No subject

Stephen A. Frye safrye at CONCENTRIC.NET
Thu Jun 5 11:09:09 MDT 1997

At 10:49 AM 6/5/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 08:03 AM 6/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>Does anyone wonder if General Joseph Ralston will be treated the same way
>>for his adulterous affair as Lt. Kelly Flinn was?
>>Stephen Frye
>Was it with an enlisted person or and enlisted person's family?  Did he
>tell his superiors that he was not hacing an affair?  Did his superiors
>order him to stop that affair?  Did he continue the affair after the order
>was issued?

Not relevant.  She was ordered to not do something because she was
violating the UCMJ.

So was he.

Are you saying that adultery is OK with some people, but not with others?

Are you saying that adultery is OK as long as one is not ordered to stop?

If adultery is in violation of the UCMJ, then this General knowingly
violated same.  He broke the oath he took when he was commissioned.  What
was it that was said about Lt. Flinn's violation of her oath - something
about being scum and totally untrustworthy?

He violated the UCMJ, he admits it.  When Lt. Flinn's case was prominent,
her admission of guilt was considered sufficient - isn't it the same here?

Stephen A. Frye

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list