Adultery and the USAF
GaiMarDon
Its sure not your father's Air Force. Its not even mine, but what
the hell do I know. Retired in 1975; AB to SSgt, 2nd Lt to Capt, and
never aware of adultery in the ranks? Give me a break! I had a Squadron
Commander who married an A/1c who had been his family's babysitter. No
Court Martial, got promotion and honorable retirement.
The JAG who told Ed Bradley of Sixty Minutes that He could not
personaly recall (or know) any adulterers in the USAF, must be deaf and
blind, or else he is a L---- sack of S---. SIR.
I'm sure the AF will exact its pound of flesh because it obviouly has
an axe to grind with the Lt. I also know that they have had one or two
adultery Courts at Scott AFB in the past few years.
If I was single and had the eye for a gal who said she was
single ( a lie) I guess I'd have got a Court too.
I guess you can get RAPED in a court room. Come on Air Force drop the
charges and give the Lt an administrative discharge.
DONNELL MILLER
Captain, USAF Ret
Never could keep my mouth shut over injustice
Don Hatten
GaiMarDon wrote:
>
> Its sure not your father's Air Force. Its not even mine, but what
> the hell do I know. Retired in 1975; AB to SSgt, 2nd Lt to Capt, and
> never aware of adultery in the ranks? Give me a break! I had a Squadron
> Commander who married an A/1c who had been his family's babysitter.
> Captain, USAF Ret
> Never could keep my mouth shut over injustice
Unless it is your squadron commander who married an A/1c who had been
his family's babysitter. Hard to turn someone in who writes your
EPR/OPR isn't it?
--
*****************************************
Don Hatten hat...@syix.com
1170 Kenny Dr #1 AMA #SOARDOG
Yuba City, Ca 95991 USHGA #17442
KE6TJG
Proponent of rec.models.rc.gliders
*****************************************
JWS
GaiMarDon wrote:
>
> Its sure not your father's Air Force. Its not even mine, but what
> the hell do I know. Retired in 1975; AB to SSgt, 2nd Lt to Capt, and
> never aware of adultery in the ranks? Give me a break! I had a Squadron
> Court Martial, got promotion and honorable retirement.
> The JAG who told Ed Bradley of Sixty Minutes that He could not
> personaly recall (or know) any adulterers in the USAF, must be deaf and
> blind, or else he is a L---- sack of S---. SIR.
> I'm sure the AF will exact its pound of flesh because it obviouly has
> an axe to grind with the Lt. I also know that they have had one or two
> adultery Courts at Scott AFB in the past few years.
> If I was single and had the eye for a gal who said she was
> single ( a lie) I guess I'd have got a Court too.
> I guess you can get RAPED in a court room. Come on Air Force drop the
> charges and give the Lt an administrative discharge.
>
> Captain, USAF Ret
> Never could keep my mouth shut over injustice
They want her 'OUT' for some reason! This case stinks! Sounds like the
charges are trumped up. It is sad to see this happen.
JWS
John Weiss
On 5/11/97 7:20PM, in message <33767E...@ibm.net>, JWS <ji...@ibm.net>
wrote:
They want her 'OUT' for some reason! This case stinks! Sounds like the
charges are trumped up. It is sad to see this happen.
JWS
The "some reason" appears to be that she's not trustworthy...
From the reports I've read:
She had an affair with a married guy.
She went to her CO for advice. He told her to stop seeing the guy.
Somebody who knew she was having an affair, and who was in trouble for
similar misdeeds, told some AF investigators about her affair (pure "sour
grapes").
She went to a lawyer for advice. The lawyer told her to stop seeing the
guy.
Her CO wrote an official order telling her to stop seeing the guy.
Rather than stop seeing the guy, she conspired with him to lie to
investigators about their affair. She in fact lied; he decided to admit the
affair.
The guy turns out to be a wife abuser, and beats feet as soon as possible.
IMO, she is likely guilty of conspiracy to lie to an investigation, adultery,
and failure to comply with a lawful order. Of the 3, the last MIGHT be thrown
out (though, since the order was to cease an affair that was in clear violation
of the UCMJ, was probably a lawful order). Of the 3, the first has no
foreseeable defense, and alone should get her thrown out (officer's equivalent
of a DD).
She had several opportunities to quit the affair and allow the powers that be
to sweep it under the table. In each case, she went against any advice/orders,
and exacerbated the situation.
BTW, I once sat on a Court Martial board that convicted and sentenced a Navy
Petty Officer for adultery -- this isn't "targeted against women."
--
John Weiss
LCDR, USN (Retired)
Seattle, WA
JWS
I understand some of your comments.
All I have seen is the 60 minutes report. My experience of being in the
Air Force years back is that when the powers decided to go after someone
for any type of morals charges, the reason is not morals. If the
Military wanted to really keep the service 'clean' then there would be
more prisons that military bases.
These base where I was stationed was about 6000 males and approx. 100
females (military). It was like a soap opera the 3 years I was there.
There were 3 Air Force members shot when caught with another members
wife. I never heard of anyone being brought to a court for adultery.
Since we were in the desert every male I knew was trying to date any
female.
If you examine the order given by the Lts. commander, you would see that
it was an order given that could not be disobeyed since the Lt was
living with the guy (non-military) and she could not see, talk, or
communicate with him through a third party. This had to be a setup so
that a conviction was assured. The military is now on a witch hunt and
who ever gets in the way will pay.
JWS
wa...@terps.com
In article <3376A5...@ibm.net>,
> If you examine the order given by the Lts. commander, you would see that
> it was an order given that could not be disobeyed since the Lt was
> living with the guy (non-military) and she could not see, talk, or
> communicate with him through a third party. This had to be a setup so
> that a conviction was assured. The military is now on a witch hunt and
> who ever gets in the way will pay.
The Lt. admitted on 60 Minutes that she lied during an investigation.
That alone is why her career is over.
She is an Academy graduate. Obviously, she failed greatly to live up
to the obligations of a regular commission.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
John Weiss
On 5/11/97 10:05PM, in message <3376A5...@ibm.net>, JWS <ji...@ibm.net>
wrote:
> She had several opportunities to quit the affair and allow the powers
that be to sweep it under the table. In each case, she went against any
advice/orders, and exacerbated the situation.
If you examine the order given by the Lts. commander, you would see that
it was an order given that could not be disobeyed since the Lt was
living with the guy (non-military) and she could not see, talk, or
communicate with him through a third party. This had to be a setup so
that a conviction was assured. The military is now on a witch hunt and
who ever gets in the way will pay.
All she had to do was kick him out of her house (or move out of his).
I think my last statement (retained above) may be the key. I fully suspect
that if she had broken off the relationship immediately after ANY of the 3
opportunities (2 counseling sessions, 1 written order), the AF would have quit
"persecuting" her.
The "witch hunt" was spawned by 2 major incidents:
1) Some guy ratted on her, likely to cover his own ass or specifically to
bring somebody down with him. An investigator cannot ignore such a report.
2) She lied to an investigator. Any hope of sweeping the affair under a
rug went away permanently.
--
John Weiss
Seattle, WA
J.D. Baldwin
In article <33765D...@worldnet.att.net>, GaiMarDon
<donnel...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> The JAG who told Ed Bradley of Sixty Minutes that He could not
>personaly recall (or know) any adulterers in the USAF, must be deaf
>and blind, or else he is a L---- sack of S---. SIR.
Maybe. Maybe not. I served 16.5 years in the Navy (presumably a more
adulterous service than USAF because of the unique, um, "travel"
requirements) and never personally knew of one. A few through double
and triple hearsay, maybe, but one might reasonably expect a JAG
officer to make such a distinction. His weasely refusal to answer the
direct question posed by Bradley (Bradley had to ask three or four
times) doesn't inspire much confidence, I admit.
> I'm sure the AF will exact its pound of flesh because it obviouly
>has an axe to grind with the Lt.
That doesn't follow from the facts on the table. "60 Minutes" isn't
exactly real great at digging out details of a story that contradict
the impression they intend to leave you with, but here's a scenario
that's perfectly consistent with the facts they presented:
LT Flinn gets herself "involved," as the euphemism goes, with
the husband of an enlisted woman in her squadron. This comes
to the attention of the authorities, and her superiors decide
that this is "prejudicial to good order and discipline," as
that other saying goes.
So they tell her to knock it the hell off. She blows them off
to the point where they feel it is necessary to give her a
formal, direct order, in writing, to stay away from this guy.
She agrees to do so, and then directly disobeys the order
(this is not in question, by her own admission, though she did
offer the single lamest excuse I've ever heard out of the mouth
of a "60 Minutes" interviewee).
When her refusal to cease and desist with this relationship
comes to light, an Article 32 investigation ensues, in which
she LIES (again, not in question) to investigators about
material facts. When this is uncovered, the command decides
that enough is enough and convenes a general court.
This scenario makes a hell of a lot more sense than the "60 Minutes"
theory that the USAF is engaging in vicious retribution for her
success as the first female B-52 pilot. (This, after having gone to
extraordinary lengths to promote her as a "poster child" for women in
the military.) I laughed out loud at the "proof" Ed Bradley offered
of her extraordinary piloting skills--an excerpt from her officer
fitness report! If you believed everything written in *my* fitness
reports, I'd be typing this from atop Mt. Sinai, and you'd all be
carving it into stone tablets! It is to laugh.
In the interview, Bradley did at least bring up the disobedience and
lies, so they might be disposed of, but he uncritically accepted her
tearful, pathetically inadequate "explanations" of same: "I was 25,"
"I was in *love*!" and "I was confused" just don't cut it for an
officer of the U.S. military (or, in the case of the USAF, the U.S.
paramilitary).
Does she deserve to go to prison? Probably not, but then I doubt that
she will. Does she deserve a dismissal from the Air Force and a felony
conviction that will prevent her from profiting from the phenomenally
expensive training she received from the taxpayers? Hell, yes.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
J.D. Baldwin
In article <3376A5...@ibm.net>, JWS <ji...@ibm.net> wrote:
>All I have seen is the 60 minutes report. My experience of being in
>the Air Force years back is that when the powers decided to go after
>someone for any type of morals charges, the reason is not morals. If
>the Military wanted to really keep the service 'clean' then there
>would be more prisons that military bases.
That's not really the basic motivation. Whether your private life is
"clean" or not isn't really of particular concern to your superiors
(who generally have more important things to worry about) AS LONG AS
YOU KEEP IT PRIVATE.
Once you fail to be discreet, you risk bringing discredit on your
service and your unit in the eyes of the public, and in causing a
breakdown of "good order and discipline" within the unit itself.
Sounds to me like the Air Force went to some lengths to sweep the
whole ugly matter under the rug, but LT Flinn just got stupider and
stupider until she'd stupid-ed herself into a richly deserved general
court.
>If you examine the order given by the Lts. commander, you would see
>that it was an order given that could not be disobeyed since the Lt
>was living with the guy (non-military) and she could not see, talk, or
>communicate with him through a third party.
You *bought* that excuse? Oh, please. When Ed Bradley is
interviewing some corporate sleazebag or government wrong-doer, he's a
regular pit bull, but it was so blatantly obvious that this wasn't the
whole story that the man should be drummed out of the journalistic
profession (even as low as its general standards have sunk) for
failing to ask follow-up questions that would be obvious to any
moderately bright eighth-grader.
When the trial is over, and the facts of the incident are a matter of
public record, and the prohibition against public comments by the
military is lifted, does anyone think "60 Minutes" will do a follow-
up story? Sure would be interesting, but I'm not holding my breath.
>This had to be a setup so that a conviction was assured. The military
>is now on a witch hunt and who ever gets in the way will pay.
I'm not going to categorically deny the "witch hunt" thesis--there
have been a few rather bizarre cases out there, and the "Tailhook"
investigation came right out of the Stalin Show Trial Playbook. But
LT Flinn has no one to blame but herself for her fate; she was given
more than one opportunity to knock the whole thing the hell off, and
chose to ignore them. If this is a witch hunt, it sounds to me like
they found an actual witch.
Norman Filer
Since it is "our money" that is paying for this fiasco, let me ask a
simple question. What value do we get if they court martial the Lt.?
I am still looking for the "victim" of this crime. So far it looks to
me like a self inflicted wound. She is the one being hurt. Let her
resign from the service and be done with it.
On the other hand, maybe that is not an option for her.
--
Norm Filer
"Sadly, it seems, man does not live by reason alone.
All too often we live by drippy intuition and foggy
reasoning with no sound basis in fact."
"You have to be on your guard to keep the two from
gaining the upper hand". -- Clive Cussler
BlackBeard
In article <baldwinE...@netcom.com>, bal...@netcom.com (J.D.
Baldwin) wrote:
I agree with you to a degree JD, but in a different way. She is guilty
of lying to the investigative team and disobeying a direct order. That's
then what she should be charged with. The adultry rap is crap. Nail her
for what she did, not for the current morals witch-hunt in the services.
Minor nit. It was Morley Safer that did the interview. Ed Bradley did
the piece on the nuns in Ireland.
BlackBeard
-. .- -..- --.-
De Profundis
Submarines once, Submarines twice...
J.D. Baldwin
In article <this-1205971134180001@edward_teach.chinalake.navy.mil>,
BlackBeard <th...@reader.makes.me.doThis> wrote:
> I agree with you to a degree JD, but in a different way. She is
>guilty of lying to the investigative team and disobeying a direct
>order. That's then what she should be charged with. The adultry rap
>is crap. Nail her for what she did, not for the current morals
>witch-hunt in the services.
Well, the adultery *is*, after all, part of "what she did." I'm not
particularly fond of this provision of the law (or the sodomy article,
where the definition of sodomy is pretty darn strict), but if it's
on the books, then there it is.
The point is not whether it's "fair" that adultery is illegal in the
military--I'll leave that moral judgment to someone with actual
morals. The point, rather, is that the evidence doesn't for a second
support the notion that she was somehow singled out for persecution
for sexist or other personal reasons. She was an idiot, and she
carried her idiocy to bizarre extremes, violating several major
provisions of the law along the way. And even the adultery itself,
seeing as the object thereof was the husband of an enlisted woman in
her own unit, was "conduct unbecoming," no matter how you slice it
(whether or not they were "legally separated," as she supposedly
believed).
>Minor nit. It was Morley Safer that did the interview. Ed Bradley
>did the piece on the nuns in Ireland.
Right. I plead entrapment; the original poster referred to EB, and I
just picked up on it. (Man, those nuns were pretty horrible, huh?)
Erik Shilling
In <33765D...@worldnet.att.net> GaiMarDon
<donnel...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
YOu sign:
>DONNELL MILLER
>Captain, USAF Ret
>Never could keep my mouth shut over injustice
If you can't keep you mouth shut why in hell didn't you report it
Erik Shilling
Don Hatten
JWS wrote:
> This had to be a setup so that a conviction was assured. The military > is now on a witch hunt and who ever gets in the way will pay.
>
So now the military is out there posing as a pimp...how else does one
get set up with sex? There was no free choice on the part of the LT?
Especially when 3 different people told her (ordered her) to end the
relationship or risk her career.
BlackBeard
> military--I'll leave that moral judgment to someone with actual
> morals. The point, rather, is that the evidence doesn't for a second
> support the notion that she was somehow singled out for persecution
> for sexist or other personal reasons. She was an idiot, and she
> carried her idiocy to bizarre extremes, violating several major
> provisions of the law along the way. And even the adultery itself,
> seeing as the object thereof was the husband of an enlisted woman in
> her own unit, was "conduct unbecoming," no matter how you slice it
> (whether or not they were "legally separated," as she supposedly
> believed).
