It would be creepy if they were doing it solely to see x-rays of naked women.

"The fact that a woman in hijab can conceal so much is a matter of real concern to security officials, especially lately, as the number of attacks by female suicide bombers in Iraq has grown."

"...parliamentary authorities have recently opened a separate gate for women."

creepy, sure, but considering that this is a country where people, including women, use their bodies as weapons to blow other people up, I have a hard time getting riled up about this.

Another unfortunate example of when soldiers are given culturally insensitive orders which only helps to breed the problems we are facing in Iraq. Not to mention the women of Iraq have no guaruntee these images are secure. It IS creepy and the idea that some Col or Gen thought this up explains exactly why so much gets bungled up in Iraq. Its time for soldiers to stop accepting these type of orders that only put THEM in danger, not the person who thought it up.

If American soldier were not there they would not have to worry about being blown up by women or anyone else, so these type of demeaning measures are not acceptable.

Cultural insensitivity is benign if it saves lives.

I would be upset if this was happening in any other country besides Iraq.

Actually, it this could have come about as a response of concerns for cultural restrictions, not in ignorance to them. Male security officers are culturally forbidden to frisk females, and females are culturally "discouraged" (all but forbidden) to become police, etc. This is less of a concern in US military run security (where it seems these x-rays are being used), since around 10,000 of the soldiers deployed are female, but the same cannot be said for places where the US have mostly turned over security to the Iraqi Army and police, which have very few females.

Given that there are nearly 300,000 troops in Iraq, it isn't that consoling that there are 10,000 women among them. Three percent isn't exactly a great chance to have a female looking at an image of your naked body.

It's pointless to make a fuss about this. Seriously, would you choose between soldiers looking at your x-ray picture or them groping you? They're taking x-rays because it's a cultural taboo for men to touch women, who has been used as suicide bombers in Iraq at an increasing rate.

Actually they're planning to use these in the US at airports.

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2008/07/01/logan_will_install_body_scanners/

I'm not sure I see the problem - that's not to say there isn't one.

Did Jaberi suggest something she would prefer? Perhaps that a female soldier review the x-rays? Remote viewing? I'd like to know what her specific concerns are.

The ones used in airports have privacy limitations though.

The persons face is blurred, the viewer is an a separate room, and the images are not stored.

Actually, the US military makes every effort to respect cultural boundaries. At security checkpoints, females search females. If there are females personnel available, of course.

Personally, I don't like those machines, but if women aren't available to pat them down, would they rather use the machines or have a man pat them down? With suicide bombers being such a common threat, it would be stupid to allow anyone in a government building unchecked.

After reading the entire article, I don't see the issue here.

Everyone has to pass through many checkpoints. Women are checked by women. When the issue of the scans was brought up the first time, accommodations were made for privacy. After the incident with Jaberi and the new-to-post guard, they were upheld.

I can't see a reason to get really bothered over this given that cultural issues are NOT being ignored and they weren't singling out women to begin with.

The machines themselves - creepy on a few levels but it's hardly unexpected that security scanning is going to get more and more sophisticated and sensitive.

This is riduculous. It's not like the X-Ray specs advertised in the back of silly magazines.

You can't just see through the clothes and get an ooh-la-la picture of a naked lady.

The technology simply doesn't do that.

You see blurry faint blobs and (hopefully not) bright outlines of bombs. In fact, you see through the person more than you see the person.

This is just knee-jerk reaction by people afraid of technology. Instead of catering to their uninformed yelling, they should be taught how it works and what it does and does not show.

I also read the whole article and I think it is culturally insensitive. Remember, women in that culture have been harassed or worse when they are not covered up. In addition, Iraqi women have been raped and murdered by US soldiers. If there aren't military women available to screen (and IBTP that we don't have more women in the military), then it's not culturally sensitive, and law-abiding Iraqi women who have to jump through these hoops should at least be able to feel safe when they do so.

I'm really surprised by the response here. Especially this one: "I would be upset if this was happening in any other country besides Iraq."

Oh yeah, I forgot that Iraqi women don't count as women...

