Andy’s excellent article on Saturday argued, among other things, the absurdity of U.S. military efforts to follow Islamic law in our wars in the Muslim world.
It turns out that the civilian branch of the U.S. government is also doing its part to comply with Islamic law as part of the war effort. In a statement that could have been lifted from the website of the embassy of Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Postal Service website uses sharia guidelines to list what is forbidden in packages sent from America to U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan:
Military Mailing Restrictions
Learn what you should — and shouldn’t — send to our troops.
Before you send a letter or package to one of our military service members overseas, make sure you’re aware of the restrictions. Mail addressed to military and diplomatic post offices overseas is subject to certain conditions or restrictions regarding content, preparation, and handling. Although there are specific restrictions for each five-digit Military and Diplomatic Post Office ZIP Code (APO/FPO/DPO), generally, the following are prohibited in the region of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom:
Obscene articles (prints, paintings, cards, films, videotapes, etc) and horror comics.
Any matter depicting nude or seminude persons, pornographic or sexual items, or nonauthorized political materials.
Bulk quantities of religious materials contrary to the Islamic faith. Items for the personal use of the addressee are permissible.
Pork or pork by-products.
Military Restrictions For specific restrictions and mailing prices to an APO/FPO/DPO address, visit the Price Calculator. You can also call 1-800-ASK-USPS or consult your local Post Office™.
— Nina Shea is director of Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, and co-author with Paul Marshall of the forthcoming book Silenced: How Apostasy & Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide(Oxford).
I would really like to know what they consider "non-authorized political materials." Seems like you could put pretty much anything under that title.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePart of a soldier's oath includes not defaming the president (if the soldier is National Guard this oath also includes the governor of their state).
Political materials violating that oath would be subject to confiscation and possibly disciplinary action.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGossman, knowing this administration and how the military votes, it probably means absentee ballots.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis has been going on for years now. Unless, your point is that it has gotten worse, but certainly the last two mentioned, "Pork .." and "Quantities of Religious ..." have been a consideration since the mid 2000s if not earlier.
It bothers me now, still. But it is not new.
There may be more "enforcement" now. In my capacity as member of a support group BooksForSoldiers (click here) (shameless plug worked in from a supporter of that group -- still a valid point to be made if you keep reading) I have been sending a large set (10 DVD's worth) of PC shareware games as care packages.
Just recently an airman, mostly likely in or near Afghanistan but his location is kept vague, told me that the local authorities were examining the disks to see if there was any contraband on them. When I asked further, I am pretty sure he meant that local government as opposed to some zealous officer in our own air force. Had it been a case of self-censoring by our own military, I'd be livid.
I just e-mailed him to ask if he ever got them back.
My point is, it's defensible for the Post Office to warn us. Why waste money on something that is not ever going to even make it to the troops if the local thugs that we protect will just confiscate what is sent?
Shameless plug continued: anyone wanting to know more about BooksForSoldiers, please write me at info@booksforsoldiers.com. We are in the middle of a July 4th fund raiser and a donation of even $2-4 would be very helpful (click here).
I beg forgiveness from NRO readers and the NRO gods. But if soldier-support groups are to survive, like other charities that are hurting, at times we have to be a bit intrusive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat are the "loacl thugs" doing examining U.S. mail? (Frankly, I do not believe they are as our military routes all mail through th APO system.)
That said, these postal warnings are ridiculous. Our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan should be able to receive anything through the APO they can get in non-Islamic state countries. Military commanders could simply order troops to not distribute unauthorized materials.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood question! And I had the same gut reaction.
He did reply to confirm it was the locals.
And it sends a chill because I keep sending the same package over and over. They won't break me financially but it's disturbing if I am wasting my money.
I know some have gotten through, but never know for sure since we can't expect soldiers to reply.
Maddening.
Agree with you on your advice to the commanders. It really should be that simple.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll second what CT NRO Man said--this has been going on for almost a decade now. In fact, at this point, they are a bit more understandable than they were originally. If you believe that Iraq is a sovereign democratic nation (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), then presumably it has the right to pass laws about the material that can and cannot enter its country. This means that they might pass laws that you don't like.