Hell JD, I am amazed at how much I respect your opinion even though I
can't remember the last time I agreed with you. ;)
I've seen senior officers and enlisted screwing other (O's and E's)
wives often enough in the last 19 years, where neither side had filed for
divorce, they were just 'seperated'. Often enough they were remaining
married to save on BAQ/BOQ etc. This civilian guy was a piece of crap and
he admitted he lied to her and told her he was sep. and had already filed
for the divorce. In any other section of society the adultry charge would
be laughed out of court. So we hold the Mil to a higher standard than the
rest of the US? Fine, ok, then they better damn well do it across the
board and hold every male officer up to the same standard. Now does that
include the guys that are married and hit Tompopo's in Yokosuka on
liberty? The Navy will have more sailors in the brig than in the fleet.
I am certain you know a few that weren't exactly straight arrow back when
the PI was adult disneyland.
Now, if instead, the services look the other way because the articles of
the UCMJ may be a bit outdated, or vague concerning they were written back
when Master Chief Nichols was an E1 and times have changed just a bit
since then including minor changes like electricity and manned flight,
then they need to apply it regardless of gender.
Like I said, nail her for lying and disobedience, but the adultry crap
is just so hypocritical it would be laughable if there wasn't a previously
outstanding career on the line.
And in that light, remember the discussion about how in the old days
officers could survive a court martial and still have a successful career
(eg. Nimitz). I'd bet my weeks supply of stickybuns if she made it
through this crap she'd never make the same mistake again (lying etc.).
And would probably be a lot more thoughtful about decisions for the rest
of her career. They are throwing away a huge investment in someone they
already professed to be an outstanding officer with great potential.
>
> Right. I plead entrapment; the original poster referred to EB, and I
> just picked up on it. (Man, those nuns were pretty horrible, huh?)
So scarey it reads like a horror novel, and I believed it all due to some
many friends who were schooled by the nuns. Tragically criminal and the
Church will hide it just as they do the pederasts.
griz
As to the issue of the Air Force not prosecuting cases of adultery, the
New York Times article (Sun, 5/11/97) indicated that Air Force
prosecutions have more than quadrupled in the last 10 years from 16 in
1987 to 67 in 1996. I guess times are changing.
This article was slanted to the big, bad Air Force picking on the poor
woman point of view which I assume 60 minutes did also (I have long
since stopped watching the show). Wouldn't it be nice if we had a news
media that tried to find out the truth.
If I was her commanding officer I sure would not want to be the one that
shot down the poster child for female aviators given todays feminist
movement. I mean he had to know that he was going to be criticized by an
endless number of people. He must of considered what effect this would
have on his career. He must of tried to keep this thing quiet (hence
the order not to see the guy again). He must of checked with every
higher up and legal type that he could think of before taking this
action. This was a last resort type of action. The media talks of the
*poor woman*. I wonder what the CO's life is like. How many good
nights sleep has he gotten since this thing blew up.
The strange thing about this woman is that see turned down dates with
her male equals in the squadron (which the article says is permitted)
because she felt it would undermine military order and then goes out
with an enlisted man. Go figure.
Griz
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
On Sun, 11 May 1997, GaiMarDon wrote:
>
> Its sure not your father's Air Force. Its not even mine, but what
> the hell do I know. Retired in 1975; AB to SSgt, 2nd Lt to Capt, and
> never aware of adultery in the ranks? Give me a break! I had a Squadron
> Commander who married an A/1c who had been his family's babysitter. No
> Court Martial, got promotion and honorable retirement.
Bad news. It isn't 1975 anymore, despite the resurgence in retro 70's
clothing. No offense meant to those of you who were on active duty in
1975, but this is 1997 and the Air Force is less tolerant. The f*ck up
and move up program still exists, but the Air Force is dead right in court
martialing her. The UCMJ is quite explicit in its prohibition of
adultery, as the Lt well knew. She was counselled several times before it
reached this point and persisted in her course of action. Adultery is
indeed contrary to the good order and discipline, and simply because some
people get away with it doesn't make it right.. It seems to me that there
was a court martial in the last two years involving an AF surgeon who was
guiilty of adultery as well. Just because you don't get caught by the cop
for speeding doesn't mean you haven't violated the law.
> The JAG who told Ed Bradley of Sixty Minutes that He could not
> personaly recall (or know) any adulterers in the USAF, must be deaf and
> blind, or else he is a L---- sack of S---. SIR.
Missed the interview. Can't comment on that.
> I'm sure the AF will exact its pound of flesh because it obviouly has
> an axe to grind with the Lt. I also know that they have had one or two
> adultery Courts at Scott AFB in the past few years.
I'd say the axe they're grinding is because the young woman couldn't
follow the law or direct orders. If you think that the AF somehow thinks
that she is responsible for placing women in the cockpit of military
aircraft and that by court martialing her they can stop it, you may be
experimenting with illegal substances. That aside, what do _you_ think
that the AF has against her to cause them to persecute her?
> I guess you can get RAPED in a court room. Come on Air Force drop the
> charges and give the Lt an administrative discharge.
How about the Big Chicken Dinner and repayment for her fligh training?
S. Gahring
Dave
> I guess you can get RAPED in a court room. Come on Air Force drop the
>charges and give the Lt an administrative discharge.
>
>DONNELL MILLER
>Captain, USAF Ret
>Never could keep my mouth shut over injustice
She lied and disobeyed orders. Who give a shit about the adultery. She
at least deserves a court martial and an official reprimand on her
record. Not jail maybe, but that story was so one sided(hers) that no
one could tell from it. The press, Sheesh!!.
--
Dave
F-15 Hommage...I mean homepage:
http://www.ponyexpresss.net/~bulldog/eagle/
Steve S
Morley sure looked a lot like Ed Bradley talking to that full-bird!
Minor nit corrected.
Steve
>
>Minor nit. It was Morley Safer that did the interview. Ed Bradley
did
>the piece on the nuns in Ireland.
>
f...@well.com
There are more details in the stories in the Washington Post and the NY
Times. The scenario developed below is wholly incorrect; the
investigation, the order, etc., essentially came out of the blue and was
initiated at very low levels by guys with axes to grind. You'll see;
follow the C-M
Check out http://members.aol.com/kjfdefense/index.htm
F. X. Flinn
In article ,
bal...@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
> In article , GaiMarDon
> wrote:
> > The JAG who told Ed Bradley of Sixty Minutes that He could not
> >personaly recall (or know) any adulterers in the USAF, must be deaf
> >and blind, or else he is a L---- sack of S---. SIR.
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. I served 16.5 years in the Navy (presumably a more
> adulterous service than USAF because of the unique, um, "travel"
> requirements) and never personally knew of one. A few through double
> and triple hearsay, maybe, but one might reasonably expect a JAG
> officer to make such a distinction. His weasely refusal to answer the
> direct question posed by Bradley (Bradley had to ask three or four
> times) doesn't inspire much confidence, I admit.
>
> > I'm sure the AF will exact its pound of flesh because it obviouly
> >has an axe to grind with the Lt.
>
> --
> From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
> _,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
> _|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
> \ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
> ***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
EGELSONE
On Sun, 11 May 1997, GaiMarDon wrote:
>
> Its sure not your father's Air Force. Its not even mine, but what
> the hell do I know. Retired in 1975; AB to SSgt, 2nd Lt to Capt, and
> never aware of adultery in the ranks? Give me a break! I had a Squadron
> Commander who married an A/1c who had been his family's babysitter. No
> Court Martial, got promotion and honorable retirement.
:Bad news. It isn't 1975 anymore, despite the resurgence in retro 70's
:clothing. No offense meant to those of you who were on active duty in
:1975, but this is 1997 and the Air Force is less tolerant. The f*ck up
:and move up program still exists, but the Air Force is dead right in
court
:martialing her. The UCMJ is quite explicit in its prohibition of
:adultery, as the Lt well knew. She was counselled several times before
it
:reached this point and persisted in her course of action. Adultery is
:indeed contrary to the good order and discipline, and simply because some
:people get away with it doesn't make it right.. It seems to me that
there
:was a court martial in the last two years involving an AF surgeon who was
:guiilty of adultery as well. Just because you don't get caught by the
cop
:for speeding doesn't mean you haven't violated the law.
> The JAG who told Ed Bradley of Sixty Minutes that He could not
> personaly recall (or know) any adulterers in the USAF, must be deaf and
> blind, or else he is a L---- sack of S---. SIR.
:Missed the interview. Can't comment on that.
> I'm sure the AF will exact its pound of flesh because it obviouly
has
> an axe to grind with the Lt. I also know that they have had one or two
> adultery Courts at Scott AFB in the past few years.
:I'd say the axe they're grinding is because the young woman couldn't
:follow the law or direct orders. If you think that the AF somehow thinks
:that she is responsible for placing women in the cockpit of military
:aircraft and that by court martialing her they can stop it, you may be
:experimenting with illegal substances. That aside, what do _you_ think
:that the AF has against her to cause them to persecute her?
>I guess you can get RAPED in a court room. Come on Air Force drop the
> charges and give the Lt an administrative discharge.
:How about the Big Chicken Dinner and repayment for her fligh training?
:S. Gahring
I agree with Candace, the facts are straight forward, the LT knew what she
was about. She stated in an interview when asked why she kept living with
the man after being given a direct order not to"I figured I would at least
save my relationship with Marc, I guess I gave up". That says it all for
me,she was quite cognizant of the facts that surrounded her behavior. Now
she has hired the same lawyer that lost the Drill SGT case last week and
he will try to proove that it was an illegal order. Another case of the
guilty (she admits it) grabbing at straws.
For the least of her crimes Lt F can be accused of BAD JUDGEMENT. The man
(Marc) was physically abusing his wife and HER! How stupid is this woman?
I have some knowledge that all cases are not handled this way. The perps
are usually given a warning and told to knock it off, it sometimes works
and sometimes doesn't. I know of one icedence where a pilot was carrying
on with an enlisted soldier. he was married and kept taking this soldier
to the O club. He was called into the Commanders office and read the riot
act. Particularly for bringing his "girlfriend" into the Club and makinga
point of being brazen. The next time it happened, the Commander called
him, and his EM girlfriend AND his wife into his office and again read him
the riot act about his affair with the young lady. The wife prompltly
caught a flight home and it took the Army a moth or two to have this man
out of the service. I don't think he was CM'd but I don't have access to
his Form 2-2 either. I just know he was GONE!
Rush Limbaugh quoted some stats on CM for adultery as provided by the USAF
yesterday, I don't remember the numbers, but the CM count is up
significantly while the individual cases with women members had not gone
up at all.
Ed
J.D. Baldwin
In article <this-1205971640200001@edward_teach.chinalake.navy.mil>,
BlackBeard <th...@reader.makes.me.doThis> wrote:
> Hell JD, I am amazed at how much I respect your opinion even though
>I can't remember the last time I agreed with you. ;)
Come on, you must at least have been on my side in that rather silly
"What hull number was the USS Sam Houston?" dispute! (Or sub-dispute,
so to speak. Ha ha.)
> I've seen senior officers and enlisted screwing other (O's and E's)
>wives often enough in the last 19 years, where neither side had filed
>for divorce, they were just 'seperated'. Often enough they were
>remaining married to save on BAQ/BOQ etc. This civilian guy was a
>piece of crap and he admitted he lied to her and told her he was
>sep. and had already filed for the divorce. In any other section of
>society the adultry charge would be laughed out of court. So we hold
>the Mil to a higher standard than the rest of the US? Fine, ok, then
>they better damn well do it across the board and hold every male
>officer up to the same standard. Now does that include the guys that
>are married and hit Tompopo's in Yokosuka on liberty?
Absolutely not. Seeing as their conduct is in no way prejudicial to
the good order and discipline of the unit, I have no problem with it.
The adultery statute technically applies, I guess, but the "witch
hunt" accusation would ring a lot truer if it were charged in such a
situation. Sleeping with the husband of an enlisted person in one's
own unit, though, is qualitatively different from what you describe.
I mentioned that I don't particularly care for anti-adultery statutes,
but in this case it seems to be the only thing giving the commander
authority to order her to knock this "unbecoming" conduct the hell
off. She agreed to do so, and then wantonly disobeyed the order. On
top of this, she lied to the investigators (not knowing her boy-
friend had already "rolled" on her--boo hoo).
>I am certain you know a few that weren't exactly straight arrow back
>when the PI was adult disneyland.
Not "exactly straight arrow"? I guess so, whatever that means. But I
can honestly say that, in over 16 years' service, I never had direct
knowledge of an adulterous affair on the part of a military officer.
Double and triple hearsay, sure, but no direct knowledge. I really
don't know what's so astonishing about this (it was regarded as
incredible when that weasely USAF lawyer said it in the "60 Minutes"
interview).
> Now, if instead, the services look the other way because the
>articles of the UCMJ may be a bit outdated, or vague concerning they
>were written back when Master Chief Nichols was an E1 and times have
>changed just a bit since then including minor changes like electricity
>and manned flight, then they need to apply it regardless of gender.
I can't say conclusively whether the statute is applied "regardless of
gender" or not, but this case sure as hell isn't very compelling
evidence that it isn't. It sounds like the adultery statute was
merely a justification for ordering her to cease and desist from
carrying on with an affair that threatened the unit. She disregarded
that order and lied about it; she deserves no sympathy for having the
whole weight of the justice system come crashing down on her head,
including the silly statute that none of us likes.
> Like I said, nail her for lying and disobedience, but the adultry
>crap is just so hypocritical it would be laughable if there wasn't a
>previously outstanding career on the line.
It would be hypocritical if it were just an out-of-the-blue charge
that she broke the law by the mere act of sleeping with someone else's
husband. That's hardly the case here.
And do we *know* her career was "outstanding"? The excerpt from her
fitness report (or whatever the USAF calls it) we heard on "60 Minutes"
proves less than nothing. If I reproduced excerpts from my fitness
reports here, you'd probably think I was Chester Nimitz and Raymond
Spruance reincarnated. I flatter myself that I was an above-average
officer who got the job done pretty effectively without causing too
much pain to my subordinates, but I wasn't the military genius my
FITREPs make me out to be. It is my understanding that the USAF has
the same "inflation" problem, if not a worse one.
> And in that light, remember the discussion about how in the old days
>officers could survive a court martial and still have a successful
>career (eg. Nimitz). I'd bet my weeks supply of stickybuns if she
>made it through this crap she'd never make the same mistake again
>(lying etc.). And would probably be a lot more thoughtful about
>decisions for the rest of her career. They are throwing away a huge
>investment in someone they already professed to be an outstanding
>officer with great potential.
Too late. You only get one mistake, when that mistake reveals a
really serious character deficiency with regard to trustworthiness and
willingness to subordinate one's appetites to the good of the unit.
We're not talking about an executive at a paper company here--this
woman was trained to fly nuclear weapons into battle. Out she goes.
Thank God we found out what's under the surface *now*, instead of when
it really counted.
J.D. Baldwin
In article <8634990...@dejanews.com>, <f...@well.com> wrote:
>There are more details in the stories in the Washington Post and the
>NY Times. The scenario developed below is wholly incorrect; the
>investigation, the order, etc., essentially came out of the blue and
>was initiated at very low levels by guys with axes to grind. You'll
>see; follow the C-M
>
>Check out http://members.aol.com/kjfdefense/index.htm
Just got back. The news reports there directly contradict your
statement above. None of this came "out of the blue"--she had already
lied in a sworn statement and disobeyed the (perfectly lawful) stay-
away order before charges were brought. She had a great deal more of
an opportunity to extricate herself from this ugly situation than do
most lawbreakers who are caught dead-to-rights, yet she chose to plow
ahead. That lame excuse about her boyfriend already being in her
house so she *couldn't* obey the stay-away-from-him order, so she
chose to ignore it entirely, is the single most ridiculous excuse I've
ever heard out of an accused. And I'm a former Legal Officer and I've
served as a summary court-martial--I've heard more than my share of
laughable excuses.
As for the "low level ... guys with axes to grind": *most* crimes
come to light because of some already-nailed scuzzbag deciding to
"take others down with him" or ratting them out for other reasons.
Big fat hairy deal--that's why we have professional investigators to,
um, *investigate* such charges. She's admitted everything she's
charged with--open and shut. If they offer her a plea bargain
involving little or no jail time, she ought to take it, and if she
doesn't, I have no sympathy for her no matter what happens.
