Politix

Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

PETRAEUS-GATE

Petraeus Scandal: the Military Can Prosecute Adulterers

But should they?

Next>

by Mary Noble

Senior Editor t

Image: AP

Gen. David Petraeus could be court-martialled for his affair with Paula Broadwell under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

So too could Gen. John Allen, commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, if he had an affair with Jill Kelley, with whom he reportedly exchanged a staggering 20,000-30,000 pages of flirtatious emails.

Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Does it make sense for the military to prosecute members for adultery?

Comments (view in Forum)

  • marine1
    !
    These folks not only are suppose to lead but maybe, even more important ,are suppose to set the standards for those they represent????
  • Fishbone345
    !
    Because betraying the vows you took to someone you supposedly love, is enlightened behavior? Ok.
    You know there is something you can do if you aren't happy right? It's called divorce.
    Military standards aren't about the Bible, they are about honor. There is nothing honorable about what he did.
    If you don't like military standards, don't join. Simple really.
  • MBernard
    !
    @Fishbone345 So having extramarital affairs means you dishonor the military? What a joke. I can understand you dishonor your wife and kids b/c this is a personal and family issue. But the only thing the military has to worry about Is competence. everything else is private matter. That's what happened when we elect these religious nuts and/or put them in power. They enacted dumb and stupid ideas as code of honor and military standards which are outdated and unparalleled to the environment it's assigned to.
  • Fishbone345
    !
    @MBernard With every picture of him in uniform, and parading with this woman? You're damn right he dishonor's the military!
    He knew the laws and he chose to break them. He spat on years of tradition, integrity and honor.
    Screw him! I hope they stick it to the bastard, but most likely they won't.
  • Fishbone345
    !
    @MBernard He did to any service member that chose to serve with integrity and honor and live by the UCMJ. Likely you wouldn't understand.
  • View all 9 replies >
  • stepped_in_it
    !
    Is adultery a federal or (any reasonable) state crime? Nope. Most states won't even allow adultery brought up in a divorce proceeding (I said most, so please don't tell me about the "crazy" laws in your state). Now, if there was a security breach....fry 'em both!
  • dances-weebles
    !
    they have said that he gave her access to his gmail account. if there is a security breach, then it's gmail which gives access to every e-mail in every account account to every advertising company in the world. why on earth would he send or receive any sensitive information through gmail, anyway?
  • CanisCanemEdit
    !
    The reason the military prosecutes adultery is beause of the propensity for security breaches.

    Pillow talk has led to thousands of deaths in WWI, WWII, Korea and 'Nam.

    Why would you want to wait until soldiers have died to prosecute?
  • stepped_in_it
    !
    @dances-weebles Maybe it was not HIM (I said maybe). Got to remember there was a him/her and a him/her thing going on here! Him's talks to her's, her and her then fight like two high schoolers, calling names and talking about female dogs. Secrets come out and voila....security breach via a 2nd party.(now, I did say maybe....right?)
  • View all 6 replies >
  • CanisCanemEdit
    !
    Not really. When those responsible for holding the highest military intel engage in stupid personal acts, they open themselves up to blackmail and threats.

    Play the "what if" game.

    What if this woman was a loyalist to the insurgent cause? Over-hearing information. Spying on troop strength stats.

    When our leaders are unable to remain loyal to their spouses, with whom they have declared allegience and with whom they have created their own children...

    ...what makes you think they will remain loyal to faceless soldiers and nameless American citizens?
  • u
    Penn1699
    !
    @CanisCanemEdit Good points. These things are very simple. You can't always have your cake and eat it too. Either you stay married and deal with it or conclude you are both better off divorced. This cheating stuff is ridiculous.
  • DogLady_1
    !
    When someone joins the military, they take an oath to abide by the code of conduct. When a 4 star general no longer honors the code, it creates disorder and contempt for the code.

