No subject

Robert Neil uarn at MCK-UAII.MCK.NCSU.EDU
Thu Jun 5 11:50:27 MDT 1997

On  5 Jun 97 at 10:18, it were a wrote that:

> >Such a question is only important if one asserts adultery to be the
> >only charge Kelly Flinn brought upon herself.
> No.  Adultery is either wrong or it isn't.  Her adulterous conduct
> is the alleged root of all charges brought against her.  If adultery
> is wrong, it is wrong.  If it is not wrong, then the orders for her
> to stop were invalid.  How could one be ordered to stop doing
> something that is not in violation of anything?

Just to clear things up, adultery is wrong. If straight off the bat
Kelly Flinn had been brought up on charges of adultery and given an
Article 15 or some other sort of "administrative" punishment, I would
have been able to live with that. If she had been brought before a
Court Martial, I would have agreed with the folks who thought that
she was being dealt with harshly. The problem is she chose to commit
further crimes - very serious crimes. The follow up crimes are
arguably more serious than the original violation and did warrant a
Court Martial.

> People in this group claimed that adultery is one of the most
> despicable acts an individual can commit.  Do we hold to that or
> not?

I think you are exaggerating somewhat here. Adultery is bad, Kelly
Flinn is bad for wrecking someone else's marriage, the general is bad
for committing adultery. In both cases it is conduct unbecoming an
officer. However, my recollection is that adultery was not considered
by the folks on this list to be the most serious crime in the list of
crimes (BTW I forgot to add fraternization with an enlisted man to
the list of Lt. Kelly Flinn's violations) committed by Lt. Flinn.

 > I find it fascinating that, all of a sudden, adultery isn't so bad.

Who says so?

> Let me get this straight in my mind - is adultery OK as long as one
> is not directly told to not do it?  Is something not in violation of
> the UCMJ as long as one is not directly told to not do it?

No, and no.

> Interesting perspective on law and morality.

Sounds like someone went a trollin' for an argument and jumped before
anyone bit. Re-read the question, re-read my answer and then read
the response. My response follows the question but the response to
me does not logically follow my answer.

No one said it wasn't wrong. The question was would he get the same
treatment she did? Pointing out differences in the two situations to
explain differences in their results is not condoning either

Robert Neil
Computing Consultant II
Urban Affairs - NC State University, Box 7401
Raleigh NC 27695   fax: (919) 515-3642
"A candle may light the way in the darkness, but NUCLEAR POWER
 means we can have cold beer while we watch the Superbowl." CS

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list