Good riddance. There are enough officers out there with either the
character to behave better than this, or the good sense to keep their
extracurricular activities discreet; we hardly need lying sacks like
Kelly Flinn to stand guard for us at the nuclear ramparts.
J.D. Baldwin
In article <01bc5fb6$9e39b580$2d41bacd@default>, Stephen E. Wood>I really do hope this meant in jest.....because it really doesn't sound
>very nice...
The first time I hear the words, "I'm on my break right now," out of
the mouth of an Army, Navy or Marine enlisted man who is manning a
service counter at an airfield where I need to check out equipment to
service my aircraft, those services will be subject to the same sorts
of jests.
J.D. Baldwin
In article <EA3q4...@nonexistent.com>, Candace
E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring <walk...@main.put.com> wrote:
>How about the Big Chicken Dinner and repayment for her fligh training?
Minor point: officers cannot be awarded a "Big Chicken Dinner" (Bad
Conduct Discharge), or its more severe cousin, the "Duck Dinner"
(Dishonorable Discharge). Officers can, by sentence of general court-
martial only, be "dismissed," which is the functional equivalent of
a DD. It is a felony conviction for the purposes of federal law, and
there are various other legal disabilities arising therefrom. I don't
believe one can ever be employed by a company with any contract with
the U.S. government, for example.
JWS
J.D. Baldwin wrote:
>
> Good riddance. There are enough officers out there with either the
> character to behave better than this, or the good sense to keep their
> extracurricular activities discreet; we hardly need lying sacks like
> Kelly Flinn to stand guard for us at the nuclear ramparts.
> --
What type of military person will have 'good sense to keep their
extracurricular activities discreet' knowing that the are breaking a
UCMJ law?? Does an Officer that is charged with the lives of people
under his/her command have the right to ignore a UCMJ law??
This Lt. did not show good character by lying, but anyone who would
break UCMJ laws and then think it was ok if they did not talk is not of
high character. They are abusing power.
JWS 'Otto'
J.D. Baldwin
In article <33789E...@ibm.net>, JWS <ji...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Everyone should be under the same laws and should be held accountable.
>Excuse due to rank is a slap in the face of law and common sense. The
>biggest arguement should be equal treatment.
I endorse this 100%. I suggest reading it while humming the "Battle
Hymn of the Republic" or other suitable patriotic tunes. It's a noble
ideal.
Unfortunately, it's not strictly achievable, nor does it have anything
to do with the Flinn case under discussion--unless, that is, you
advocate letting her off on the basis that some senior officer,
somewhere in the past, once got away with something sort of similar to
*one* of the many charges against her? That would be a novel--and
damned effective, if accepted--defense to criminal charges. I could
go kill my wife and ask for a walk because OJ got away with it!
>Lock up all who are quilty of the 'moral' laws and the system goes in
>the 'fair' direction.
Here you begin to depart controlled flight. The whole raison d'etre
of these laws is to preserve the discipline and morale of the unit.
Prying into the private conduct of military members for the purpose of
enforcing laws of any sort is a serious mistake for a lot of reasons.
"Lock[ing] up" anyone and everyone whose stupid indiscretions come to
light is equally counterproductive.
>If you are selective in who gets prosecuted you mock the whole
>process.
Oh, piddle. Every prosecution in the history of every justice system
that ever existed was "selective." If I'd been prosecuted for every
minor misstep I'd ever made during my military career, I'd never get
out. (Like the time I came back to my stateroom and told my roommate
that one of the department heads was a real son-of-a-bitch--there's
five years in prison, right there!) You deal with problems, short of
truly serious crimes, at the lowest possible level in the quietest
way possible at first, and only when that fails do you escalate and
formalize the matter. In really hard cases, you end up convening a
court-martial.
None of this justifies the use of *rank* as the distinguishing factor
in decisions as to whether to prosecute--that is obscene when it
happens. But neither does that have anything to do with the Flinn
case, which is about as close to open-and-shut as it gets.
Stephen E. Wood
"...the obligations of a regular commission."
Hmm....I hope you didn't mean to insult the holders of reserve commissions
by that statement. Also...I hope you realize that the graduates of all the
service academies are now receiving reserve commissions by decree of
congress?
I think what you really meant was that she'd lied and broken the trust
placed in a member of the armed forces; particularly an officer.
Steve, Maj, USAF
wa...@terps.com wrote in article <8634412...@dejanews.com>...
> In article <3376A5...@ibm.net>,
>
>
> > If you examine the order given by the Lts. commander, you would see
that
> > it was an order given that could not be disobeyed since the Lt was
> > living with the guy (non-military) and she could not see, talk, or
> > communicate with him through a third party. This had to be a setup so
> > that a conviction was assured. The military is now on a witch hunt and
> > who ever gets in the way will pay.
>
> The Lt. admitted on 60 Minutes that she lied during an investigation.
> That alone is why her career is over.
>
> She is an Academy graduate. Obviously, she failed greatly to live up
> to the obligations of a regular commission.
>
Stephen E. Wood
"(or, in the case of the USAF, the U.S. paramilitary)."
I really do hope this meant in jest.....because it really doesn't sound
very nice...
said the Blue suiter...
Steve, Maj, USAF
Mary Shafer
On Mon, 12 May 1997 14:51:17 GMT, bal...@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) said:
J.D.> In article <33765D...@worldnet.att.net>, GaiMarDon
J.D.> <donnel...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> The JAG who told Ed Bradley of Sixty Minutes that He could not
>personaly recall (or know) any adulterers in the USAF, must be deaf
>and blind, or else he is a L---- sack of S---. SIR.
J.D.> Maybe. Maybe not. I served 16.5 years in the Navy (presumably
J.D.> a more adulterous service than USAF because of the unique, um,
J.D.> "travel" requirements) and never personally knew of one. A few
J.D.> through double and triple hearsay, maybe, but one might
J.D.> reasonably expect a JAG officer to make such a distinction. His
J.D.> weasely refusal to answer the direct question posed by Bradley
J.D.> (Bradley had to ask three or four times) doesn't inspire much
J.D.> confidence, I admit.
You must not be very observant, JD. The USAF, at least, is a hotbed
of adultery and fornication, particularly at isolated bases like
Edwards. Senior officers forced to retire, for example; paternity
suits and divorces in the ranks of the company and field grade
officers--I've seen it all here at EDW. I've heard it first-hand from
the women involved (usually with the "his wife just doesn't understand
him" and "they're getting a divorce as soon as the youngest kid is in
school" lines, by the way).
As for the Navy, well, they may not actually _be_ adulterers, but some
of them certainly come on to married women in a manner indicating that
they aspire to the role. Of that I have first-hand experience.
Besides, when you can read about a Naval sex scandal in the Los
Angeles Times, you have to figure something's going on. Somehow, a
strongly-suggested retirement of an admiral or captain isn't the same
as a court martial. But these are _men_, Naval Aviators, so filing
charges against them just doesn't seem to be an option.
That "pilots will be pilots and that means promiscuous sex even for
married _men_" attitude lives even today. How many men soliciting the
services of prostitues at Tailhook were court-martialed for adultery
or sodomy (which includes oral-genital conduct)? They even had
pictures of the officers engaged on oral-genital conduct (I've seen
them on the Web), but none of those men were brought up on charges
that I know of.
The inherent problem of rarely-enforced laws or regulations against
common behavior is the problem of selective enforcement. Such laws
are almost always used selectively to target people who are doing what
everyone else is doing, but only when someone wants to get them.
Considering that something like 70% of all married men and 50% of all
married women will admit to pollsters that they've had an
extra-marital affair, it's unlikely that military officers all abstain
from extra-marital affairs, differing greatly from the general
populace. But how many courts martial are there for adultery? How
many officers get the word from their commanders to knock it off or
else? Damned few, I suspect, and those happen only because someone
has a grudge and wants to get rid of a competitor.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Stephen E. Wood
My problem with this is that I have personally seen, as a board member in
12 courts martial, and as a "regular flight guy" incidences very similar to
this that were simply either covered up or handled administratively.
I can tell you the name of the 321st Missile Wing Commander that
impregnated his enlisted secretary, while constantly having her husband
sent TDY...when the news of the pregnancy broke, the base was basically
"hushed" while the 15th AF commander flew up to Malmstrom AFB, grabbed the
deputy missile wing commander, put him in his plane, flew to our base,
walked in and fired the 321'st SMW/CC, installed the still confused colonel
from Malmstrom as the new wing commander, and took away the old one.
We received an official directive in both the missile wing and the flying
wing NOT to discuss this with anyone; and if contacted by any media member,
we were to immediately deny knowledge and refer them to the public affairs
officers.
By the by...the "fired" wing commander was allowed to retire, thereby
saving his 25 year retirement pension, benefits, etc., and was reportedly
hired by Bausch and Lomb as a VP.
Gee....must have been nice. Oh, why does this upset me? Because within a
year of this occurence, a 1Lt flyer was court martialed for dating a women
he'd met at a bar: turned out she was married to a gentleman at the base.
He was court martialed for 1. Conduct Unbecoming, 2. Aduletery
He's now a civilian with a nice federal conviction...
Yes, this upsets me.
Steve, Major, USAF
J.D. Baldwin
In article <01bc5fb7$9dd0ec20$2d41bacd@default>, Stephen E. Wood
<fli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>My problem with this is that I have personally seen, as a board member
>in 12 courts martial, and as a "regular flight guy" incidences very
>similar to this that were simply either covered up or handled
>administratively.
[Story of grossly unfair double standard snipped.]
I have no doubt that what you say is true, but it's hardly on point to
the Flinn case. She was given the same opportunity as the senior
commander you mention to have the whole matter quietly swept under the
proverbial rug. She chose to behave like a weasel instead. Cry me
a river.
If your point is that senior officers often get away with gross
misconduct that junior officers and enlisted get nailed *hard* for,
it's hardly a news flash to any reader of this group. But the
specific allegation on the table is that LT Flinn is being persecuted
for being a successful woman pilot in a male-dominated military
culture. So far, the evidence adduced for this proposition is so thin
as to be laughable, and in fact most of the known, not-in-dispute
facts point to exactly the opposite conclusion.
J.D. Baldwin
In article <SHAFER.97M...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>, Mary Shafer
<sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote, quoting me:
>J.D.> Maybe. Maybe not. I served 16.5 years in the Navy (presumably
>J.D.> a more adulterous service than USAF because of the unique, um,
>J.D.> "travel" requirements) and never personally knew of one. A few
>J.D.> through double and triple hearsay, maybe, but one might
>J.D.> reasonably expect a JAG officer to make such a distinction. His
>J.D.> weasely refusal to answer the direct question posed by Bradley
>J.D.> (Bradley had to ask three or four times) doesn't inspire much
>J.D.> confidence, I admit.
>
>You must not be very observant, JD.
Either that, or I hang out with a better class of person!
>The USAF, at least, is a hotbed of adultery and fornication,
>particularly at isolated bases like Edwards. Senior officers forced
>to retire, for example; paternity suits and divorces in the ranks of
>the company and field grade officers--I've seen it all here at EDW.
>I've heard it first-hand from the women involved (usually with the
>"his wife just doesn't understand him" and "they're getting a divorce
>as soon as the youngest kid is in school" lines, by the way).
>
>As for the Navy, well, they may not actually _be_ adulterers, but some
>of them certainly come on to married women in a manner indicating that
>they aspire to the role. Of that I have first-hand experience.
I have no doubt of any of this. My comment was on point only to the
credibility of the JAG officer who disclaimed any personal knowledge
of such an affair during his career--it really has nothing to do with
LT Flinn's guilt or innocence. It *is* possible to go a dozen or more
years in the military without having personal knowledge of such an
affair. Whether it requires an unusually low degree of attention to
goings-on around oneself is something I'll leave for others to judge.
>Besides, when you can read about a Naval sex scandal in the Los
>Angeles Times, you have to figure something's going on.
Of course "something's going on"--LA Times circulation is sagging!
>Somehow, a strongly-suggested retirement of an admiral or captain
>isn't the same as a court martial. But these are _men_, Naval
>Aviators, so filing charges against them just doesn't seem to be an
>option.
Right. Men get prosecuted for this, in the Air Force at least, a lot
more often than women. If there's a scandal, it's probably the
selective prosecution based on rank rather than any other factor.
>That "pilots will be pilots and that means promiscuous sex even for
>married _men_" attitude lives even today. How many men soliciting the
>services of prostitues at Tailhook were court-martialed for adultery
>or sodomy (which includes oral-genital conduct)? They even had
>pictures of the officers engaged on oral-genital conduct (I've seen
>them on the Web), but none of those men were brought up on charges
>that I know of.
No one has ever been prosecuted under the UCMJ's sodomy statute for
consensual sex, male or female. It's widely considered unconstitu-
tional, and the general consensus among military lawyers is that it's
probably best not to bring cases that have a good chance of
invalidating sections of the UCMJ. (This is what they taught me at
Naval Justice School, anyway.)
"Conduct unbecoming" is a lot easier to prove, and a lot more likely
to withstand a constitutional challenge. And a hell of a lot of
aviators at Tailhook *were* charged with that--selectively, on the
basis of sex, no less!--although NCIS' inept investigation (and their
bringing of charges against obviously innocent people) torpedoed any
chances of a successful conviction in court. (A few guys got
career-ending punishment at mast, though.)
Someday, someone's going to explain to me why the guy running the "leg
shaving booth" at Tailhook was charged with conduct unbecoming, but
Paula Coughlin (who availed herself of the services of same) was not.
Then, maybe I'll be a little more receptive to this women-are-held-
to-a-higher-standard stuff.
>The inherent problem of rarely-enforced laws or regulations against
>common behavior is the problem of selective enforcement. Such laws
>are almost always used selectively to target people who are doing what
>everyone else is doing, but only when someone wants to get them.
>Considering that something like 70% of all married men and 50% of all
>married women will admit to pollsters that they've had an
>extra-marital affair, it's unlikely that military officers all abstain
>from extra-marital affairs, differing greatly from the general
>populace. But how many courts martial are there for adultery? How
>many officers get the word from their commanders to knock it off or
>else? Damned few, I suspect, and those happen only because someone
>has a grudge and wants to get rid of a competitor.
Or because it becomes an issue within the unit--as when the offender's
paramour's spouse is an enlisted member thereof.
Don Hatten
JWS wrote:
> Rank should not be used! When I was in the AF in the 70's you very
> rarely heard of any officer getting court martialed. They 'resigned' for
> the good of the service. This is what my OIC told me. He said it was a
> real moral breaker to court martial an officer. It was only done as an
> example to others. Very interesting comments.
> JWS 'Otto'
Like someone stated earlier: This isn't the Air Force of the 70's. In
'77, when I came in, I lived in a very substandard barracks, drugs were
everywhere (and you got numerous chances to get caught with them before
they tossed you), and my First Shirt was a drunk. Thank God those days
are over. With the drawdowns about to start again, the Air Force can be
a bit more selective about who they keep. Screw up, out you go. In the
late 70's they were having a retention problem so they cut you a lot of
slack, in the late 90's it makes it easier on the system if you want to
get out...take the money and run. Or if they can, kick you out for
free.
19 years, 7 months and counting the days...
--
*****************************************
Don Hatten hat...@syix.com
1170 Kenny Dr #1 AMA #SOARDOG
Yuba City, Ca 95991 USHGA #17442
KE6TJG
Proponent of rec.models.rc.soaring
*****************************************
JWS
J.D. Baldwin wrote:
>
>
> If your point is that senior officers often get away with gross
> misconduct that junior officers and enlisted get nailed *hard* for,
> it's hardly a news flash to any reader of this group. But the
> specific allegation on the table is that LT Flinn is being persecuted
> for being a successful woman pilot in a male-dominated military
> culture. So far, the evidence adduced for this proposition is so thin
> as to be laughable, and in fact most of the known, not-in-dispute
> facts point to exactly the opposite conclusion.
