cbnron at ADAMS.NET
Thu Jun 5 14:52:43 MDT 1997
>>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
>Not relevant. She was ordered to not do something because she was
>violating the UCMJ.
>So was he.
Au contrair - that is the only thing that is relevant as far as what the
UCMJ should concern itself. It was a civilian he was having the affair
with (and he was also separated from his wife, which is of no consequence)
so he was not violating UCMJ and he was not ordered to stop the affair.
>Are you saying that adultery is OK with some people, but not with others?
As far as the military is concerned - yes. This is not a question of
morals; there will be no military if we start willy-nilly canning (and
caning) everyone who has had an affair or unwed sex.
>Are you saying that adultery is OK as long as one is not ordered to stop?
This should be no concern of the military justice system. It should be no
concern of any employer as long as it doesn't interfer with a person's work.
>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?
I don't believe there is anything in the military oath about not committing
adultery - that is in the marriage vows. Flynn was not in violation of the
oath on the adultery; it was lying and disobeying a direct order. Where
have you been?
>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