    It is not illegal to committ adultery, but it is grounds for divorce because it is a breach of contract. If you want to sleep with your co-workers and disgrace your spouse, then quit your job.

    It's just like any other ethics agreement an employee might sign with an employer. If you cannot abide by the agreement, you need to leave.
  • dances-weebles
    !
    when one is in the business of killing others it's difficult to understand why who you're shagging is all that important.

    breach of contract? you're kidding, right?

    not only that, but if a spouse decides to be 'disgraced' by something like this, then it's their problem. noone else's. it's not all that important an issue.
  • DogLady_1
    !
    @nola2houston -Thanks for the clarification and the strengthening of the point I was trying to make.
    When I hear the word "illegal" I think about the laws of the land... I have never thought about military code as "law"... In other words, the military can punish him for adultery, but the People of the United States cannot... you must be a serviceperson.
  • u
    Realthinker
    !
    Adultery could make one a target of blackmail to obtain military secrets, or troop movements, etc. in war time. The ban on homosexuals in the military was for the same reason. It is never "just sex" as so many put it. During war, giving in to blackmail could endanger thousands of lives. There are some who believe that Petraeus was threatened with the revealation of the affair to get testimony favorable to the president during his first appearance at the Congressional hearings
  • MRMacrum
    !
    "There are some who believe that Petraeus was threatened with the revealation of the affair to get testimony favorable to the president during his first appearance at the Congressional hearings"

    ......... And there are more who think he did it because it was the right thing to do.
  • MRMacrum
    !
    @Realthinker - Do you think he will tell the truth? Or do you think that if he does not say he was pressured, he must be lying?
  • u
    Realthinker
    !
    @MRMacrum I think it depends on whatever else the Obama regime may have threatened him with. I see in this morning's news that Holly Petraeus has been given a $187,000 per year job with the new commission that overseas Obamacare. Since she is of retirement age, or darn close, I'd call it a bribe. Seems to me if there is anything left of their marriage they would want to retire and disappear from public life. The first time Petraeus testified he stated the then official line, it was that stupid movie trailer that had been viewed by a whooping 17 people before Benghazi happened. Now we know it most assuredly was not the video. So what was it really, and what's more, what did Obama know and when did he know it? Just what "orders" did he really give that led to the CIA operatives in Libya being told to "stand down" and why? There is a massive cover up going on here and this is not about sex and a movie.
  • View all 8 replies >
  • u
    Chromalord
    !
    I find it ironic that the same entity that can prosecute adulterers is the same one that is an instrument of war/death. Furthermore, who are they or anyone else to mandate the rules of marriage. The government doesn't. It is not morally or legally impetus on two married or engaged people to be in love with each other. How could love be proven? If you cant prove love, how can your prosecute cheating? Marriage existed long before religion. It was created for asset management. In the eyes of the law, it is still that way today.
  • nola2houston
    !
    Soldiers in the armed forces are not citizens. They are property of the Federal Government. There is a higher standard set to ensure quality of life and order in this society within our society.
  • u
    Chromalord
    !
    @nola2houston
    Soldiers are not property. They are employees of the federal government, and only can face prosecution BY the military JAG WHEN they are on active duty. And this only applies to reserve and active duty military, as Guard is state governed. I did get a chuckle from your " higher standard" assertion though....
  • nola2houston
    !
    @Chromalord Please explain a soldiers sunburn being being considered destruction of government property? Soldiers are not "employees". They are soldiers.
  • View all 7 replies >
  • bsking
    !
    another BS story.If this affair took place when he was a general then everyone from Obama all way down knew about it before they made him CIA chief.
    if it took place after he retired from the military they cant court martial him. this is how a corrupted administration threatens Witnesses.

    the lap dog of the left, the corrupt government media is taking orders directly from the White House now on what they will say and what they will write. Ben Ghazi is not about the president the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense, sacrificing a handful of Americans to protect the president.... now it's about a general being led by his privates.

    any person with a slightest amount of integrity admits the stories that have been released for publication in the last week by the government media have mostly been stories they have been sitting on since weeks before the election took place. stories about major layoffs. stories about did ministration taking another 350,000,000,000 dollars out of Medicare and pushing into Obamacare. and of course the silence of Ben Ghazi .

    the people who are fundamentally transforming this country are doing what they always do in a revolution.. coop in business , the media and finally the military.
    this case is a warning shot fired over the bow of everyone else. shame on the people who voted this crowd of revolutionaries into office.