> From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with
Everyone should be under the same laws and should be held accountable.
Excuse due to rank is a slap in the face of law and common sense. The
biggest arguement should be equal treatment. Lock up all who are quilty
of the 'moral' laws and the system goes in the 'fair' direction. If you
are selective in who gets prosecuted you mock the whole process. There
have been gains in this area since I was in the Air Force in the 70's,
but equal and fair justice is an issue that needs to be constantly
reviewed and improved.
JWS 'Otto'
J.D. Baldwin
In article <33789C...@ibm.net>, JWS <ji...@ibm.net> wrote:
>> Good riddance. There are enough officers out there with either the
>> character to behave better than this, or the good sense to keep their
>> extracurricular activities discreet; we hardly need lying sacks like
>> Kelly Flinn to stand guard for us at the nuclear ramparts.
>
>extracurricular activities discreet' knowing that the are breaking a
>UCMJ law?? Does an Officer that is charged with the lives of people
>under his/her command have the right to ignore a UCMJ law??
>
>This Lt. did not show good character by lying, but anyone who would
>break UCMJ laws and then think it was ok if they did not talk is not of
>high character. They are abusing power.
Well, there are laws and there are laws. It's been pointed out here
and elsewhere that many of the UCMJ's provisions are grossly and
laughably outdated. If you have sex with your wife and she gets on
top, you are guilty of "sodomy" per the UCMJ. Yep, really. No one
pays attention to this sort of thing, and rightly so. If you want to
characterize it as choosing which laws to obey, or whatever, go ahead.
The practical fact of the matter is that some of these laws are just
silly.
The law against adultery, as such, is probably one such. For my part,
I don't care whose wife (or husband) you're fooling around with, the
same way I don't care what you say about your commanding officer in
the privacy of your own home (though it may, technically, be a
disrespect offense). But once either of these comes to light, you've
screwed up in a big way, and if someone has to tell you to knock it
off, your best bet is to shut up and do so. (LT Flinn's response was
to take Mr. Zigo home to meet Mom and Dad.)
The key element of the offense in this case is that discredit was
brought on the unit and the service. No such discredit would accrue
if she'd only kept her private conduct truly private. We can't
police the private lives of officers 100%, nor would it be desirable
to do so. So the laws are in place to take care of the cases where
private conduct spills over into "conduct unbecoming." That's the
distinction I meant to draw, above.
--
JWS
> >Excuse due to rank is a slap in the face of law and common sense. The
> >biggest arguement should be equal treatment.
>
> Hymn of the Republic" or other suitable patriotic tunes. It's a noble
> ideal.
>
> Unfortunately, it's not strictly achievable, nor does it have anything
> to do with the Flinn case under discussion--unless, that is, you
> advocate letting her off on the basis that some senior officer,
> somewhere in the past, once got away with something sort of similar to
> *one* of the many charges against her? That would be a novel--and
> damned effective, if accepted--defense to criminal charges. I could
> go kill my wife and ask for a walk because OJ got away with it!
>
The military is a very 'patriotic' part of our history. My point is
if you are going to look the other way for Generals and leaders within
the military, look the other way for all. The charges against this Lt.
all stem from a 'morals' investigation. She did not walk into the OSI
office and say I want to give a statement that I have been an adultrous.
The adultry law is outdated.
> >Lock up all who are quilty of the 'moral' laws and the system goes in
> >the 'fair' direction.
>
> Here you begin to depart controlled flight. The whole raison d'etre
> of these laws is to preserve the discipline and morale of the unit.
> Prying into the private conduct of military members for the purpose of
> enforcing laws of any sort is a serious mistake for a lot of reasons.
> "Lock[ing] up" anyone and everyone whose stupid indiscretions come to
> light is equally counterproductive.
>
Yes discipline and moral are key in combat. I was an enlisted man
when in the Air Force and learned something about leadership. Then as
now I do not respect people in authority positions if they do not follow
the same rules as everyone else has too. Commanders lead by example. I
worked for a Col. who was tough, but fair! He demanded that all of his
troops follow the examples of the officers in our group. He did not put
up with double standards. I saw this first hand.
If the services look the other way when high ranking officers, so be
it for all. You are correct about prying into private affairs is bad. My
impression is that the lid came off when someone blew the whistle on Lt.
Flinn. If the adultry law was enforced for all, I would have no problems
with this case.
> >If you are selective in who gets prosecuted you mock the whole
> >process.
>
> Oh, piddle. Every prosecution in the history of every justice system
> that ever existed was "selective." If I'd been prosecuted for every
> minor misstep I'd ever made during my military career, I'd never get
> out. (Like the time I came back to my stateroom and told my roommate
> that one of the department heads was a real son-of-a-bitch--there's
> five years in prison, right there!) You deal with problems, short of
> truly serious crimes, at the lowest possible level in the quietest
> way possible at first, and only when that fails do you escalate and
> formalize the matter. In really hard cases, you end up convening a
> court-martial.
>
Are you glad that your roommate did not blow the whistle on you! I
agree that less serious crimes should be handled at a low level. Did the
CO for Lt. Flinn really try? Did he/she do enough?? Should Lt. Flynn go
to prison for poor judgement??
This matter should have been handled with an Article 15 type of
administration disposition. I cannot answer why military rule
enforcement is selective. I was taught basic military law during basic
training and as I remember, no one was exempted for any type of law from
murder to adultry.
> None of this justifies the use of *rank* as the distinguishing factor
> in decisions as to whether to prosecute--that is obscene when it
> happens. But neither does that have anything to do with the Flinn
> case, which is about as close to open-and-shut as it gets.
> --
Rank should not be used! When I was in the AF in the 70's you very
Don Hatten
JWS wrote:
> The military is a very 'patriotic' part of our history. My point is
> if you are going to look the other way for Generals and leaders within
> the military, look the other way for all.
Interesting that you didn't say, "Let's quit looking the other way and
convict the Generals and leaders within the military". What you do say
is let's lower the standard. Once again,it all comes down to what is
easier to do. Since something doesn't get inforced as it should, let's
do away with it rather than get tougher with said inforcement. What
next, major rewrites to the UCMJ to allow deviant/illegal behavior?
> The adultry law is outdated.
Why? Because everyone does it? Not quite.
J.D. Baldwin
In article <3378C0...@ibm.net>, JWS <ji...@ibm.net> wrote, quoting
me:
>> >If you are selective in who gets prosecuted you mock the whole
>> >process.
>>
>> Oh, piddle. Every prosecution in the history of every justice system
>> that ever existed was "selective." If I'd been prosecuted for every
>> minor misstep I'd ever made during my military career, I'd never get
>> out. (Like the time I came back to my stateroom and told my roommate
>> that one of the department heads was a real son-of-a-bitch--there's
>> five years in prison, right there!) You deal with problems, short of
>> truly serious crimes, at the lowest possible level in the quietest
>> way possible at first, and only when that fails do you escalate and
>> formalize the matter. In really hard cases, you end up convening a
>> court-martial.
>
> Are you glad that your roommate did not blow the whistle on you! I
>agree that less serious crimes should be handled at a low level. Did the
>CO for Lt. Flinn really try? Did he/she do enough??
Whether or not Flinn's CO "really tr[ied]" I have no idea, but it's
clear that she wasn't charged with adultery just because the whole
sordid business came to light. She was warned, first quietly, then
officially and formally, and she *lied* to investigators and blatantly
disobeyed the order to stay the hell away from this guy.
>Should Lt. Flynn go to prison for poor judgement??
This goes well beyond the bounds of "poor judgment" straight into
criminality. The adultery itself is central to the whole matter, but
the legal *charge* of adultery is just icing on the cake for her
court-martial. The real misconduct here is her failure to straighten
up and fly right (as they might say in the Air Force) once the affair
came to light.
It bears repeating: if your private conduct becomes a matter for
investigators and formal, written orders from superior officers, I
guess you didn't do a good enough job of keeping it private, did you?
That said, I'll note (again) that I don't really think she should go
to prison at all, and if a prison sentence is imposed, it ought to be
suspended. But she most certainly deserves dismissal, and enough of a
fine to make at least a dent in all that money you and I spent to
train her.
> This matter should have been handled with an Article 15 type of
>administration disposition. I cannot answer why military rule
>enforcement is selective. I was taught basic military law during basic
>training and as I remember, no one was exempted for any type of law from
>murder to adultry.
The Article 15 solution is problematic: first, you really can't do
anything significant to an officer at Article 15 (though it's generally
career-ending). Second, she'd have a right to refuse same. What would
gall me about this is that she'd quietly get out, go get a job with
Delta or NWAir and profit from her misconduct to the tune of $150,000+
per year as an airline pilot. It is to gag.
>> None of this justifies the use of *rank* as the distinguishing factor
>> in decisions as to whether to prosecute--that is obscene when it
>> happens. But neither does that have anything to do with the Flinn
>> case, which is about as close to open-and-shut as it gets.
>
> Rank should not be used! When I was in the AF in the 70's you very
>rarely heard of any officer getting court martialed. They 'resigned'
>for the good of the service. This is what my OIC told me. He said it
>was a real moral breaker to court martial an officer. It was only done
>as an example to others. Very interesting comments.
It's a bit of a morale-breaker to court-martial *anyone*. I've seen
some pretty serious stuff handled at "mast" (Navy term for Article 15),
followed by an administrative discharge. But occasionally you get
someone who just won't take any of the several "last chances" he or
she gets, and it leads inevitably to a S/GCM. Flinn is one such hard
case.
JWS
Don Hatten wrote:
>
> JWS wrote:
> > The military is a very 'patriotic' part of our history. My point is
> > if you are going to look the other way for Generals and leaders within
> > the military, look the other way for all.
>
> Interesting that you didn't say, "Let's quit looking the other way and
> convict the Generals and leaders within the military". What you do say
> is let's lower the standard. Once again,it all comes down to what is
> easier to do. Since something doesn't get inforced as it should, let's
> do away with it rather than get tougher with said inforcement. What
> next, major rewrites to the UCMJ to allow deviant/illegal behavior?
>
> > The adultry law is outdated.
>
> Why? Because everyone does it? Not quite.
>
> --
experience from the military is that not everybody does it, but alot do.
Be that as it may it should not be a criminal offense. You can look at
the statement I made above either way, but my view is that the any laws
in the UCMJ that are not enforced for all members should be dropped.
This is also my belief in civilian law as well.
JWS
Robert Virding
I must start by confessing my almost complete ignorance in the details
of this affair. I just have one basic question which makes me wonder:
What right does the airforce, or any other military or government body
for that matter, have to judge me in my private life?
--
Robert Virding Tel: +46 (0)8 719 95 28
Computer Science Laboratory Email: r...@erix.ericsson.se
Ericsson Telecom AB
S-126 25 ÄLVSJÖ, SWEDEN
WWW: http://www.ericsson.se/cslab/~rv
"Folk säger att jag inte bryr mig om någonting, men det skiter jag i".
Boris Goldberg
> >charges and give the Lt an administrative discharge.
> >
> >Captain, USAF Ret
> >Never could keep my mouth shut over injustice
>
> She lied and disobeyed orders. Who give a shit about the adultery. She
> at least deserves a court martial and an official reprimand on her
> record. Not jail maybe, but that story was so one sided(hers) that no
> one could tell from it. The press, Sheesh!!.
>
> --
> Dave
> F-15 Hommage...I mean homepage:
> http://www.ponyexpresss.net/~bulldog/eagle/
Something has gone terribly wrong in the land of the free.
USAF, playing the Big Brother, is commited to persecuting people
for ... having sex.
Adultery is a term out of the Middle Ages, when sleeping with your
neigbor's wife was a crime but killing heretics was not.
Keith Wood
In article <baldwinE...@netcom.com>,
bal...@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
[In article <this-1205971640200001@edward_teach.chinalake.navy.mil>,
[BlackBeard <th...@reader.makes.me.doThis> wrote:
[> I've seen senior officers and enlisted screwing other (O's and E's)
[>wives often enough in the last 19 years, where neither side had filed
[>for divorce, they were just 'seperated'. Often enough they were
[>remaining married to save on BAQ/BOQ etc. This civilian guy was a
[>piece of crap and he admitted he lied to her and told her he was
[>sep. and had already filed for the divorce. In any other section of
[>society the adultry charge would be laughed out of court.
Not necessarily. And . . .
[ Sleeping with the husband of an enlisted person in one's
[own unit, though, is qualitatively different from what you describe.
BINGO.
[And do we *know* her career was "outstanding"?
More than that, why should we CARE?
It all boils down to trustworthiness and ability to read and comprehend general
regulations governing the conduct of military officers.
If _I_, the soon-to-be O-3, were to have an affair with a female enlistee or
with the wife OR RECENT EX-WIFE of an EM, I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that I
would be counseled, then ordered to stop. If I lied or failed to heed the
counsel or orders I'd expect to be in the same boat that this officer has
placed herself into.
She has no sympathy from me.
Dr Pepper
You obviously have never been in the Military service. When you join,
(or are drafted), You give up your Constitutional rights. PERIOD!!!!
And this is as it should be for the military. The big question here,
is, , , , did she lie???? If so, they should fire her immediately.
PERIOD!!!
=====================================================
On 14 May 1997 13:47:21 GMT, r...@erix.ericsson.se (Robert Virding)
wrote:
Dr Pepper
Good ALL the time
(Well, , , SOME of the time, anyway :)
Hank Meyer
Interestingly enough, this whole debate/issue opens the way to resolve
all the sexual issues (gay and straight, married and single, officer and
enlisted) with one rather universal principle with appropriate enforcement
(i.e. dismissal from the service). Specifically, ammend the UCMJ to include
the priovision that:
"No service member, regardless of status, may have sex (i.e. carnal knowledge)
with any other service member or the legal spouse of any other service member,
regardless of status. Anywhere, any place, any time."
This would replace the generic adultry violation, but also preclude any sexual
activity between consenting single service members. It would be enforceable in
that both public and private life behavior is regulated by the UCMJ. Since all
service members are covered by the UCMJ and on notice of its provisions, this
would survive a constitutional challenge. It would also outlaw (in a defacto
manner) all marriages between service members (a not undesireable outcome)
unless one of them dropped out of the military.
Hank
hcm...@uci.edu
John Mahaffey
Robert Virding <r...@erix.ericsson.se> wrote in article
<5lcfp9$ojj$2...@news.du.etx.ericsson.se>...
> I must start by confessing my almost complete ignorance in the details
> of this affair. I just have one basic question which makes me wonder:
>
> What right does the airforce, or any other military or government body
> for that matter, have to judge me in my private life?
>
> --
Because the US Military is the only organization that can order you to kill
or die and hold you accountable for not doing it. There is no other
organization that I know of that can and will convict you of not coming to
work (AWOL or Desertion), doing your job poorly (Dereliction of Duty),
making a fool out of yourself (Conduct Unbecoming) and having a
relationship with someone of lesser rank (Fraternization). This is because
those officers and NCOs are charged with the safe handling and employment
of weapons of huge destructive power and the lives of their troops and the
civilians in the locality. They must be above reproach. However, if you
would like to say, not fair, young people will always feel the need,
soldiers traditionally must get their "action" then look no further than
the mass of sexual harassment problems we are facing in the military today.
Our civilian population DEMANDS that our young men and women not engage in
overtly sexual behavior. They should not read Playboy and should not drink
and get rowdy in the Club. That is why the Lt is being court-martialed
because she is an Officer, she must be held accountable - no mater what her
gender is.
JM
Bomber Bill
In article <19970513135...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
egel...@aol.com (EGELSONE) wrote:
> Rush Limbaugh quoted some stats on CM for adultery....
Sorry, but stop right there. I don't mean to be rude or
partisan--really--but using the words "Limbaugh" and "statistics" in the
same sentence is nonsense. The man is a proven liar and any figure he
cites *must* be assumed to be false until corroborated by multiple,
disinterested sources. It doesn't matter if he's quoting Moses: unless you
see the burning bush and tablets for yourself, ignore the commandments.