I have a BIG problem with stuff like this. It's such a gray area and such an easy thing to abuse that I have trouble trusting a great deal of so-called "security measures". Anyone remember a few months ago where an English woman was forced to remove her nipple rings before boarding an airplane? Man, we were sure pissed about that, weren't we?

If they started putting these in US airports, I wouldn't go through. They'd have to fucking arrest me. (Good thing I'm too poor to travel anywhere that needs an airplane.) Sorry, I'm not willing to be violated so someone else can feel safe. Not be safe, mind you. Just feel like they are. It's like the late, great, George Carlin said , "We're always willing to trade away a few of our civil rights for the illusion of security. And that's all it is, an illusion..." I guess the only difference is that this woman doesn't even have those rights to begin with.

And just like flyinfur said, Iraqi women have tons of reasons not to trust male US soldiers (hell, female US soldiers have reasons not to trust male soldiers). In fact, the entire country has no reason to trust anything we do, ever.

And if the scanner was sooooo necessary to ensure safety, why did it only take one woman, protesting for half a day to get rid of them? Highly suspect...

I don't really understand what some of these comments are responding to, because wasn't the guards' insistence that Jaberi pass through the scanner an isolated incident? Didn't they later withdraw the requirement? Personally, I can understand the need for a systemic requirement that the women pass through such scanners -- but from the sound of the article, the military currently doesn't even require that, with the exception of the incident Jaberi protested.

For the record, these scanners are currently in use in the United States at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, and are reportedly coming soon to JFK and Lax airports as well.

I have to say I agree with Danyell and I'm appalled that so many of you are okay with this just because it's Iraq.

The scans are also pretty darn invasive from what I've seen. I'd much rather be patted down by another woman than have someone else look at detailed contours of my breasts, buttocks, genitals and every fold of fat around my midsection. In the scan I've seen of a man you can see the size of his testicles. And if you want to see exactly what one of these "blurred" scans looks like, just do a Google image search of Susan Hallowell. The scans look like you, just naked, hairless, and blue.

You can look to the Feministe article to see a picture of the scan.
It is pretty invasive. I personally wouldn't care, but I can see why people would.

The easy solution, IF there are enough female soldiers, is to have only females look at the image.
That could be done even remotely, a priori. Of course, you would need them to trust you, and if I were an iraqi I am not sure I would trust americans soldiers.

I still haven't forgotten the family that was killed so that a patrol could rape and then kill their 14 year old daughter. BTW, have the relevant american soldiers been punished? The US have a very long story of protecting their soldiers against being processed in and by the country where they committed their crimes - even when it is clear that they are guilty.

"This is acceptable, but only in Iraq" is complete and total bullshit. As in, "our soldiers' safety is more worth than the dignity of these women". Of course none of these women asked for the US to invade, and for many of them the post-Saddam condition is actually worse.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the notion of an Iraqi exception for this technology comes from the commenter's perception that the security situation in Iraq is far more precarious than it is in most other countries, not from the notion that Iraqi women are worth less than those in other countries. Iraq is still in the middle of a civil war (albiet one that seems to have been temporarily tamped down) in which suicide bombings are frequent weapons. The balance between personal privacy and public security in that kind of environment is different than it is in a country at (relative) peace. Government installations in Iraq are targets. It makes perfect sense that they wouldn't let someone inside without ensuring that they aren't carrying a bomb. As some have asked, would highly invasive pat-downs be better? Can people think of a way of checking for bombs and weapons that ISN'T at least somewhat invasive of people's privacy? We're talking about a war zone here. In that context, these machines strike me as being entriely reasonable.

Honestly, I'd rather be pat down. I don't know why that is exactly, but the idea of someone looking at a picture of me where I am effectively naked is more upsetting to me than the minute I endure someone patting me.

"Of course none of these women asked for the US to invade, and for many of them the post-Saddam condition is actually worse."

Exactly, prosacia.

And to those who ask for an alternative way to make sure US soldiers stay safe...sending them home comes to mind...

"Sorry, I'm not willing to be violated so someone else can feel safe."

