Posted on Jan 27, 2015
Complaints challenge orders limiting female guards at Gitmo
6.13K
15
6
3
3
0
From: Navy Times
FORT MEADE, Md. — Some female guards at the Guantanamo Bay prison have filed equal opportunity complaints challenging court orders barring them from jobs that would require touching detainees while escorting them to hearings and attorney-client meetings, a military judge said Monday.
The two complaints filed with the Defense Department's Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity complicate a dispute that stems from the detainees' assertion that their Muslim faith prohibits physical contact with females who are not their wives or relatives. Some defense lawyers have argued that the government recently added women to the escort teams to humiliate the men and disrupt their ability to defend themselves.
Prosecutors have argued that barring women from escort duty would amount to gender discrimination.
The complaints were revealed Monday by Navy Capt. J. Kirk Waits as he presided over a pretrial hearing for Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi at the U.S. base in Cuba. The Associated Press watched a closed-circuit video feed of the hearing at Fort Meade, near Baltimore.
Waits said he heard on Friday about the complaint in al-Hadi's case but hadn't seen it.
Waits issued an interim order in November barring female guards from the escort work with al-Hadi. Defense attorneys want the judge to make the order final, with oral arguments scheduled later this week.
Army Col. James Pohl, the judge in another U.S. Military Commissions case against the five defendants in the Sept. 11 attacks, advised attorneys Monday that he learned Friday of a similar complaint challenging a ruling he made in January.
Waits said the discrimination complaint would have no bearing on proceedings in al-Hadi's case.
"This was a lawful judicial order by a qualified and properly detailed military judge to this commission," he said.
"I am not aware of any administrative equal opportunity grievance procedure that affords a person a cognizable avenue to challenge a judicial order such as this," Waits said.
Military officials would not provide copies of the complaints to The Associated Press. Navy Capt. Tom Gresback, a Guantanamo spokesman, said it would be premature for the military to comment on them.
Al-Hadi is accused of being an al-Qaida commander who organized deadly attacks on U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan. He faces up to life in prison if convicted of the alleged war crimes. He appeared in court Monday wearing a white tunic, headdress and a long, gray beard.
All six defendants are being held at a top-secret Guantanamo unit known as Camp 7. The unit houses about 15 men deemed "high-value detainees" by the Pentagon.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/01/26/complaints-challenge-orders-limiting-female-guards-at-gitmo/22381965/
FORT MEADE, Md. — Some female guards at the Guantanamo Bay prison have filed equal opportunity complaints challenging court orders barring them from jobs that would require touching detainees while escorting them to hearings and attorney-client meetings, a military judge said Monday.
The two complaints filed with the Defense Department's Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity complicate a dispute that stems from the detainees' assertion that their Muslim faith prohibits physical contact with females who are not their wives or relatives. Some defense lawyers have argued that the government recently added women to the escort teams to humiliate the men and disrupt their ability to defend themselves.
Prosecutors have argued that barring women from escort duty would amount to gender discrimination.
The complaints were revealed Monday by Navy Capt. J. Kirk Waits as he presided over a pretrial hearing for Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi at the U.S. base in Cuba. The Associated Press watched a closed-circuit video feed of the hearing at Fort Meade, near Baltimore.
Waits said he heard on Friday about the complaint in al-Hadi's case but hadn't seen it.
Waits issued an interim order in November barring female guards from the escort work with al-Hadi. Defense attorneys want the judge to make the order final, with oral arguments scheduled later this week.
Army Col. James Pohl, the judge in another U.S. Military Commissions case against the five defendants in the Sept. 11 attacks, advised attorneys Monday that he learned Friday of a similar complaint challenging a ruling he made in January.
Waits said the discrimination complaint would have no bearing on proceedings in al-Hadi's case.
"This was a lawful judicial order by a qualified and properly detailed military judge to this commission," he said.
"I am not aware of any administrative equal opportunity grievance procedure that affords a person a cognizable avenue to challenge a judicial order such as this," Waits said.
Military officials would not provide copies of the complaints to The Associated Press. Navy Capt. Tom Gresback, a Guantanamo spokesman, said it would be premature for the military to comment on them.
Al-Hadi is accused of being an al-Qaida commander who organized deadly attacks on U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan. He faces up to life in prison if convicted of the alleged war crimes. He appeared in court Monday wearing a white tunic, headdress and a long, gray beard.
All six defendants are being held at a top-secret Guantanamo unit known as Camp 7. The unit houses about 15 men deemed "high-value detainees" by the Pentagon.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/01/26/complaints-challenge-orders-limiting-female-guards-at-gitmo/22381965/
Posted in these groups: 
EO
EO
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
5
5
0
I call BS. These "people" claim to be dishonored if a female not related to them or married to them touches them. Yet the same caliber of "people" go into Kurdish areas and gleefully rape the Yazidi women and children. They brag that the Quran gives them the right and duty to enslave and rape women they capture in combat.
If they think it's OK to rape women and children, then being touched by female prison guards is not an issue. We've given them enough accommodation. Stop coddling these "people."
If they think it's OK to rape women and children, then being touched by female prison guards is not an issue. We've given them enough accommodation. Stop coddling these "people."
(5)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
How to phrase this.
They are detainees, not prisoners to begin.
That said, the detainees are requesting an accommodation based on Faith.
Would this be any different than me requesting a Male doctor, as a male, or a Female requesting a Female doctor?
Now the court order barring them from touching specific detainees falls under 'reasonable accommodations.' The court order barring them from "Jobs" (which may involve...) is another story entirely.
They are detainees, not prisoners to begin.
That said, the detainees are requesting an accommodation based on Faith.
Would this be any different than me requesting a Male doctor, as a male, or a Female requesting a Female doctor?
Now the court order barring them from touching specific detainees falls under 'reasonable accommodations.' The court order barring them from "Jobs" (which may involve...) is another story entirely.
(2)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Agree. I don't have a problem with their request - even if they were convicted prisoners. The females in this case, I don't believe have grounds to stand on. They arent being barred for the sake of being barred, they are being barred due to a religious accomodation at the request of someone who is NOT the employer.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Exactly.
I think their complaint is valid however. Not against the military, but against the court order. It may have been worded too broadly, or is being interpreted too broadly.
It's a letter of the law vs. intent of the law issue.
I think their complaint is valid however. Not against the military, but against the court order. It may have been worded too broadly, or is being interpreted too broadly.
It's a letter of the law vs. intent of the law issue.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
I think there are just two seperate issues here, prisoners rights as they are (and people's feelings on whether or not they deserve those rights or ANY accomodation whatsoever) and then the Guards' rights. Easy to get them mixed up, but its important to remember that they are separate issues.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google