Michael Williamson
Boris Goldberg wrote:
> >
> > She lied and disobeyed orders. Who give a shit about the adultery. She
> > at least deserves a court martial and an official reprimand on her
> > record. Not jail maybe, but that story was so one sided(hers) that no
> > one could tell from it. The press, Sheesh!!.
> >
> > --
> > Dave
> > F-15 Hommage...I mean homepage:
> > http://www.ponyexpresss.net/~bulldog/eagle/
>
> Something has gone terribly wrong in the land of the free.
> USAF, playing the Big Brother, is commited to persecuting people
> for ... having sex.
> Adultery is a term out of the Middle Ages, when sleeping with your
> neigbor's wife was a crime but killing heretics was not.
The Lt. is charged with sleeping with not just the spouse of another, but,
I believe, sleeping with the spouse of an enlisted member of the unit. Such
behavior is not only wrong and illegal on a personal level, but is devastating
on unit cohesion, morale, and discipline if it known and not acted upon. Many
of the "morals" regulations are based upon maintaining both trust and discipline
within a unit. Allowing such behavior would degrade the ability of the unit
to operate on a daily basis, and would be devastating upon readiness. If
someone doesn't want to deploy because they are afraid the folks left behind
will play around with their spouse, then the unit quickly becomes ineffective.
Regardless of how you feel about adultery on a strictly personal basis, it
is incompatible with the operation of a well disciplined military. While it
might not have been considered quite so disruptive if the alleged adultery
hadn't been committed with another military member's spouse, confidence in
the trustworthiness of the individual would still be open to question among
those who knew (or thought they knew; even untrue rumors can destroy morale)
of alleged adultery.
In the military, character does still count for something by and large, and
we are the better for it. (My professional opinion, obviously not those of
all others)
Mike Williamson
Michael Williamson
John Maxwell wrote:
>
> Even an ardent military supporter must admit if the Air Force has not
> court-martialled any male officers for this, it seems a bit punitive
> to punish a female officer (and IIRC, the other party was a civilian
> married to an AF enlisted woman - although I believe the UCMJ makes no
> distinction).
> I recall a couple of individuals who have been tossed out for adultery,
one case involving a senior NCO who arranged for one of his charges to
work swing shift while he visited with the individual's wife. This
individual was out, although I don't recall whether as the result of
a court-martial or article 5. If he was smart and was offered it, the
article 5 would have been the way to go. In another case, I read of
a 2Lt who received a court-martial for fraternization. In this case
the individual was also counseled and ordered to "cease and desist,"
but also declined to do so. I may be mistaken, but memory informs
me that this officer spent a bit of time in a federal penitentiary
to contemplate the depths of his stupidity. I must say that I do
not know any of the individuals personally, nor even know their
names, but both punishments were publicized (first in the base
paper, second made the Air Force Times).
If anything, the fact that the civilian was married to an enlisted
woman makes the alleged infraction much more damaging to the unit (IMO).
The consequences of such actions are made quite plain during initial
training, with much unnecessary repition I thought. Obviously some
folks were a bit slow on the uptake.
Mike Williamson
Don Hatten
They weren't *his* statistics, they came from the Pentagon Public
Affairs. No matter how you feel about Limbaugh, at least he quotes his
sources by name so you can check them out if you want.
David Lentz
Bomber Bill wrote:
>
> In article <19970513135...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> egel...@aol.com (EGELSONE) wrote:
>
> > Rush Limbaugh quoted some stats on CM for adultery....
>
> Sorry, but stop right there. I don't mean to be rude or
> partisan--really--but using the words "Limbaugh" and "statistics" in the
> same sentence is nonsense. The man is a proven liar and any figure he
> cites *must* be assumed to be false until corroborated by multiple,
> disinterested sources. It doesn't matter if he's quoting Moses: unless you
> see the burning bush and tablets for yourself, ignore the commandments.
Don't say you don't mean to be rude, when you do mean to be rude. As
for myself, this will be a rude post.
You say that Rush Limbaugh is proven liar. Documentation please.
Cite an example of what you would consider a reliable disinterested
source. Hint don't even think about citing FAIR. They are neither.
David
Gary Everett
And you didn't tell them to get off their ass and do their job?!? Admittedly,
the discpline of Air Force enlisted isn't up to par with the other 3 services
but the actions of it's officers is not only expected to be professional in
the utmost, it is demanded. That's why Kelly is going to fry.
J.D. Baldwin (bal...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <01bc5fb6$9e39b580$2d41bacd@default>, Stephen E. Wood
: <fli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >"(or, in the case of the USAF, the U.S. paramilitary)."
: >
: >I really do hope this meant in jest.....because it really doesn't sound
: >very nice...
:
: The first time I hear the words, "I'm on my break right now," out of
: the mouth of an Army, Navy or Marine enlisted man who is manning a
: service counter at an airfield where I need to check out equipment to
: service my aircraft, those services will be subject to the same sorts
: of jests.
: --
: From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
: _,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
: _|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
: \ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
: ***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Gary Everett (ga...@rapidnet.com)
RapidNet LLC
EGELSONE
>Bomber Bill wrote:
>
> In article <19970513135...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> egel...@aol.com (EGELSONE) wrote:
>
> > Rush Limbaugh quoted some stats on CM for adultery....
>
> Sorry, but stop right there. I don't mean to be rude or
> partisan--really--but using the words "Limbaugh" and "statistics" in the
> same sentence is nonsense. The man is a proven liar and any figure he
> cites *must* be assumed to be false until corroborated by multiple,
> disinterested sources. It doesn't matter if he's quoting Moses: unless
you
> see the burning bush and tablets for yourself, ignore the commandments.
David added:
:Don't say you don't mean to be rude, when you do mean to be rude. As
:for myself, this will be a rude post.
:
:You say that Rush Limbaugh is proven liar. Documentation please.
:
:Cite an example of what you would consider a reliable disinterested
:source. Hint don't even think about citing FAIR. They are neither.
:
:David
Since the USAF PAO office supplied the data Rush used to make his
statement, I suggest that Bomber pilot needs to question the voracity of
the USAF and not impugn Rush Limbaugh. It would seem to ma also that IF
Bomber pilot IS a Bomber pilot, he should listen to the radio show more
often. The views expressed by that particular entertainer/commentator
come a whole lot closer to the center of the nation and particularly the
military than does any other radio/TV personality.
Perhaps an examination of the lies and deceptions emanating from the White
House are what really needs to be questioned here.
Ed
John Maxwell
"John Mahaffey" <John.M...@ping.be> wrote:
( a lot of true and accurate stuff)
HOWEVER-
I spent 6 years in the Marine Corps and do not recall EVER hearing of
anybody officially charged with adultery. .
Even an ardent military supporter must admit if the Air Force has not
court-martialled any male officers for this, it seems a bit punitive
to punish a female officer (and IIRC, the other party was a civilian
married to an AF enlisted woman - although I believe the UCMJ makes no
distinction).
Her biggest problem is lying about the affair and then disobeying a no
contact order - not the adultery itself (again, IIRC). The former are
indeed conduct unbecoming if superiors want to press it.
Robert Virding
Are you being serious or have you just forgotten the :-) at the end?
I quite agree that people should be accountable to their employer for
their actions WHEN IT CONCERNS THEIR WORK. If I choose to commit
adultery on my own time I fail to see how this affects my work or my
ability to to do my work properly.
I can see that fraternisation can be a great problem, that means I
have to wait until they become an officer before I can be seen in
company. In way its very depressing, or maybe comforting, to see that
crossing the great puddle and all talk of liberty and equality has
done so little to remove class distinctions. Do officers get lists of
suitable people, of the opposite sex of course, with whom they can
form relationships? :-)
--
Boris Goldberg
How can sleeping with somebody's wife/husband affect military unit
cohesion, moral and discipline? Why do you want to be your neighbor's
keeper? Do you think that soldiers who don't sleep around are better
soldiers than those who do sleep around? Or, maybe, as a puritan,
you just can't stand it when somebody else is having a good time?
John Weiss
The value we get is some assurance the military still values ethics, honesty,
discipline, and a few other mundane principles.
The victims are her contemporaries who see her getting away with lying,
adultery, disobedience of her commander's orders, and a few other trivialities.
On 5/12/97 9:23AM, in message <337743...@wport.com>, Norman Filer
<nfi...@wport.com> wrote:
Since it is "our money" that is paying for this fiasco, let me ask a
simple question. What value do we get if they court martial the Lt.?
I am still looking for the "victim" of this crime. So far it looks to
me like a self inflicted wound. She is the one being hurt. Let her
resign from the service and be done with it.
On the other hand, maybe that is not an option for her.
--
Norm Filer
--
John Weiss
Seattle, WA
J.D. Baldwin
In article <5le3n6$otv$1...@news.rapidnet.com>, Gary Everett
<ga...@rapidnet.com> wrote, quoting me [quote rearranged]:
>: The first time I hear the words, "I'm on my break right now," out of
>: the mouth of an Army, Navy or Marine enlisted man who is manning a
>: service counter at an airfield where I need to check out equipment to
>: service my aircraft, those services will be subject to the same sorts
>: of jests.
>
I confess shamefacedly that this wasn't my finest moment as an
officer. I was so stunned and taken aback that I assumed that I was
dealing with a civilian, and I just headed over to join the rest of
the crew for Tinkerburgers (guess where this happened). We weren't
in a hurry, so we serviced the aircraft when we were done eating.
>Admittedly, the discpline of Air Force enlisted isn't up to par with
>the other 3 services but the actions of it's officers is not only
>expected to be professional in the utmost, it is demanded. That's why
>Kelly is going to fry.
Apparently the Secretary of the Air Force doesn't share your (and my)
quaint and archaic notions about the conduct expected of an officer.
She's publicly calling for an honorable resignation in lieu of
court-martial. This is the most disgusting, ethically-challenged
stunt to come out of this Administration in . . . oh, about two weeks!
J.D. Baldwin
In article <337B3758...@ml.com>, Boris Goldberg <bor...@ml.com>
wrote:
>How can sleeping with somebody's wife/husband affect military unit
>cohesion, moral and discipline?
When that "somebody" is someone under your authority in your unit,
the fact that you're sleeping with his/her wife/husband becomes just
a bit more relevant in day-to-day operations. It's not the sort of
thing that can be "left at the door."
>Why do you want to be your neighbor's keeper? Do you think that
>soldiers who don't sleep around are better soldiers than those who do
>sleep around? Or, maybe, as a puritan, you just can't stand it when
>somebody else is having a good time?
When that "good time" includes lying in sworn statements, and
disobeying direct orders, I believe I'm entitled to be a bit concerned
that someone who finds enjoyment in activities like these is being
entrusted with nuclear bombers.
EGELSONE
Robert Virding added without benefit of knowledge of the facts of the
case:
:Are you being serious or have you just forgotten the :-) at the end?
:I quite agree that people should be accountable to their employer for
:their actions WHEN IT CONCERNS THEIR WORK. If I choose to commit
:adultery on my own time I fail to see how this affects my work or my
:ability to to do my work properly.
That is the point. It DID concern her work. You stated that you did not
know the facts of the case. Perhaps you should get at least a few of the
facts before you open your mouth. LT Flinn is getting what she desrves.
She was screwing the husband of an enlisted member of her unit. She was
given three opportunities to stop, including a direct order from her CO.
It appears she essentially told her CO to Fuck off because she DID NOT
stop screwing the EMs husband. Indeed by this time she had moved in with
him. She stated that she choose him over her career. It was her choice.
She lied to the investigators and conspired to have "Marc" (the husband of
the EM) to lie for her. He did not.
:
:I can see that fraternisation can be a great problem, that means I
:have to wait until they become an officer before I can be seen in
:company. In way its very depressing, or maybe comforting, to see that
:crossing the great puddle and all talk of liberty and equality has
:done so little to remove class distinctions. Do officers get lists of
:suitable people, of the opposite sex of course, with whom they can
:form relationships? :-)
No they are given a brain and asked to use discretion. She was too
arrogant to use either. When given the opportunity to stop she still
could not do the right thing. She is trying to use her position as a
woman and the first B-52 female driver to her advantage. She is doing
what most guilty folks do, trying to blame the system of someone else. I
suppose you think OJ Simpson is innocent also.
Ed
cc e-mail
Ed
John Weiss
Paul J. Adam
>How can sleeping with somebody's wife/husband affect military unit
>cohesion, moral and discipline?
How do you give an order to a subordinate and have it obeyed, when you
both that you're screwing the subordinate's significant other?
How do you honestly review that person's performance? "Well, your
performance is merely adequate, but your wife is great in the sack, so
I'll recommend you for promotion as long as you don't kick up a fuss"?
>Why do you want to be your neighbor's
>keeper? Do you think that soldiers who don't sleep around are better
>soldiers than those who do sleep around? Or, maybe, as a puritan,
>you just can't stand it when somebody else is having a good time?
Having a good time is one thing. Doing so with the partner of someone in
your unit is generally a recipie for ill-feeling, dissent, anger and all
sorts of things that share one common factor: they're bad for unit
performance.
And ignoring formal orders is not acceptable behaviour in any armed
force.
Sign up to the military, sign up to its rules. Don't like it? In today's
all-volunteer force, then don't enlist.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Erik Shilling
snipped some unrelated stuff:
>How can sleeping with somebody's wife/husband affect military unit
>cohesion, moral and discipline? Why do you want to be your neighbor's
>keeper? Do you think that soldiers who don't sleep around are better
>soldiers than those who do sleep around? Or, maybe, as a puritan,
>you just can't stand it when somebody else is having a good time?
Most people are missing the crux of the problem, which is disobeying a
direct order as well as ignoring military regulations.
This woman was a B-52 pilot with a possiblility of sometime in the
future of carrying Nuclear weapons.
If she is unable to obey the smallest of orders how can she be expected
to obey even more serious ones????
Her rank proves that whe knew the consequences of her actions, and
disregarded them to satisfy her appetite or lust for excitement.
Erik Shilling
John Maxwell
r...@erix.ericsson.se (Robert Virding) wrote:
(big snip)
>Are you being serious or have you just forgotten the :-) at the end?
>I quite agree that people should be accountable to their employer for
>their actions WHEN IT CONCERNS THEIR WORK. If I choose to commit
>adultery on my own time I fail to see how this affects my work or my
>ability to to do my work properly.
>I can see that fraternisation can be a great problem, that means I
>have to wait until they become an officer before I can be seen in
>company. In way its very depressing, or maybe comforting, to see that
>crossing the great puddle and all talk of liberty and equality has
>done so little to remove class distinctions. Do officers get lists of
>suitable people, of the opposite sex of course, with whom they can
>form relationships? :-)
>--
>Robert Virding Tel: +46 (0)8 719 95 28
>Computer Science Laboratory Email: r...@erix.ericsson.se
>Ericsson Telecom AB
>S-126 25 ÄLVSJÖ, SWEDEN
>WWW: http://www.ericsson.se/cslab/~rv
>"Folk säger att jag inte bryr mig om någonting, men det skiter jag i".
I don't know about Sweden, but in the US military it was made crystal
clear to me I was officially and legally government property - little
different from any of the other complex expensive things Uncle Sam
owns.
The key here is military people are not 'employees' - there is no
equivalent civilian status to enlisted man. The crux of this problem
is that US service people are legally held to higher personal
standards (which is mandatory for unit morale) than US civilians.
Robert Virding
In article <19970515194...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, egel...@aol.com (EGELSONE) writes:
>
>In article <01bc60aa$b3eb9980$1ffe...@pophost.ping.be.ping.be>, "John
>Mahaffey" <John.M...@ping.be> writes:
>>
>>Robert Virding <r...@erix.ericsson.se> wrote in article
>><5lcfp9$ojj$2...@news.du.etx.ericsson.se>...