I dont think you are understanding the seriousness of the situation. Suicide bombs occur daily, tens of thousands have been killed. Many civilians die in suicide attacks, not just "the evil man soldiers".

This does not happen in other countries.

You should be able to opt-out of the scan, but regardless, you should be searched.

Danyell, I too was surprised by what I would describe as a somewhat callous response towards the women of Iraq. Just because the U.S. is on a campaign to dehumanize the people of the country they want to bomb (Vietnam, anyone?), doesn't mean we need to give into it.

And no, I am not saying suicide bombings don't happen. But I also notice that no one that brought up the idea of suicide bombings discussing WHY they might be happening. No amount of "security" can make Iraqis or our military safe in Iraq, when the overwhelming number of people in Iraq want the U.S. out. And yes, bringing the troops home does seem like the best way to end suicide bombings.

Obviously security is a concern, but no one has suggested that people should be able to pass through check-points un-searched.

All that's being said is that it was unacceptable for the U.S. Military to make being photographed naked by a male soldier a requirement for these women to go to work in the morning.

And obviously the Military realized this, because when the women protested, suddenly female staff became available again.

Qwerty, I do understand the situation. But my response remains unchanged. I don't have a problem with security checks per say, but I have a big problem with what can be so easily abusive. I don't think this woman was being at all unreasonable. And I don't know who you presumed I was calling "evil", but I didn't use that word once. I actually think it's a rather childish concept, myself. My comments about female soldiers not always being able to trust male soldiers is just given the fact that there's such a high-risk of female US soldiers who are raped by OTHER US soldiers (like, WTF??). And I think it's pretty clear why Iraqis wouldn't trust Americans. I mean, what if it were the other way around? What if some country decided that Bush was an evil dictator who needed to be forcibly removed and replaced with a "democracy" that was chosen for us? (Bear in mind, I'm not comparing Bush to Hussein.) Do you think violence within the US would increase or decrease? Do you think some citizens would resort to acts of "terrorism" against the invasion? Would you be willing to go through whatever security measures the invading country deemed necessary?

I do understand the situation. War is fucking serious. But I think eroding the rights of the individual is made conveniently excusable during wartime. These rights usually don't get returned after the fact- the violations become commonplace and people just get used to it. They forget that there was a time when this sort of thing didn't happen.

And I'm confused what you mean by "This does not happen in other countries." Do you mean that "terrorism" doesn't happen in other countries? Do you mean war doesn't happen in other countries...? I really don't know what your point is. It seems, though, that's there's an assumption that the US is actually improving safety in Iraq, when in truth we've made conditions worse and that most of the violence you're concerned about is in direct reaction to US occupation. I'm not saying that's justified. I'm saying that I don't understand why we think we can dig ourselves out of the hole we've gotten ourselves into.

What about the women (civilian and military alike) who may be killed by suicide bombers? Does their right to be physically safe take a backseat to another's right to not be peeped at via an indistinct, anonymous image? (Personally, I would cartwheel stark naked down down the O'Hare concourse if it would keep my ass from getting blown up.) I believe that ALL of the people in that area deserve to be protected, and the more options available to security the better. Metal detectors? Great. Bomb sniffing dogs? Fabulous. Pat downs and strip searches? Not so hot, but an option given proper personnel and facilities. Image scanning? Possibly objectionable to people who cover every inch of visible female flesh, but certainly less intrusive than a cavity search.....

I personally wish this technology was available to me when I was in Iraq. The technique for checking females was either to take the slack out of their clothes; ie grasping the shirt sleeves to look for bulges that could indicate threats, or using the back of your hand to pat down a traveler. Jaberi works at a parliamentary building; aka a high value target in the insurgency that underlies the sectarian violence in Iraq. Jaberi might want to note that absent these measures she could be dead. Then she would complain that the US didn’t do enough to keep her safe. My problem is that from the article I get the impression that only females are being checked. If I were on duty I would be checking everybody, not just the ladies. If you have been the direct target of un-uniformed, guerilla civil war, you would probably tend to agree.