    I think of the Morons in the streets as part of Occupy... who thought they were merely throwing a collective temper tantrum in order to get someone else to pay there student loans. they have no idea who these people are, and that's why those who they supported consider them useful idiots.

  •
    MRMacrum
    !
    The Military culture is different then the civilian culture. Applying the civilian mindset to matters military is wrong. The military code is set up specifically to ensure smooth chain of command and consistent behavior from the troops. This code was not created capriously or without good reason. Yes, their rules often do not make sense, even to the grunts. But they are expected to adhere to them. Adultery is one of those human activities that can get out of hand and cause serious disruption in the chain of command. the rule is there because it should be.
  • mimi57
    !
    That's a lot of emails! For every star he loses, he also loses 30,000 dollars from his pension. He makes 260,000
    a year and would get 220,000 a yr. retirement, so he'll probably walk away with 30-60 thousand less. I'm sure he'll
    be able to live off that.
  • mimi57
    !
    @MRMacrum No, from what I've read he will still lose one star, and it will cost him, even though he's retired as a
    General, he was still in the military. I'm not 100% sure though...
  • MRMacrum
    !
    @mimi57 - Okay. Maybe I am wrong. We'll see. Regardless, you are right. He should be able to live on a pension based on 3 stars and not four.
  • MRMacrum
    !
    @mimi57 - No big deal one way or the other. I mean in the scheme of all the other stuff surrounding the General that is.
  • View all 7 replies >
  • u
    CommonSense
    !
    Adultery should be allowed for them only with permission from their spouse.
    That would prevent the situation from compromising security, because if your spouse already knows about it then there's no risk of being blackmailed over it.
  • u
    KyleMFb
    !
    No...I highly doubt he will be prosecuted he has sacrificed so much for this contry and must not be forgotten bc he had sex with someone that's not his wife who cares anyway and if republicans push prosecution it will be a sad shame full day in America after all republicans would need to take a deep hard look at then selfs bc their the party of "family values" but yet theyuse hookers and strippers more than democrats also get divorced more than democrates and I'm going to add they get caught touching little boys more than democrates
  • Fishbone345
    !
    If you don't like what's in the UCMJ, don't join. It's that simple. The military has standards because individuality gets people killed. You are part of something bigger than yourself.
  • MarkJM
    !
    Adultery falls under the General Article of the UCMJ. Hasn't changed for years. Prosecution may be a bit much, but for those in sensitive positions, that clearance should be revoked. People are placed in a position of trust, yes cheating on your wife does call into question that trust and makes people think if you are still trustworthy to hold a sensitive position. Gen. Patraeus made the right decision to resign because of his affair. He's not a bad guy, heck he has probably done more in one day than many Americans have done during their lifetime.
  • Quantummist
    !
    It's not Only the moral issue with military personal that is why adultery is an issue, it that they many have access to security documentation and weapons systems... Adultery can lead to blackmail and compromise the soldier. When you get into a position of authority over those that have to follow orders the moral issue does play a part because if a XO is found out it can effect the moral of those he leads into danger. And the higher the rank the greater access in general to secret information that can compromise nation security....
  • u
    ctc
    !
    As a member of the reserves....why is there no talk of prosecuting Paula Broadwell for the same violation of military conduct......adultery??
    Who'd to say she is not an agent for a foreign country put in place to shape or influence the actions of the General at a later date??
    Is Eric Cantor her handler??
  • R Load more comments...