>>> I must start by confessing my almost complete ignorance in the details
>>> of this affair. I just have one basic question which makes me wonder:
>>>
>>> What right does the airforce, or any other military or government body
>>> for that matter, have to judge me in my private life?
>>>
>>> --
>> [Long diatribe about that is important for the US military to be
>> morally above reproach. It also equates "Derelection of Duty" with
>> "Fraternization".]
>>...
>
>Robert Virding added without benefit of knowledge of the facts of the
>case:
>
>
>:I quite agree that people should be accountable to their employer for
>:their actions WHEN IT CONCERNS THEIR WORK. If I choose to commit
>:adultery on my own time I fail to see how this affects my work or my
>:ability to to do my work properly.
>
> [Telling me that it did affect her work and that it she had disobeyed
> orders to stop it.]
> ...
>:
>:I can see that fraternisation can be a great problem, that means I
>:have to wait until they become an officer before I can be seen in
>:company. In way its very depressing, or maybe comforting, to see that
>:crossing the great puddle and all talk of liberty and equality has
>:done so little to remove class distinctions. Do officers get lists of
>:suitable people, of the opposite sex of course, with whom they can
>:form relationships? :-)
>
Both these comments, the first to my original question and the second
to my follow up completely miss my point. If you *READ* what I wrote
then you will see that explicitly do *NOT* comment her case but ask
the general questions:
1. What right does the military have to invade what is definitely my
private life and say who I may or may not have an affair with? Would
the outcome have been different if the other person had been
non-military or the husband of another Lt?
2. "Fraternisation" is, of course, just a variant of the first
question, but slightly more explicit. I was just trying to show how
ridiculous it can be my making the point that one week I can not have
a relationship with a person, but the week after I can. With the same
person.
Another question I have (about general principles again!!!) is of the
wisdom or benefits of trying to enforce moral rectitude in the
military services? What is it expected to get you?
One frightening example is of course the SS where apart from racial
purity they also demanded high moral rectitude and standards. Now
before everyone starts jumping on me I will explicitly say that I am
not likening the US military to the SS!! All I am doing is trying to
do is show is that I doubt that demanding something as seemingly good
as moral rectitude really achieves anything.
It reminds me a little about the draft scene in "Alices Restaurant"
where Arlo Guthrie is rejected from the Army because he has committed
a felony, littering, and refuses to "repent".
David P Benjamin
Robert W. Allardyce (rob...@vgernet.net) wrote:
: While I may have hit "delete" and wiped out one or two unread messages
: on this thread, I take it as meaningful no one seems to have gotten on
: the guy's case for screwing an officer in his wife's unit and, if what
: has been offered in the media is correct, lying to her to get her to
: open her thighs. Could this possibly be an indication of not merely a
: double but multiple standard? Once again, it seems to be the woman's
: responsibility to refrain.
Well what he did is equally reprehensible, but because he is
a civilian, he is not responsible to the UCMJ.
Of course what do I know? I'd be in favor of criminalizing adultery.
--
David Benjamin
http://www.duc.auburn.edu/~benjadp
Home of the USS Alabama Tour and Sea Power in SouthEast Asia
Spam reported to ISPs and/or US Fraud hotline. Inquire within.
John Weiss
On 5/14/97 6:54AM, in message <3379C41D...@ml.com>, Boris Goldberg
<bor...@ml.com> wrote:
> She lied and disobeyed orders. Who give a shit about the adultery. She
> at least deserves a court martial and an official reprimand on her
> record. Not jail maybe, but that story was so one sided(hers) that no
> one could tell from it. The press, Sheesh!!.
Something has gone terribly wrong in the land of the free.
USAF, playing the Big Brother, is commited to persecuting people
for ... having sex.
Adultery is a term out of the Middle Ages, when sleeping with your
neigbor's wife was a crime but killing heretics was not.
First, adultery is prohibited by the UCMJ. Until Congress chooses to change
that fact, the USAF is bound to prosecute known cases of adultery.
Second, you still appear to ignore the fact she had at least 2 opportunities to
make the situation "go away." She chose to lie and disobey an order instead.
EGELSONE
Robert W. Allardyce (rob...@vgernet.net) wrote:
: While I may have hit "delete" and wiped out one or two unread messages
: on this thread, I take it as meaningful no one seems to have gotten on
: the guy's case for screwing an officer in his wife's unit and, if what
: has been offered in the media is correct, lying to her to get her to
: open her thighs. Could this possibly be an indication of not merely a
: double but multiple standard? Once again, it seems to be the woman's
: responsibility to refrain.
David Benjamin added:
>Well what he did is equally reprehensible, but because he is
>a civilian, he is not responsible to the UCMJ.
>
>Of course what do I know? I'd be in favor of criminalizing adultery.
>
David, you have the right idea. It seems that Robert is not aware of the
fact that civilians are not judged to the letter of UCMJ and are not then
held accountable. The Lt was a USAFA graduate and I think she probably
got a class or two on UCMJ. The only thing that "Marc" lied about that
matters was that he was "getting a divorce". Flinn was aware that he was
married and made her choices. Lt. Flinn is the one grabbing at a double
standard.
Sometimes when when a service member gets out of training and joins a
unit, the world changes. There is no longer a set definite goal oriented
schedlue for living. They get confused and have to start performing up to
the level they were certified in training to be able to accomplish. This
can get tough even for the best..
I have served with several women aviators and _some_ made it through the
program _because_ they were women. Some are dead now because they were
passed to meet quotas and media/beltway pressures to have them in the
service. They were not quite prepared for the real world where there was
not an instructor nearby watching over them. During training these same
women (and some men) knew that they were going to have slack cut for them
because they were "special". Some of the "special" part gets ingrained
in them and they expect that they will get this "special" treatment
always. When the real world folks still pass them on checkrides and give
them deferential treatment because they are "special", things get tough
fast. I know of two female aviators that died not very long after
reaching the end units, while I can not definitively state they were
sunstandard, I wonder.
What does this have to do with Lt. Flinn? She was "special" and thinks
that she should now be cut the same slack that she _MAY_ have been cut
since she entered USAFA. It is a tough and harmful double standard. It
is descrimination in reverse. Somewhere along the road, she decided that
the rules were not for her. Somewhere she decided that she could get away
with whatever she did. I think the powers in the USAF need to not allow
this double standard to continue. Treat this Officer just like all the
others that pushed the system to the end of the rope. It is time for the
rope to get tight.
Ed
--
Icepik6
Robert Virding writes:
<<1. What right does the military have to invade what is definitely my
private life and say who I may or may not have an affair with? Would
the outcome have been different if the other person had been
non-military or the husband of another Lt?>>
Over here in the US, there is a phrase about things "contrary to the good
order and discipline of the armed forces." Specifically, Lt Flinn's
conduct was contrary to the good order and discipline of her unit, and
ultimately the USAF. Let me put it in context for you. Let's say someone
you work for in your computer lab is sleeping with your wife or
girlfriend...how might you feel about that? How might you feel about that
supervisor? Might it affect your job performance? Might it affect your
professional relationship with that supervisor? What if everyone of your
friends knew about the fact that the supervisor was sleeping with your
wife/girlfriend? MIght it also affect their opinion and working
relationship with that supervisor? Would that not ultimately affect the
performance of the entire lab, and subsequently the entire company?? Lt
Flinn had plenty of opportunities to do the right thing before it ever got
to the stage of court martial charges. She persisted in continuing the
relationship after being advised, counseled, and then directed to do
otherwise. The civilian that Lt Flinn was sleeping with was the husband
of one of the enlisted members of her unit. She should have known better
than to even let it get started.
elysium
Old Chinese proverb---
" She that is seen in the BUFF is not virtuous ".
--
From : ely...@iafrica.com
" Slow to erect, quick to topple -- A maverick gimbal ".
Jeff Crowell
Robert Virding wrote:
: Both these comments, the first to my original question and the second
: to my follow up completely miss my point. If you *READ* what I wrote
: then you will see that explicitly do *NOT* comment her case but ask
: the general questions:
: 1. What right does the military have to invade what is definitely my
: private life and say who I may or may not have an affair with? Would
: the outcome have been different if the other person had been
: non-military or the husband of another Lt?
Bob, I think you're the one missing the whole point. This woman has
shown herself to be completely unable to exert the self-discipline
necessary to keep her legs closed around a man who is married to
someone in her unit.
First, the reg: whether it is a 'good' reg or not, she is obligated
to obey it. Omega. End of statement.
Next, she is expected to have sufficient moral fiber to obey what
appears to have been a lawful order--to stop breaking a reg. Note that
I am not addressing the morality of the reg, or of her actions. I
am saying that she needs to stop because she was told to stop. To
repeat what you have been ignoring, this woman is the pilot in command
of an aircraft that can carry nuclear weapons. I submit that the
strength of her character is important. If she can't be trusted to
a) keep her hands off the enlisted husbands, b) obey an order, or
c) manage to tell the truth if it takes a little guts, why the
hell should she be permitted to fly the airplane or be liable to
the mission?
If this woman had been screwing a civilian husband (i.e. someone else's,
naturally), there would have been no breaking of regs. If you don't
like the reg (or fail to see the harm to good order and discipline
within the unit) is immaterial to this case. The reason she is
in trouble is because she lied. The rest are 'lesser included
offenses.' Someone who lies to an investigative panel does not
deserve to wear the uniform, I don't care what side of the pond you're
on.
The military has the 'right' to invade your privacy, such as it
exists in the military, because you are in the military and are held
to a higher standard of behavior. If you don't like it, or can't
hack it, stay the hell out and everyone will be better off.
: 2. "Fraternisation" is, of course, just a variant of the first
: question, but slightly more explicit. I was just trying to show how
: ridiculous it can be my making the point that one week I can not have
: a relationship with a person, but the week after I can. With the same
: person.
While it may be true, it ain't ridiculous. Deal with it.
: Another question I have (about general principles again!!!) is of the
: wisdom or benefits of trying to enforce moral rectitude in the
: military services? What is it expected to get you?
Well, if you can't trust someone to keep their pants zipped (or
obey an order or tell the truth!), how can you trust them with
nuclear weapons? Adultery was the fuse, not the bomb. Military
personnel do not have the option of deciding for themselves what
regs they will follow.
Jeff
--
#######################################################
# #
# Jeff Crowell | | #
# jc...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com | _ | #
# _________|__( )__|_________ #
# BLD Quality Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x #
# (208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x #
# O x x O #
# #
#######################################################
According to my calculations, the problem does not exist.
Robert W. Allardyce
While I may have hit "delete" and wiped out one or two unread messages
on this thread, I take it as meaningful no one seems to have gotten on
the guy's case for screwing an officer in his wife's unit and, if what
has been offered in the media is correct, lying to her to get her to
open her thighs. Could this possibly be an indication of not merely a
double but multiple standard? Once again, it seems to be the woman's
responsibility to refrain.
:-(? RA
John Weiss
If you're not in the Air Force, it doesn't. If you are, you swore to obey the
UCMJ, which does happen to apply what might be considered your "private" life.
On 5/14/97 6:47AM, in message <5lcfp9$ojj$2...@news.du.etx.ericsson.se>, Robert
Virding <r...@erix.ericsson.se> wrote:
I must start by confessing my almost complete ignorance in the details
of this affair. I just have one basic question which makes me wonder:
What right does the airforce, or any other military or government body
for that matter, have to judge me in my private life?
Hank Meyer
r...@erix.ericsson.se (Robert Virding) asks:
> 1. What right does the military have to invade what is definitely my
> private life and say who I may or may not have an affair with? Would
> the outcome have been different if the other person had been
> non-military or the husband of another Lt?
Because when you enlist or are commissioned in the military, you
voluntarily agree to being governed by the UCMJ. You absolutely *do*
give up (i.e. waive) certain rights and protections that you have
as a civilian which you *do not* have as a service member.
> 2. "Fraternisation" is, of course, just a variant of the first
> question, but slightly more explicit. I was just trying to show how
> ridiculous it can be my making the point that one week I can not have
> a relationship with a person, but the week after I can. With the same
> person.
Once again, if in that first week your actions are governed by the UCMJ
and the rules and procedures of the military service, then you may not
be able to. After serering your legal ties to the military, you are no
longer governed by those regulations and law. You regain your greater
freedom under the laws of society in general.
> Another question I have (about general principles again!!!) is of the
> wisdom or benefits of trying to enforce moral rectitude in the
> military services? What is it expected to get you?
Disclipline, teamwork, unity of purpose, obedience (within the bounds
of legality), and perhaps of most importance, a sense of esprit de
corps and higher calling. All these are necessary to create conditions
that ensure, when necessary, the organization can function effectively
and confidently performing it's primary mission: kill and destroy others
while protecting one's own.
Hank
hcm...@uci.edu
" jac...@ptw.com
Boris Goldberg wrote:
>
> Dave wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 11 May 1997 18:59:54 -0500, GaiMarDon
> > <donnel...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I guess you can get RAPED in a court room. Come on Air Force drop the
> > >charges and give the Lt an administrative discharge.
> > >
> > >DONNELL MILLER
> > >Captain, USAF Ret
> > >Never could keep my mouth shut over injustice
> >
> > She lied and disobeyed orders. Who give a shit about the adultery. She
> > at least deserves a court martial and an official reprimand on her
> > record. Not jail maybe, but that story was so one sided(hers) that no
> > one could tell from it. The press, Sheesh!!.
> >
> USAF, playing the Big Brother, is commited to persecuting people
> for ... having sex.
> Adultery is a term out of the Middle Ages, when sleeping with your
> neigbor's wife was a crime but killing heretics was not.
I think that people entrusted with multi-million dollar aircraft and
weapons of mass destruction should be held to a higher level of trust.
Ignoring one's orders and lying to cover it up are not an acts that I
would like to see tolerated in our armed forces. The lack of ethics
bothers me more than the lack of morals and I certainly don't want to
see her (if found guilty) receive any benefits paid for by my taxes!
Too bad there's nothing that can be done in regards to our money spent
training her.
Regards,
JR
Hank Meyer
egel...@aol.com (EGELSONE) wrote:
> I have served with several women aviators and _some_ made it through the
> program _because_ they were women. Some are dead now because they were
> passed to meet quotas and media/beltway pressures to have them in the
> service.
Although normally Ed and I are on the same wavelength, I have to ask some
rather pointed questions on his statement above. Specifically:
1. How many are "several"?
and
2. How many of the "some" (assuming they are part of the "several") are
"now dead"? And how did they die, and did that have relevance to reduced
standards in training?
Ed, you've made a blanket statement here, please now back it up with
some specifics.
Hank
hcm...@uci.edu
eaespino
Robert Virding <r...@erix.ericsson.se> wrote in article
<5lfbad$g4n$1...@news.du.etx.ericsson.se>...
> In article <01bc60aa$b3eb9980$1ffe...@pophost.ping.be.ping.be>, "John
Mahaffey" <John.M...@ping.be> writes:
If I choose to commit
> adultery on my own time I fail to see how this affects my work or my
> ability to to do my work properly.
>
Ah, but that's the problem , Robert. As a military officer, there is no
such thing as having your "own time" - PERIOD. I'm an officer 24 hours a
day, seven days a week. I work many weekends and many times work while
you're in bed. Sixteen to twenty hour work days are the norm for an
officer. My point is that there is no distinction between an officer's
private and public time. We do not "work for" the military. We ARE the
military. That's the difference between officers and civilians and why the
rules must be different. You cannot apply AT&T logic to this situation.
Stephen E. Wood
John, let me try to answer your question with something that I must confess
sounds trite: when one joins the armed forces, one gives up some of their
"rights." As a military officer, I really don't have a "private" life.
Any action I take, whether on base, overseas, or locally, in uniform or
out, makes a statement as to my fitness/quality as an officer.
So...day/night, our actions are judged...we know this; all members of the
military know this. We accept it or we leave the service.
Steve Wood, Maj, USAF
John Weiss <jrw...@seanet.com> wrote in article
<N.051697.085411.60@ruth>...
