PDA

View Full Version : Adultery and the US Millitary



pefjr
11-13-2012, 02:47 PM
This makes me chuckle, as I am sure all those that have been in the military also can see the joke. Then there are overseas assignments. When I went to Taiwan in 1965, I was only 19 and very naive, but after three days in country I saw all the higher ranked soldiers that had off base housing allowance head to town 8 miles away at the first opportunity, to set up housing with a local prostitute. Most of these guys had just left their wives back in the states. I don't remember if that was violation then, but if it was , then it was ignored. I don't recall it ever being mentioned. I also later in 66 /67 saw the same thing in Vietnam, and Thailand. In fact that is basically what an R&R is. It was a free flight to another country for 5 day trip to a whore house. That was encouraged and the plane trip payed for by the military. In Thailand, beautiful women were $11 a day or $40 for the week. There is another CF regulation that covers Civil Service Gov't employees, something like co-habitation in Gov't Housing, and that was only selectively enforced, if a supervisor didn't like you, etc.

Tom Montgomery
11-13-2012, 02:57 PM
Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

Article 134 — Adultery


Elements.
(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;

(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.


Explanation.
(1) Nature of offense. Adultery is clearly unacceptable conduct, and it reflects adversely on the service record of the military member.

(2) Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. To constitute an offense under the UCMJ, the adulterous conduct must either be directly prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. Adulterous conduct that is directly prejudicial includes conduct that has an obvious, and measurably divisive effect on unit or organization discipline, morale, or cohesion, or is clearly detrimental to the authority or stature of or respect toward a servicemember. Adultery may also be service discrediting, even though the conduct is only indirectly or remotely prejudicial to good order and discipline. Discredit means to injure the reputation of the armed forces and includes adulterous conduct that has a tendency, because of its open or notorious nature, to bring the service into disrepute, make it subject to public ridicule, or lower it in public esteem. While adulterous conduct that is private and discreet in nature may not be service discrediting by this standard, under the circumstances, it may be determined to be conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. Commanders should consider all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to the following factors, when determining whether adulterous acts are prejudicial to good order and discipline or are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces:

• (a) The accused's marital status, military rank, grade, or position; 
(b) The co-actor's marital status, military rank, grade, and position, or relationship to the armed forces; 
(c) The military status of the accused's spouse or the spouse of co-actor, or their relationship to the armed forces; 
(d) The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship on the ability of the accused, the co-actor, or the spouse of either to perform their duties in support of the armed forces; 
(e) The misuse, if any, of government time and resources to facilitate the commission of the conduct; 
(f) Whether the conduct persisted despite counseling or orders to desist; the flagrancy of the conduct, such as whether any notoriety ensued; and whether the adulterous act was accompanied by other violations of the UCMJ; 
(g) The negative impact of the conduct on the units or organizations of the accused, the co-actor or the spouse of either of them, such as a detrimental effect on unit or organization morale, teamwork, and efficiency; 
(h) Whether the accused or co-actor was legally separated; and 
(i) Whether the adulterous misconduct involves an ongoing or recent relationship or is remote in time.

(3) Marriage. A marriage exists until it is dissolved in accordance with the laws of a competent state or foreign jurisdiction.

(4) Mistake of fact. A defense of mistake of fact exists if the accused had an honest and reasonable belief either that the accused and the co-actor were both unmarried, or that they were lawfully married to each other. If this defense is raised by the evidence, then the burden of proof is upon the United States to establish that the accused's belief was unreasonable or not honest."


Lesser included offense.
Article 80—attempts


Maximum punishment.
Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

skuthorp
11-13-2012, 03:33 PM
Sort of flies in the face of reality really.

Ted Hoppe
11-13-2012, 03:51 PM
Was this settled with the don't ask, don't tell policies.

I am reminded of our sub fleet sailors (and other fleets). witnessed first hand - Blue and Gold shipmates whom shared a navy wife & family and spared themselves issues of adultery, various social disease and all enjoied privileges of additional navy housing allowances for off base family housing.

B_B
11-13-2012, 04:13 PM
...was only selectively enforced, if a supervisor didn't like you, etc.
Exactly. Or if you did something else 'wrong' and they wanted an excuse to get rid of you.

CWSmith
11-13-2012, 11:29 PM
I think we have yet to see how this plays out. Was Petrais let go for adultery, or because the head of the CIA opened himself to potential blackmail?

The Bigfella
11-13-2012, 11:45 PM
Are we discussing America or the Taliban. Pretty much the same prudery

skuthorp
11-14-2012, 04:55 AM
Having reference to another thread, is it adultery if you pay for it?

BrianW
11-14-2012, 08:20 AM
Having reference to another thread, is it adultery if you pay for it?

My understanding in that situation, is you're not really paying for sex. You're paying them to go away afterwards. ;)

Vince Brennan
11-14-2012, 09:12 AM
My understanding in that situation, is you're not really paying for sex. You're paying them to go away afterwards. ;)+++1!Y>





(Wait.... in THAT situation???)

switters
11-14-2012, 12:55 PM
WESTPAC widows were not playing bingo 24/7, just saying.

ahp
11-14-2012, 04:33 PM
It is not about adultery. It is about security risk. Pillow talk is an old method of intelligence gathering. I seem to remember reading about in the Bible. I also remember the Perfumo Affair in England back in the 60's The British Cabinet member (?) had an affair with a lady who was also having a relationship with a Soviet diplomat?

Do things ever change?

wardd
11-14-2012, 04:59 PM
it was intended to keep senior officers from boinking wives of the lower ranking and to prevent situations that would diminish unit cohesion

if you understand the military culture it is understandable why adultery is frowned upon, in the military you can't pick and chose who you associate and work with

skipper68
11-14-2012, 11:25 PM
They get in more trouble for adultery than the rape. Works for them.

BrianW
11-15-2012, 06:19 AM
it was intended to keep senior officers from boinking wives of the lower ranking and to prevent situations that would diminish unit cohesion

if you understand the military culture it is understandable why adultery is frowned upon, in the military you can't pick and chose who you associate and work with

Ah... once again, wward and I are in agreement.

John Smith
11-15-2012, 06:38 AM
I think we have yet to see how this plays out. Was Petrais let go for adultery, or because the head of the CIA opened himself to potential blackmail?

This is the part of the question that needs to be addressed. It put the FBI in an awkward position, as it hadn't found a "crime", which made the question of what they should do with this data interesting.

Our country has a very purintancial view of things sexual. Far more so than the rest of the world. This is also hypocritical. How, for example, do those who think so highly of Kennedy get so upset over Clinton and Monica?

All people are human. All are tempted. I had a conversation with a Republican yesterday who found Clinton's cigar thing more important than the balanced budget, the surplus, or the many good jobs of the Clinton years. This is what's wrong with our country, IMO: our priorities are messed up. Maybe a little sex on the side makes them better soldiers or presidents, or generals.

Maybe we should go back and rescind medals we've given to military heroes who we learned later had mistresses.

The bigger picture here is not so much what Petraus did, or that Petraus could be blackmailed, but it is another weapon for the Republicans to fire at Obama.

Just as a side thought, is it not our puritanical views of sex that add to the problems a rape victim suffers? A woman feels "guilty" for being raped, but not for being shot.

BrianW
11-15-2012, 07:12 AM
This is the part of the question that needs to be addressed.

It's been addressed ad nauseum.

pefjr
11-20-2012, 11:45 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/generals-wife-speaks-misconduct-probe-072714362.html