norming the tests, rewarding effort rather than achievement, and trying to assure that females are not “underrepresented” in officer ranks. It’s bad enough that men are forbidden to question the double standards or preferential treatment given to women; it is dishonorable to induce them to lie about it.

    The feminists have used the courts to try to criminalize masculinity. Feminist lawyers first created judge-made law to expand the statutory definition of sex discrimination to include sexual harassment, and they now prosecute sexual harassment on the basis of how a woman feels rather than what a man does.

    The feminists’ attack on the right to be a masculine man is in full swing at colleges and universities. Feminism is a major tenet of political correctness, and the female faculty are the watchdogs of speech codes.

    Subservience to feminist orthodoxy on campuses is not only mandatory, it is nondebatable. Women’s studies courses and many sociology courses are tools to indoctrinate college women in feminist ideology and lay a guilt trip on all men, collectively and individually.

    The feminists use Title IX, not as a vehicle to ensure equal educational opportunity for women, but as a machete to destroy the sports at which men excel. Since 1993, 43 colleges have eliminated wrestling teams, 53 have eliminated golf, 13 have eliminated football, and the number of colleges offering men’s gymnastics has dropped from 128 to 23.

    The feminist battalions are even on the warpath against the right to be a boy. In elementary schools across America, recess is rapidly being eliminated, shocking numbers of little boys are drugged with psychosomatic drugs to force them to behave like little girls, and zero-tolerance idiocies are punishing boys for indulging in games of normal boyhood such as cops and robbers.

    Of course, when you wipe out masculine men, you also eliminate gentlemen, the kind of men who would defend and protect a lady — like the gentlemen who stepped aside so that, of the people who survived the sinking of the Titanic, 94 percent of those in first-class and 81 percent of those in second-class were women.

    Author: Phyllis Schlafly

    http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2002/jan02/02-01-23.shtml

  • Dad

    So long as they don’t get some guy killed, put them all on the front line… create their own units and make it a requirement.

  • 45caliber

    Every time I hear this sort of thing, it reminds me of when Desert Storm first was organizing. A Naval ship was sent to the Persian Gult expecting combat. Of the women on board, over 90% got pregnant on the way over since the military has a rule that pregnant women aren’t allowed in a combat zone.

    A few women want to be in positions to fight – but they want the rule made that ALL women should be able to.

  • Edmund Burke

    Women in combat as a constitutional right? The commander fields his best fighters that will accomplish the mission in the shortest and least costly way. There are no rights about it. Only tactical and operational efficiency. And the grounds used by these women to go into combat are ridiculous. “I can get better retirement pay.” Come on. What if they are captured. It compromises not only their co-prisoners and themselves, but every American in a position to negotiate with the enemy. Every man, or woman, is compromised, whether in harm’s way, or at the negotiating table, or in a position of tactical or strategic power. These women can’t be stupid. What if they are tools of people who want to use their stupid arguments to weaken our military and our capacity to survive the next big war, which our enemies have been doing since we emerged as top dog in 1945 (with alot of success I might add, as we sit trillions of dollars in debt). What stupidity and, dare I say it, possibly treason, not necessarily by these women, but by those handlers who put them up to it.

    • http://personalliberty Debra

      You are absolutely spot on!

  • Doug Rodrigues

    When women can carry a 100 lb. pack, plus extra ammo, and keep up with the physically stornger men, only then should they go into combat. Until then, the men would have to spend un-necessary time looking out for the women. That affects combat effectness.

    • John Wilch (TSgt, USAF Ret.)

      I agree with you 1000%, however if they want to drive/crew our transports (Armored Vehicles, tanks) let them. We need someone doing this, so that we can get to the battle in one piece. Oh, yeah, if they think they can handle the mission or the stress of combat; let them try it during training before sending them into the fight. That goes for men also; some can not handle the stress of combat or carrying heavy loads.

  • Marcus Poulin

    Now let’s remember someone who was in an Arab capitol. The largest and Most liberal of any Arab capitol in the most liberal and largest Arab country….Egypt. Glib Danger Junkie, Lara Logan, now was she a soldier on a battlefield? Now was that Yemen or Saudi Arabia which are VERY VERY Conservative Arab nations or was the venue for Lara’s rape by over 300 men in the most liberal capitol of the most liberal Arab country???? It is helpful to understands a nation’s intercultural relativity, customs, and cultural psychology before you show up there. A concept we have seemed to have forgotten when we showed up in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

    • jim

      Remember……its not the culture, its not a question of winning. It’s a question of much materiel and money can b wasted and as an aside, how many resources can b explloited. Read War is a Racket ( online ) for a great perspective. And keep those $800.00 toilet seats and $600.00 hammers coming.

  • Marcus Poulin

    http://servicewomen.org/ <—–I would Love to debate these Fools on National TV.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.