Fogslider
I must add a hearty endorsement to Mr. Mahaffy's comment. Military
discipline must be enforced at all times. It is the responsibility and
duty of commissioned officers as well as warrants and non-commissioned
officers to uphold customs and courtesies as well as the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. I am an AIr Force NCO and concur with the decision of
the bomb squadron commander. He is ultimately responsible for those under
his command. Just suppose, the spouse of the particular civilian had
reacted violently to their affair and injured or killed the captain?
Millions of dollars of your taxes would have gone to waste due to a
commander turning a blind eye to this impropriety. The regulations were
written for a reason but, if you think these regulations are archaic and
due for change...work with your legislative representatives to change the
laws. It is your military, we are here to protect your interests. Please
don't let individuals ride roughshode over you saying you don't understand
the situation. Do the research!
M Carter
Robert W. Allardyce
> a civilian, he is not responsible to the UCMJ.
>
> Of course what do I know? I'd be in favor of criminalizing adultery.
>
> David Benjamin
I predict this general thread, not the one I initiated, will equal or
exceed that "New evidence concerning TWA800". The subject of adultery
has been around for a very long time (e.g, as it more recently relates
to various forms of the military and combat - recall, For Whom The Bells
Toll.
Beyond all the pious stuff, the UCMJ has been demonstrated not to have
been very "uniform", at least in its application (e.g., those AAF
enlisted men in Germany that were screwing another EM's 12 year old
daughter -- no court martial there . . ).
There is an odor of "Don't ask. Don't tell." about Flynn's that, in
other areas, the Navy used as license to dump easily rustable steel
barrels of toxic wastes off the Farallon Islands (many years ago); out
of sight out of mind, one might say. Said in another way, while I agree
"adultery" is bad stuff and our world would be a nicer place without it,
I wonder how Diogenes would make out wandering though the Officers' Club
at Minot AFB, or any other AFB, for that matter? (Hotsy Baths,
prostitutes, and ordinary fun loving females wouldn't be on Diogenes'
list of particular(s).)
Having said all that, Flynn's covers have been pulled (if you'll pardon
the expression). It's all out in the open and the "end game" must revert
to UCMJ. We arn't smart enough to do it otherwise.
When I was a kid in the AF we used to have term for it: Tough Shit.
Robert Allardyce
rhe...@global.california.com
In 1992, I led a USAFR audit which found probable theft of Government
property and $2,000,000 in questionable contract expenditures -
unfortunately, I tried to give Gen Colin Powell a letter in March 1993
after I had received a letter from the Acting Assistant Navy Secretary
saying that all Navy activities had been directed to stop using an unusual
contract but refusing to stop the $30,000 week hemorhage I was forced to
continue to support. As a result, the enthusiasm by the Director promptly
waned; the AFOSI then assigned a follow-up task to a reservist two years
later. He interviewed me, but I doubt it ever really went anywhere and
the statutes of limitations have probably expired by now.
Bottom line - How much investigative and prosecutorial resources have the
Air Force and the other services devoted to getting Lt Flinn and other
officer's sexual peccadilos versus going after the real but more
challenging to catch crooks.
Anybody care to probe, I have the facts to back up my allegations..
Roger Helbig
Roger Helbig
rhe...@global.california.com
Robert Virding
In article <19970516192...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, ice...@aol.com (Icepik6) writes:
>Robert Virding writes:
><<1. What right does the military have to invade what is definitely my
>private life and say who I may or may not have an affair with? Would
>the outcome have been different if the other person had been
>non-military or the husband of another Lt?>>
>
>order and discipline of the armed forces." Specifically, Lt Flinn's
>conduct was contrary to the good order and discipline of her unit, and
>ultimately the USAF. Let me put it in context for you. Let's say someone
>you work for in your computer lab is sleeping with your wife or
>girlfriend...how might you feel about that? How might you feel about that
>supervisor? Might it affect your job performance? Might it affect your
>professional relationship with that supervisor? What if everyone of your
>friends knew about the fact that the supervisor was sleeping with your
>wife/girlfriend? MIght it also affect their opinion and working
>relationship with that supervisor? Would that not ultimately affect the
>performance of the entire lab, and subsequently the entire company??
So it might, so it might. Of course it it managed to affect the whole
company then that would show just how important we are and would be a
wonderful bargaining point when discussing wages. :-)
More seriously, of course I would be extremely upset if I found my
wife having an affair with some else in the lab. That is not the
point. The point is that I would not expect *ERICSSON* to take action
to try and solve the problem, it my affair (along with my wife and the
other person).
The problem is that if the company, or USAF, or ..., starting imposing
restrictions beyond the laws of the land then who is to say where it
should stop. If it forbids adultery, then why not forbid homosexuality
(the others in the group may feel threatened) or restrict religious
affiliation (much better if we all believe the same thing) or colour
(better appearance if group all same colour). There is not really any
better reasons for one than for the others.
As I tried to point out before that "moral rectitude" is also no
guarantee for anything, re the SS which demanded very high moral
rectitude and conduct.
Irrelevant Push.
I also remember reading that Hitler was very upset when he
found out that many soldiers on the eastern front were very
eagerly volunteering for the death squads. He saw the
extermination as a very serious matter and definitely not
to be taken lightly, you should only take part for the best
reasons.
Pop
ben...@cds-inc.com
In <5lv88k$s3c$2...@news.du.etx.ericsson.se>, r...@erix.ericsson.se (Robert Virding) writes:
[snip]
>The problem is that if the company, or USAF, or ..., starting imposing
>restrictions beyond the laws of the land then who is to say where it
>should stop. If it forbids adultery, then why not forbid homosexuality
>(the others in the group may feel threatened) or restrict religious
>affiliation (much better if we all believe the same thing) or colour
>(better appearance if group all same colour). There is not really any
>better reasons for one than for the others.
[snip]
The mass media are the ones pushing the adultery theme in the court martial;
the USAF contends that its biggest bone is with Flinn directly disobeying a direct
order from a superior officer (to stay away from the enlisted chap) and
for lying about the circumstances when questioned. I can certainly agree with
that.
Also, it's not as if the USAF just decided that adultery is bad; it's been a no-no
for a very long time. Whether they choose to enforce it 100% of the time is
at their discretion; if you decide to do that, they you also assume the risk that
they will find out and punish you. In short, Flinn knew the rules, violated them,
disobeyed a direct order to cease and desist, and lied about her activities.....not
exactly a great role model for future female USAF aviators or any military officer
in general.
Cheers,
Brad
FL
Boris Goldberg wrote:
>
> Michael Williamson wrote:
> >
> > Boris Goldberg wrote:
> >
> > Mike Williamson
>
> How can sleeping with somebody's wife/husband affect military unit
> cohesion, moral and discipline? Why do you want to be your neighbor's
> keeper? Do you think that soldiers who don't sleep around are better
> soldiers than those who do sleep around? Or, maybe, as a puritan,
> you just can't stand it when somebody else is having a good time?
Buddy,
She was having encounters with a subordinate husband, that is wrong in
the military, she also had encounters with a subordinate, that is also
very wrong in the military. She lost the trust of her superiors and her
peers, as well as her subordinates I would imagine. Of what possible
use is this officer now. Does her crew trust her with their lives, I
doubt it.
Mark
David Lentz
> restrictions beyond the laws of the land then who is to say where it
> should stop. If it forbids adultery, then why not forbid homosexuality
> (the others in the group may feel threatened) or restrict religious
> affiliation (much better if we all believe the same thing) or colour
> (better appearance if group all same colour). There is not really any
> better reasons for one than for the others.
>
> guarantee for anything, re the SS which demanded very high moral
> rectitude and conduct.
The case concerning Lieutenant Kelly Flinn is not primarily about
adultery. The primary charge, five years, is that Flinn made a false
official statement. The adultery charge only has a maximum sentence of
one year. Flinn is going to be court martialed, and I say convicted,
because she made a false official statement. Flinn is in a tough spot
only because she put herself in one.
By the way last week the Air Force convicted a chicken colonel of twice
dating an enlisted female and kissing his secretary, docked him
eigthteen thousand dollars and sentenced the colonel to three month in
jail. Mind that is for two dates and one kiss.
You and Lt Flinn might not care for the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. However, Flinn took an oath to uphold the code. She did not.
David R. Lentz, MSgt, USAF (retired)
Paul J. Adam
In article <5lv88k$s3c$2...@news.du.etx.ericsson.se>, Robert Virding
<r...@erix.ericsson.se> writes
>So it might, so it might. Of course it it managed to affect the whole
>company then that would show just how important we are and would be a
>wonderful bargaining point when discussing wages. :-)
>
>More seriously, of course I would be extremely upset if I found my
>wife having an affair with some else in the lab. That is not the
>point. The point is that I would not expect *ERICSSON* to take action
>to try and solve the problem, it my affair (along with my wife and the
>other person).
But then, Ericsson don't entrust you with nuclear weapons, nor does your
contract of employment with them require you to kill people you've never
met while they do their utmost to kill you.
>The problem is that if the company, or USAF, or ..., starting imposing
>restrictions beyond the laws of the land then who is to say where it
>should stop.
The armed forces have responsibilites above and beyond "the laws of the
land" compared to civilians. In the British Army, I stood on a gate at
the end of a public highway armed with a semi-automatic high-velocity
rifle, with orders to use it on anyone trying to enter the training area
who failed to show proper identification.
Even for civilian employment you have terms and conditions: for
instance, I'm not allowed to bring any alcoholic beverage onto my
employers' premises, on pain of summary dismissal. Is this an
infringement of my rights? Why can't I bring one bottle of beer in, to
enjoy with my lunch? No harm will be done and surely it's my business...
Tell me Ericsson doesn't have a rule or two of its own like that, over
and above civilian law.
>If it forbids adultery, then why not forbid homosexuality
>(the others in the group may feel threatened)
Again, here in the UK that's the case. Rightly or wrongly, if you are
discovered to be homosexual while serving in HM Forces you are liable
for immediate discharge.
This isn't a secret: this is (or damn well should be) known to everyone
who comes in. Part of joining the military is accepting a higher
standard of behaviour than most civilians are held to.
> or restrict religious
>affiliation (much better if we all believe the same thing) or colour
>(better appearance if group all same colour). There is not really any
>better reasons for one than for the others.
I'd beg to differ.
Colour is irrelevant. Religion is, generally, irrelevant: yes, every
faith has a handful of intolerants, but are you restricting the Armed
Forces to Christianity? Or to Protestantism? Does that include or
exclude Baptists and Methodists?
Again, this case is less about an Air Force officer committing adultery,
than her refusal to heed suggestions, then orders, to cease breaching
military regulations she swore to obey, and then lying to investigators.
I don't know the exact oath of commissioning the US Air Force use, but I
recall something along the lines of "special trust and confidence". If
an officer cannot be trusted to follow regulations or obey a lawful
order (you may disagree with the law, but the regulation is there and
clear) then they cannot continue to command the confidence of their
peers, their subordinates or their superiors.
You consider military regulations unjust or Draconian? Then don't enlist
and do not make yourself subject to them. There is no draft, either in
the US or UK: there is no press gang, nobody forcing men and women into
the Forces.
>As I tried to point out before that "moral rectitude" is also no
>guarantee for anything, re the SS which demanded very high moral
>rectitude and conduct.
It's less a moral angle than a command one. The officer in question
behaved in a manner likely to demoralise and disaffect other members of
her unit, and broke the military law she had agreed to obey in the
process.
Take a very blunt view. The regulations forbid adultery, yet this
officer is committing it, is widely known to be doing so, and has
ignored orders to stop.
Simply because you disagree with the law doesn't give you licence to
ignore it.
Viper
Paul Adam made some outstanding points; I hope many of you read them.
I am currently serving...I am a Major; and a combat pilot/instructor pilot.
I am also an Academy graduate; class of 1983. That having been said...
I am fully in favor of Lt Flinn being "hammered" to the letter of the law.
Initially I wasn't; but I didn't have all the facts. If you'll allow me
some length here, I'll explain.
(Charges are listed in my own order; not the order of the GCM)
Charge 1: Disobedience to a lawful order.
It would appear to me, from the evidence released by the USAF and confirmed
by her own attorney that Lt Flinn is guilty of this. The question has been
made as to the legality of the order. That is a question for the court.
An officer is obligated both morally and legally to "...obey the lawful
orders of those appointed over me and to back them up in every way." It
appears that not only did she not obey her commander, she later conspired
with her lover to deceive the proper authorities as to their status.
Charge 2: Making a False Official Statement.
Again, from the evidence released and confirmed by her attorney, when
questioned by both her commander and legal authorities later, she both
denied the affair, and it's continuation, and she denied having contact
with the individual after having been ordered not to. Her "lover"
confirmed that she had contacted him; and that they'd not broken off their
relationship.
Charge 3: Adultery.
Self convicted already. She has admitted to an affair with a married man.
The UCMJ is very explicit in this case: have sexual intercourse with a
married person, not your spouse, and you are guilty of adultery and shall
be punished as a general courts martial shall decide. Period.
So...how to I "rate" the charges? The adultery one actually doesn't
concern me, from a military standpoint, as much as the first two. I do not
approve of it; and if I have evidence of one of my people doing it...I"ll
probably hang them!!! No...change that...I will hang them.
But...an officer, as well as an enlisted member, is held to a higher
standard that in civilian life. This is no surprise to anyone; we are told
this from day one and we know this. Those that can't conform or don't
agree...they leave the service for their and our good.
Second...an officer...yes, we're held to a higher standard; again, it's
something we know about and we accept. And here's where I really have a
problem with Lt Flinn...there's a 13 word code that she and I share...or
did share....along with about 50,000 others in and out of the Air
Force....and it goes like this:
"We will not lie, steal, cheat, or tolerate among us anyone who does."
This is the Air Force Cadet Honor Code. She swore to that when she entered
the Air Force Academy. Now...she's an officer and a "grad." I expect her
to have followed this code all four years at the academy and to have
inculcated this into her life. Her actions show this is not the case. If
she'll lie now, then maybe she lied then...and if she lied then....did she
cost any other cadet? Could she have cheated on an exam that, because she
scored higher than another cadet, that cadet was disenrolled and she ended
up graduating? This could go on in infinite iterations, my point is simply
that I can NOT trust this officer. And that is DEATH in the military.
I fly and depend on my wingman to "be there..." when I need him. I don't
keep looking over my shoulder to ensure it; it's something I know because
my wingman is the consumate professional; he's an american military
officer. His/her word is his/her bond; period.
Lt Flinn has not demonstrated the qualities of an officer in this case; and
she should not be allowed to continue to serve. As to her fitness for an
"honorable" discharge...what has she done to deserve this? Show me her
"honorable" service and I'll consider the "honorable" discharge. I can
already show you evidence of her "dishonerable" service.
Stephen E. Wood, Maj, USAF
Darrell Schmidt
Viper wrote:
> =
> Second...an officer...yes, we're held to a higher standard; again, it's=
> something we know about and we accept. And here's where I really have =
a
> problem with Lt Flinn...there's a 13 word code that she and I share...o=
r
> did share....along with about 50,000 others in and out of the Air
> Force....and it goes like this:
> =
> "We will not lie, steal, cheat, or tolerate among us anyone who does."
> =
> This is the Air Force Cadet Honor Code. She swore to that when she ent=
ered
> the Air Force Academy. Now...she's an officer and a "grad." I expect =
her
> to have followed this code all four years at the academy and to have
> inculcated this into her life. Her actions show this is not the case. =
If
> she'll lie now, then maybe she lied then...and if she lied then....did =
she
> cost any other cadet? Could she have cheated on an exam that, because =
she
> scored higher than another cadet, that cadet was disenrolled and she en=
ded
> up graduating? This could go on in infinite iterations, my point is si=
mply
> that I can NOT trust this officer. And that is DEATH in the military.