Heck, I don't like these laws. I hope that the military will turn a blind eye to any "contraband" they come across. At the same time, I don't think they're even close to what sharia law requires, and I certainly don't think it merits the hyperbolic headline. (I presume that Christmas cards would be covered under the provision for "items for the personal use of the addressee".) But if you really think it's a problem, maybe you can get a bunch of people together and send each of our troops a copy of Penthouse, a bag of pork rinds, and a box of Chick tracts. I'm not sure what that will achieve, but perhaps it will feel as though you're taking a stand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen I deployed to Qatar last year the military issued an order during Ramadan that all US military personnel on our installation were required to follow Islamic law and refrain from eating food or drinking water in public during daylight hours. Imagine demanding that a Muslim refrain from eating meat on Friday's on a visit to Rome during Lent. There was so much outrage at this effort to force non-Muslims to follow the tenants of Islam that the military quickly rescinded the order, but it was still very telling that it happened in the first place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWoa ... Hold on!
Be reasonable!
When I visited St Peters in Rome, wearing a strappy sleeveless dress (in summer), I was not allowed inside. A kind fellow visitor loaned me a shirt to wear over my shoulders ...
When you're in a foreign country, you show respect for their laws and customs where respect is called for. However, in your own home or on a military base which is legally a piece of American soil ... Be American!
Having said that, I am a Christian and ABSOLUTELY decry the Fed CENSORING American mail and behavior on American soil - ncluding that soil slap bang in the middle of an ALLY country!!
HOW DARE THEY??
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI demand an investigation at the Congressional level!!
You were willingly entering a holy site as a tourist, though, not just bopping around Italy. These troops are on base, which is American soil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're confusing good manners with being forced to comply with the religious obligations of a faith you don't believe in. There is a HUGE difference. Covering bare skin in a holy place is a far cry from ordering a Christian to practice Islam.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst off, diplomatic posts fall under the Vienna and Geneva conventions and the only restrictions should be what is illegal in the US. Non-authorized political materials is quite simple, anything pro-Israel or anti-Obama or even worse, anti-Islam.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would encourage NRO readers to send all the Christmas cards you'd like, just no "Bulk quantities of religious materials contrary to the Islamic faith. Items for the personal use of the addressee are permissible."
These guidelines are neither capitulation or political correctness. It seems like common sense not to unnecessarily inflame local hostility to a foreign presence that has been battling insurgents for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population.
Just my two cents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm all for the religious conversion of Islamic countries, but I don't want it done by armed soldiers of US, so I have to agree that bulk shipment of bibles, etc. to them is questionable at best.
THe other items listed are hard to justify since they are for personal consumption or use.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm straining to see where any of those restrictions forbid Christmas cards sent to our troops.
Having said that, why the heck would we restrict pork products? Unless there's fear of some black market in pork rinds corrupting the locals.....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRidiculous post. Christmas cards to troops are certainly allowed. This post is derived from ignorance of military matters.
First, the US Postal Service did not come up with these restrictions. They are from Central Command (CENTCOM) regulations of the military postal system. They do not apply to non-APO addresses.
The military postal restrictions are derived from CENTCOM General Order 1B and subordinate unit's regulations.
Examples:
External Link
External Link
The ban on large amounts of religious materials dates from the first Gulf War, when Christian fundies were shipping large amounts of bibles and tracts in Arabic to troops in Saudi Arabia. It was decided by Gen. Schwarzkopf that U.S. troops proselytizing Saudis, Egyptians, Emiratis and Kuwaitis with Arabic bibles did not advance the military objectives of the United States.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs the wife of a soldier I can tell you that the pornography items and quantities of religious material are something that is prohibited anywhere in the military. Let's remember we have a co-ed, multi-religious Army. We are trying to build tight teams of warriors. For me, those items are not on the list for sharia reasons but for unit cohesion.
HOWEVER, pork?? Really?? That one is indefensible. If you want to send some little sausage snacks or or even pork rinds to your soldier there should be NO problem with that.
Respect for a culture/religion is one thing. Asking our UNITED STATES men and women in uniform to abide by the rules of such is ludicrous and inexcusible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is not a very good article and the title is intentionally missleading.
The cards are in the obscene section not the religious section. They mean dirty greetings cards not personal christmas cards or even boxes of christmas cards.
The large amounts of materials for prostlizing is a good thing to prohibit as it is aboslutley illegal to do that within the anti moral crud holes our soldiers find themselves these days. Doing so would damage the hearts and minds thing and give the enemy an excuse to rile up the locals.
However it doesn't matter because the agitators lie about this sort of thing anyway - so they might as well allow it.
Different countries have different rules about what is permissible to send thru the mail. I am sure in that country it is legal to do things or send things that we would not allow to be legally mailed.
If the local kids get their hands on horror comics or smut the locals would have a reason to complain about the forign presence.
Pork products. I can't believe the military authorities would impound cans of pate or spam meant for personal use. That is probably a butt protecting statement.
And If I was a soldier and a local asked me to order a canned pork product for him I should be extremely suspicious of that persons motives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse