• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should General Petreus be court-martialed?

Nov. 13, 2012


Petraeus Personally Investigated Benghazi Attack in Libya - ABC News


In late October, Petraeus traveled to Libya to conduct his own review of the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

While in Tripoli, he personally questioned the CIA station chief and other CIA personnel who were in Benghazi on Sept. 11 when the attack occurred.

The Libya stop was part of a six nation trip to the region. Petraeus intended the review as a way to prepare for his upcoming testimony before Congress on Benghazi.

"He was looking forward to testifying," a Petraeus friend told ABC News. "He wanted to be fully prepared."

Petraeus' friend described his investigation as Petraeus' "personal review" of both the Sept. 11 attack and the events leading up to it.

Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com

The trip was so recent that the CIA has told the Congressional Intelligence committees that the trip report has not yet been completed.

Petraeus' personal involvement in this investigation is one reason some in Congress are likely to insist he testify on Benghazi.

But now Petraeus is telling friends he does not think he should testify.

Petraeus has offered two reasons for wanting to avoid testifying: Acting CIA Director Morell is in possession of all the information Petraeus gathered in conducting his review and he has more current information gathered since Petraeus' departure; and it would be a media circus.
 
You don't think its newsworthy that the Director of the CIA was allowing his girlfriend into sensitive intelligence briefings and that apparently she wound up with classified material on her computer?

You need to get over Benghazi now. It was a screwup, probably by the CIA. Obama did not order the deaths of the U.S. Ambassador and others, in spite of how every right wing zealot wishes that were the case.


No I do not find it newsworthy enough to totally consume the media.

I also see NO probably cause for searching her house nor have I seen any evidence of classified materials on her computers. The raid was all just media grandstanding and nothing else.

Even if so, there is NO purpose in throwing it all over the media as there is exactly nothing the media can do about it.

The CIA didn't screw up on Bengazi. The CIA was the only ones who tried to do anything and the only ones - defying stand-down orders - that did do anything, saving 30 American lives. Your comment confirms the diversion of this. To blame the CIA and put all focus on the CIA, when none of these were CIA actions or decisions about Bengazi. It was the State Department and Obama, not the CIA.

All this noise is just diversionary and misdirective noise.
 
If ever there was conduct unbecoming and adultery, this is certainly it. I don't disagree with you, but if we wouldn't prosecute a General who had a particularly skanky affair for conduct unbecoming, just who would we prosecute in our military? Are they add-on charges for when someone has violated national security? Or are they meant to stand alone?

I'm being devil's advocate, by the way.

Nowadays, sodomy laws have been viewed by the LGBT community as anti-gay laws, since prosecutors can go after homosexuals for breaking these laws. However, prosecutors want to keep sodomy laws on the books so they can use them to go after sexual predators, either to add jail time to the sentence or when it's the only crime they can get a conviction on.

I think there's something similar going on here.

I'm not a member of the military, but I think adultery itself isn't against the UCMJ because of Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Rather, it's so they can go after officers when their adultery had serious consequences.

Such as when an officer has an affair with the spouse of a diplomat or foreign official.

Or when an officer has an affair with the spouse of an inferior under their command. Will that officer send his inferior on dangerous missions hoping for the inferiors' death? Or will that officer refuse to send that inferior on dangerous missions because he doesn't want to see the spouse heartbroken?

So it's situations like these that I think such regulations are made for. Which is why I don't think he should be court-martial end unless more serious charges arise.
 
No I do not find it newsworthy enough to totally consume the media.

I also see NO probably cause for searching her house nor have I seen any evidence of classified materials on her computers. The raid was all just media grandstanding and nothing else.

Even if so, there is NO purpose in throwing it all over the media as there is exactly nothing the media can do about it.

The CIA didn't screw up on Bengazi. The CIA was the only ones who tried to do anything and the only ones - defying stand-down orders - that did do anything, saving 30 American lives. Your comment confirms the diversion of this. To blame the CIA and put all focus on the CIA, when none of these were CIA actions or decisions about Bengazi. It was the State Department and Obama, not the CIA.

All this noise is just diversionary and misdirective noise.

How would you SEE anything on her computer? They are still reading 20- 30,000 emails.

Petraeus traveled to Benghazi in Oct to personally investigate the attack..

Petraeus Personally Investigated Benghazi Attack in Libya - ABC News
 
We need to stop getting in a tizzy when famous people have sex. It's probably the single least important thing ever. Did this affair compromise his ability to do his job? No. The only way that anyone has suggested it could is if he allowed her access to classified material, which is a separate issue! Clinton's sexual proclivities had no impact on his presidenting. Larry Craig wanting to solicit gay sex in a bathroom doesn't make him a bad legislator (though it does make him a hypocrite). And can we please stop freaking out over adultery? Studies show that between 1/4 and 1/2 of married people cheat on their spouses. It's not rare, nor does it automatically prove that a person is vile and evil. Why are we surprised when famous people do it? Can we please stop with all these inane sex scandals? The only time when a public figure's sex life matters is when they take the position to say what kind of sex life is good or bad, and then they fail to live up to their own rules. Then their credibility on the subject is destroyed. That's the only time it matters. Otherwise, it is none of our business. Can we PLEASE stop holding this absurd double standard with famous people and their sexual activities?

I have thought about this issue a lot with regards to what does it say about so many people who take opportunities like this to show such intense moral outrage at such behavior. It gets played up in the media for its news value. It gets played up by politicians for political value. But it is no more to me than sexual behavior common to all of us. It should be treated no more and no less than you would treat anybody's sexual behaviour most of which is none of our business and none of our business to ultimately judge. Human beings have sex and they don't all follow that straight and narrow course we somehow insist people like Patreus follow and nor shoud they. It really grinds my gears to know that so many people criticizing Patreus and other people like him on scandals have no moral authority to do so. It really doesn't cleanse your own sins to elevate what he did to some greater level of wrong.
 
It is ironic, but Presidents are civilians and not bound to the same code of conduct.

The President is the commander in chief. The ultimate boss of the military, the head guy. That's my point.
 
That's what should change - it shouldn't be.

NO, it shouldn't. These are the people who make the direct decisions regarding who lives and who dies in combat situations. Everything they do is the military's business.
 
The President is the commander in chief. The ultimate boss of the military, the head guy. That's my point.

But he isn't in the military and he isn't subject to the UCMJ. That's my point.
 
No I do not find it newsworthy enough to totally consume the media.

I also see NO probably cause for searching her house nor have I seen any evidence of classified materials on her computers. The raid was all just media grandstanding and nothing else.

Even if so, there is NO purpose in throwing it all over the media as there is exactly nothing the media can do about it.

The CIA didn't screw up on Bengazi. The CIA was the only ones who tried to do anything and the only ones - defying stand-down orders - that did do anything, saving 30 American lives. Your comment confirms the diversion of this. To blame the CIA and put all focus on the CIA, when none of these were CIA actions or decisions about Bengazi. It was the State Department and Obama, not the CIA.

All this noise is just diversionary and misdirective noise.

There were no stand down orders. If you have proof of that, let's see it.

You need to drop your hate Obama glasses and start looking that things rationally. I know it's a right wing wet dream to blow this up into something that you can hang around the President's neck, but it ain't happening anywhere except right wing sewer radio.
 
Petreus should be forced to crawl back under that desk and continuously give Broadmore the heat seeking moisture missile while reciting the UCMJ with his wife watching until he has a heart attack.

Resolved.
 
The President is the commander in chief. The ultimate boss of the military, the head guy. That's my point.

But he's not acutually in the military. I agree that it's ironic that it doesn't apply, but it doesn't because the President is a civilian.

It's important to keep it that way. We don't want to be governed by the military a la Egypt. Civilian control of the military is ultimately important.
 
But he isn't in the military and he isn't subject to the UCMJ. That's my point.

So - the president should be treated the same and upheld to teh same standards since he oversees all military action?
 
How would you SEE anything on her computer? They are still reading 20- 30,000 emails.

Petraeus traveled to Benghazi in Oct to personally investigate the attack..

Petraeus Personally Investigated Benghazi Attack in Libya - ABC News

Yes, you oppose the necessity for probably cause to search someone's home and seize the person's computers. I already figured that from other thread topics. Rule of law and the Bill of Rights is repugnant to some people, not what is in your messages.
 
So - the president should be treated the same and upheld to teh same standards since he oversees all military action?

Well, that's a defensible point of view. But it isn't the law and probably never will be. And we don't get to deal in what the law should be - only what the law is.
 
Is adultry typically used as a standard for court martial under Conduct Unbecoming?

If so, then yes probably.

if no, then no.
 
Unless there was a breach of security or some other laws or regulations broken, no, I don't think so.

I don't want taxpayer money spent on that.
What's the point of having rules if cost is the determining factor as to whether it's enforced or not?
 
Adultery - Military Lawyer Stephen P. Karns

Adultery is a criminal offense under the UCMJ. It is defined as the situation where a service member has sexual relations with someone other than his or her spouse. The fact that you may legally separated is no defense. Adultery is also committed if you are not married and have sexual relations with a person who is married or separated from his or her spouse. If the person (other than your spouse) that you have sexual relations with is in your unit or deployed, the charges become more serious as this circumstance is viewed as an aggravating factor. If you have been accused or charged with adultery, the representation of an experienced military attorney such as Mr. Karns is strongly recommended.

In the typical case, adultery may be added to other charges, such as sexual assault, or it may stand alone as the only charge. Regardless, it is imperative to have an experienced military attorney such as Mr. Karns examine the government’s evidence against you, including the statements of its witnesses. Many times, the government has relied upon witnesses who may have personal biases against you, or whose credibility is otherwise tainted. As an experienced military attorney, Mr. Karns can help you defend yourself against the charges by developing evidence and witnesses for your side of the case, as well as discrediting the evidence and witnesses being used against you.

If you are charged with adultery, you may be the subject of administrative action or a court-martial. The consequences of either process can be grave. You may be administratively separated, and if not, you may receive a letter of reprimand which could end your career. If you are court-martialed, you could receive jail time, a punitive discharge, reduction in rank, a possible federal conviction and/or the denial of benefits and future employment opportunities. Regardless of the process, Mr. Karns can employ the evidence for your side of the case in an attempt to resolve it in manner most favorable to you.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Past Cases

Client was a 2LT whose husband was a SGT deployed overseas. Based on the recommendations from a 15-6 investigation, the government drafted four specifications of adultery and were committed to a general court-martial. Mr. Karns argued that three of the specifications could not be proven and persuaded the government to dispose of the case by a letter of reprimand (LOR). At Mr. Karns urging, the CG decided to file the LOR locally and the government agreed not to administratively separate the Client even though she was in a probationary status. This result allowed the Client to be retained and complete her term of service with an Honorable Discharge or continue her career with a "clean slate" once she PCS’s.

USMC Staff Sergeant was married to a fellow Marine and came under investigation for committing adultery and fathering a child with another Marine. Client hired Attorney Karns on a Saturday because that day Client’s battalion SgtMaj told him that he was going to “go for the max.” That same day Attorney Karns contacted Client’s battalion commander and persuaded him to only verbally reprimand Client, rather than NJP or court-martial him, due to his outstanding duty performance and continuing need to care for his family. Client avoided any adverse paper in his file and this incident will not negatively impact his career.
 
Even if it's true that Petreus didn't begin his affair until after he'd left the military, the UCMJ states that he is subject to its jurisdiction for life -- as long as he is receiving a pension.

Since deterrence is one of the reasons we prosecute and punish people, should General Petreus be court-martialed and disciplined for his actions?

Does this law apply to retired enlisted who receive a pension from the military and if so have any retired enlisted been punished under this? If any retired enlisted have been punished for adultery then yes Petreus should be punished.
 
Does this law apply to retired enlisted who receive a pension from the military and if so have any retired enlisted been punished under this? If any retired enlisted have been punished for adultery then yes Petreus should be punished.

Yes, it apparently applies "for the rest of one's life," according to one source. According to another, it lasts as long as one is receiving any benefits.

This link says that "as a general rule" the army won't prosecute a retiree. Guide to Military Criminal Law - Michael J. Davidson - Google Books

Right at the bottom of this link, it says, that retirees are not civilians, but are members of the armed forces. https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=0d6819cf33b1094f4f61ac3778233337

It's obviously a very grey area; yet, if prosecution and punishment is supposed to be a deterrent, this would appear to be quite the example. ;)
 
Yes, it apparently applies "for the rest of one's life," according to one source. According to another, it lasts as long as one is receiving any benefits.

This link says that "as a general rule" the army won't prosecute a retiree. Guide to Military Criminal Law - Michael J. Davidson - Google Books

Right at the bottom of this link, it says, that retirees are not civilians, but are members of the armed forces. https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=0d6819cf33b1094f4f61ac3778233337

It's obviously a very grey area; yet, if prosecution and punishment is supposed to be a deterrent, this would appear to be quite the example. ;)
I was not aware that it would apply beyond retirement, but if so I'm not sure I agree with it.
 
No, he should not be court martialed.
 
Yes, technically he is still subject to the UCMJ as long as he is drawing a pension. I have NEVER heard of anyone being pulled from retirement to be prosecuted for adultery. Never. In fact, if you prosecuted everyone on active duty status that was guilty of adultery you would end up prosecuting a significant percentage of the military.

One of the elements that must be met in whether or not to prosecute for adultery according to Article 134 is:

“That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”

It is really hard to sell that argument when the person isn’t even in the armed forces anymore. It is a stupid law and we should not bend over backwards to get even more ridiculous with it. And yes, the law should be done away with. Adultery is deserving of divorce. Nothing else.
 
We need to stop getting in a tizzy when famous people have sex. It's probably the single least important thing ever. Did this affair compromise his ability to do his job? No. The only way that anyone has suggested it could is if he allowed her access to classified material, which is a separate issue! Clinton's sexual proclivities had no impact on his presidenting. Larry Craig wanting to solicit gay sex in a bathroom doesn't make him a bad legislator (though it does make him a hypocrite). And can we please stop freaking out over adultery? Studies show that between 1/4 and 1/2 of married people cheat on their spouses. It's not rare, nor does it automatically prove that a person is vile and evil. Why are we surprised when famous people do it? Can we please stop with all these inane sex scandals? The only time when a public figure's sex life matters is when they take the position to say what kind of sex life is good or bad, and then they fail to live up to their own rules. Then their credibility on the subject is destroyed. That's the only time it matters. Otherwise, it is none of our business. Can we PLEASE stop holding this absurd double standard with famous people and their sexual activities?

Yeah you’re right we have no call to expect that elected officials have morality, ethics, or integrity that’s just too much to expect from anyone that represents the American people.
 
Yeah you’re right we have no call to expect that elected officials have morality, ethics, or integrity that’s just too much to expect from anyone that represents the American people.

No, it's too much to expect them to act fundamentally differently than we do. They are, after all, still human beings.
 
Back
Top Bottom