> =
> I fly and depend on my wingman to "be there..." when I need him. I don=
't
> keep looking over my shoulder to ensure it; it's something I know becau=
se
> my wingman is the consumate professional; he's an american military
> officer. His/her word is his/her bond; period.
> =
> Lt Flinn has not demonstrated the qualities of an officer in this case;=
and
> she should not be allowed to continue to serve. As to her fitness for =
an
> "honorable" discharge...what has she done to deserve this? Show me her=
> "honorable" service and I'll consider the "honorable" discharge. I can=
> already show you evidence of her "dishonerable" service.
> =
> Stephen E. Wood, Maj, USAF
Excellent analysis, Stephen. You hit the nail on the head. I try to
tell people that it wasn't so much the adultery as it was the "official"
lying and disobedience to orders after the fact. One of the toughest
adjustments I had to make after retiring from the USAF was to realize
that my civilian associates would make false statements to get my
business all the while knowing in advance they could not fulfill the
promises they made.
The years of "An officer's word is his bond" caused me to believe
promises that later embarrassed me because I could not perform as I had
hoped because my supplier couldn't come up with the "goods" on time. =
And, worst of all, they would never call in advance to advise me they
would be late.
Darrell R. Schmidt
LtCol, USAf Retired
Captain, American Airlines, Retired
Instructor, Flight Safety Int'l
-- =
------ +----.
---- =A6=A6 \
---- =A6=A6 \ .---+-\ =A6 =
=
sch...@pacbell.net ---|--`=A6----- +/-------\---------\|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ----- \ USAF +------. + =A6=7F=7F
--- `---------------------------'=A6
=A6
Ron Miller
Viper (fli...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: But...an officer, as well as an enlisted member, is held to a higher
: standard that in civilian life. This is no surprise to anyone; we are told
: Second...an officer...yes, we're held to a higher standard; again, it's
Very good posting.
The thing that the press and public at large don't understand is that
WE * MEAN IT!!!!
"We" meaning those of us who are or have served.
So often in Hollywood, politics, and in normal civilian life people
say one thing and do another. It's so common, so typical, so normal,
so "natural" that it's simply astonishing that someone be held to
their word that it's incomprehensible. It's alien behavior.
Ron Miller
Don Hatten
She's gone now...the thread can die. Unless you want to opine the
lowering of values and morals in today's American society.
--
*****************************************
Don Hatten hat...@syix.com
1170 Kenny Dr #1 AMA #SOARDOG
Yuba City, Ca 95991 USHGA #17442
KE6TJG
Proponent of rec.models.rc.soaring
*****************************************
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, "Paul J. Adam" <pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> said:
>But then, Ericsson don't entrust you with nuclear weapons, nor does your
>contract of employment with them require you to kill people you've never
>met while they do their utmost to kill you.
Nor, more to the point, will they expect you to order a subordinate into a
position where that subordinate could and probably will get killed.
In a military situation like that, do you want the subordinate to do what
he/she is told, or do you want them to stop and argue with you that the
tactical situation doesn't require it, and you're only ordering them into that
position to get rid of a rival?
Military laws are extraordinary because military situations are extraordinary.
--
Paul Tomblin, Contract Programmer.
I don't speak for Kodak, they don't speak for me.
(Email that is not work related should go to: ptom...@xcski.com)
"You are in a twisty maze of Motif Widget resources, all inconsistent."
Mary Shafer
On 22 May 1997 14:40:55 GMT, "Viper" <fli...@ix.netcom.com> said:
V> "We will not lie, steal, cheat, or tolerate among us anyone who
V> does."
V> This is the Air Force Cadet Honor Code. She swore to that when she
V> entered the Air Force Academy. Now...she's an officer and a
V> "grad." I expect her to have followed this code all four years at
V> the academy and to have inculcated this into her life. Her actions
V> show this is not the case.
Of course, this is the same Honor Code that midshipmen at the Naval
Academy swore. It didn't seem to stop them from rape, child
molestation, and setting up some sort of theft and fencing ring. What
happened to those middies? Anybody know?
I've always thought that the Honor Code was stupid. Who hasn't "lied"
by going along with something foolish and wasteful proposed by one's
superiors? Who hasn't "stolen" by using on-duty time for personal
concerns? Even in the Academy setting, what if the Corps only thinks,
incorrectly, that someone is lying, stealing, or cheating? What if
the "evidence" is a lie put forth by someone who doesn't like that
person? How good are 18-year-olds at determining the truth of every
accusation? This sounds more like "group think" than like "honor".
Besides, she's not in the Academy any more. The rules are different.
How many of her fellow officers who were Academy graduates stopped
"tolerating" her? How many of them stopped "tolerating" other
adulterous officers? What about those who committed other "honor
code" violations? No one else lies, steals, or cheats?
As I've said before, the whole thing boils down to selective
enforcement. Unless every rumored adulterer is investigated, spoken
to, counseled, reprimanded, or court martialed, any such action in
_selected_ cases is wrong. There can't be one regulation for some
people and another for others. That's supposedly the whole point of
the Uniform Code of Military _Justice_.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Mary Shafer
On 22 May 1997 20:22:31 GMT, r...@fc.hp.com (Ron Miller) said:
R> : But...an officer, as well as an enlisted member, is held to a
R> higher : standard that in civilian life. This is no surprise to
R> anyone; we are told
R> : Second...an officer...yes, we're held to a higher standard;
R> again, it's
R> Very good posting.
R> The thing that the press and public at large don't understand is
R> that WE * MEAN IT!!!!
But you don't mean it.
About every six months I see an article in Approach magazine about how
a pilot, an officer, was allowed to get away with violating the rules
again and again because of the pilot's popularity or the lack of
desire to "make waves" or some other reason. The only time that
anyone mentions rule violation and unsafe behavior is after the
accident. Then all of a sudden it comes out that everyone in the
squadron thinks that pilot was a menace.
That doesn't sound like meaning it for everyone.
Maybe you mean it for people who aren't popular?
Or maybe you mean it when you don't have to worry about confrontation?
Or maybe you don't really mean it after all?
R> "We" meaning those of us who are or have served.
Funny, Approach is an official publication of the US Navy and everyone
involved in putting it out is serving.
R> So often in Hollywood, politics, and in normal civilian life people
R> say one thing and do another. It's so common, so typical, so
R> normal, so "natural" that it's simply astonishing that someone be
R> held to their word that it's incomprehensible. It's alien behavior.
The Navy doesn't think that this is true. They even say so in
official publications. I've read it again and again.
Matt Clonfero
"Paul J. Adam" <pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>The problem is that if the company, or USAF, or ..., starting imposing
>>restrictions beyond the laws of the land then who is to say where it
>>should stop.
>
>The armed forces have responsibilites above and beyond "the laws of the
>land" compared to civilians. In the British Army, I stood on a gate at
>the end of a public highway armed with a semi-automatic high-velocity
>rifle, with orders to use it on anyone trying to enter the training area
>who failed to show proper identification.
Agree with Paul. It's a matter of reliability. Civilians in the UK are
not subject to random compulsory drug testing by law, and there would be
an outcry if someone attempted to make it so. In the forces...
>Tell me Ericsson doesn't have a rule or two of its own like that, over
>and above civilian law.
Well, I know someone who works for Ericsson, and his section has a
rule about using the Internet for non-work related matters. Hmm.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
================================================================================
Matt Clonfero: Ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk | To Err is Human
My employers and I have a deal - They don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
Stephen Swartz
This is ridiculous reasoning and Mary ought to know better.
In article <SHAFER.97M...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>, sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) says:
>
>On 22 May 1997 14:40:55 GMT, "Viper" <fli...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>
>V> "We will not lie, steal, cheat, or tolerate among us anyone who
>V> does."
>
**** SNIP ****
>
>Besides, she's not in the Academy any more. The rules are different.
>How many of her fellow officers who were Academy graduates stopped
>"tolerating" her? How many of them stopped "tolerating" other
>adulterous officers? What about those who committed other "honor
>code" violations? No one else lies, steals, or cheats?
Ahhh yes, the old "everbody else does it" argument. I can't believe
you are actually making the argument that high standards are silly
because the majority of (weak-willed) people choose to live their lives
by a different (easier) code.
"Everybody else lies, cheats, and steals, so I should be able to"
is an adolescent argument and begs the obvious question: when
the standards are constantly being defined by the lowest common
denominator, what good are they?
>
>As I've said before, the whole thing boils down to selective
>enforcement. Unless every rumored adulterer is investigated, spoken
>to, counseled, reprimanded, or court martialed, any such action in
>_selected_ cases is wrong. There can't be one regulation for some
The regulation is the same for everybody. Have you ever
considered that the circumstances of some cases may differ
enough to warrant different punishment? Guess not.
>people and another for others. That's supposedly the whole point of
>the Uniform Code of Military _Justice_.
Shameful! As long as the cops don't catch every speeder/thief/
con man/murderer/child abuser, then it shouldn't be illegal.
I honestly can't believe I'm actually reading this. I guess what
the experts say about the internet catering to the coarsest among
us is true.
Steve
eaespino
Mary Shafer <sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote in article
<SHAFER.97M...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>...
> Of course, this is the same Honor Code that midshipmen at the Naval
> Academy swore. It didn't seem to stop them from rape, child
> molestation, and setting up some sort of theft and fencing ring.
Nobody said there aren't bad apples. There are as many in the military as
work for IBM, McDonald's etc. The military is just a cross-section of
society.
> I've always thought that the Honor Code was stupid.
That's okay. You have that right. That's why you didn't raise your right
hand for it. Flinn did.
> Besides, she's not in the Academy any more.
And that makes it okay to become unprofessional, unreliable, and dangerous?
Listen, I'm not saying the system is perfect. But let's not sweep Flinn's
case under the rug because of that. We have to start somewhere. Remember,
this is a case of an officer on flying status and, most importantly, on
PRP. Servicemembers on PRP are held to standards even higher than the high
standards everyone else is held to.
Viper
I'm going to put this out for everyone even though it's primarily meant for
Mary.
Mary, I see from your job title that you deal with the SR at EDW. Would
you have a problem with lying on the job? Breaking the rules? How about
that person that tells you that the auto synch system for the nose cone is
working fine when it's not...do YOU want to go up and have the cone of one
engine lose the shock wave? Have you seen what the crew looks like when/if
they come down from that? They're beaten to a bloody pulp!
The issue, for the MEDIA, was adultery. The issue for the military was the
lying and disobedience primarily; frat and adultery as a secondary issue.
I've seen several men court martialed in my time for the first two (lying
and disobedience; heck, I've been on the court martial a few times) but
I've only known (personally) one officer (male, navigator) to be court
martialed for adultery.
We've missed the main point, I think; I hope.
Anyway, point is now mute: Sec'y Widnall "caved" and she's off easy.
Steve Wood, Maj, USAF
paul d carrier
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
snip
>As I've said before, the whole thing boils down to selective
>enforcement. Unless every rumored adulterer is investigated, spoken
>to, counseled, reprimanded, or court martialed, any such action in
>_selected_ cases is wrong. There can't be one regulation for some
>people and another for others. That's supposedly the whole point of
>the Uniform Code of Military _Justice_.
In this case Lt Flinn was spoken to and counseled, she even aggreed to
not see her lover again. And she lied and continued to see him.
Spam.tek.com.....
In article <SHAFER.97M...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>,
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov says...
>
.>On 22 May 1997 14:40:55 GMT, "Viper" <fli...@ix.netcom.com> said:
.>
.>V> "We will not lie, steal, cheat, or tolerate among us anyone who
.>V> does."
.>
.>V> This is the Air Force Cadet Honor Code. She swore to that when she
.>V> entered the Air Force Academy. Now...she's an officer and a
.>V> "grad." I expect her to have followed this code all four years at
.>V> the academy and to have inculcated this into her life. Her actions
.>V> show this is not the case.
.>
.>Of course, this is the same Honor Code that midshipmen at the Naval
.>Academy swore. It didn't seem to stop them from rape, child
.>molestation, and setting up some sort of theft and fencing ring. What
.>happened to those middies? Anybody know?
.>
.>I've always thought that the Honor Code was stupid. Who hasn't "lied"
.>by going along with something foolish and wasteful proposed by one's
.>superiors? Who hasn't "stolen" by using on-duty time for personal
.>concerns? Even in the Academy setting, what if the Corps only thinks,
.>incorrectly, that someone is lying, stealing, or cheating? What if
.>the "evidence" is a lie put forth by someone who doesn't like that
.>person? How good are 18-year-olds at determining the truth of every
.>accusation? This sounds more like "group think" than like "honor".
.>
.>Besides, she's not in the Academy any more. The rules are different.
.>How many of her fellow officers who were Academy graduates stopped
.>"tolerating" her? How many of them stopped "tolerating" other
.>adulterous officers? What about those who committed other "honor
.>code" violations? No one else lies, steals, or cheats?
.>
.>As I've said before, the whole thing boils down to selective
.>enforcement. Unless every rumored adulterer is investigated, spoken
.>to, counseled, reprimanded, or court martialed, any such action in
.>_selected_ cases is wrong. There can't be one regulation for some
.>people and another for others. That's supposedly the whole point of
.>the Uniform Code of Military _Justice_.
.>
.>--
.>Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
.>SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
.>sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
.>URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
.>For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
I suggest that you go to the library and find the article written by Kathleen
Parker in the May 21 issue of the ORLANDO SENTINEL. In it,she comments on the
'selective enforcement' issue,and gives an example of a man being
court-martialed for the same issues,and how there was no outcry of
'victimization',or military morals being too strict as compared to civilian
society. It was a very good article.
Jim Yanik;
jya...@iag.net
Bill Weisgerber
Paul Tomblin <tom...@ei.kodak.com> wrote in article
<5m25ub$4...@apollo.ei.kodak.com>...
> In a previous article, "Paul J. Adam" <pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> said:
> >But then, Ericsson don't entrust you with nuclear weapons, nor does your
> >contract of employment with them require you to kill people you've never
> >met while they do their utmost to kill you.
>
> Nor, more to the point, will they expect you to order a subordinate into
a
> position where that subordinate could and probably will get killed.
>
> In a military situation like that, do you want the subordinate to do what
> he/she is told, or do you want them to stop and argue with you that the
> tactical situation doesn't require it, and you're only ordering them into
that
> position to get rid of a rival?
>
> Military laws are extraordinary because military situations are
extraordinary.
> --
Sadly, this case doesn't turn on these nobel sentiments. Certainly the
military can only exist with a strong discipline and intolerance of
predatory personal conduct within the organizational unit. That's what
makes the actions of the drill sergeants at Aberdeen so egregious (as
Marsha Clark was wont to say).
But the facts of this case are completely outside this principal. Lt.
Flinn was not boffing the husband of a subordinate under her command who
could be ordered "into a position where that subordinate could and probably
will get killed". Zigo was the soccer coach. Lt. Flinn was mesmerized.
Anyone with a daughter past the 8th grade can understand the mechanisms at
work here. (Not condone or support, but certainly understand.)
This was not a "military situation" and did not affect the readiness of the
Air Force. The legal officer who started this ball rolling should end up
as the assistant PIO for the support detachment in Diego Garcia. The Air
Force chain of command, instead of stopping the situation with counseling,
NJP, or the like, goes to the max, tells the press, and rapidly turns the
situation into a real sorry mess. Were they feeling left out of the
Tailhook/Aberdeen orbit?
You can piously state that trust with nuclear weapons requires a higher
standard for conduct on the part of Lt. Flinn, but the wing, squadron, and
A/C commanders who have the firing codes and keys and who can't cope with a
simple social situation like this are a lot more frightening to me than the
off-duty behavior of a horny pilot.
I have personally seen a real attitude in the Naval Aviation ranks of
resentment toward female pilots in combat jet seats. I suspect the same is
true of the Air Force. There may very well be a double standard in
selections and training that causes this resentment, but I think that it's
very likely that the initial actions that precipitated into the current
situation had their roots here.
The Air Force failed this one.