# General demoted after affair and multiple sex partners - Air Force Generals play too!



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 17, 2016)

Sex can be a tempting mistress, but now he has given up 'a lot' of money in pension, his family, and likely a good portion of what's left of that pension to his soon to be ex wife (I would assume).

Stories like this piss me off, this guy had 'everything', and he pissed it away.  Hope it was worth it, but I have to think it wasn't.
_
An Army major general has been stripped of his stars and demoted to lieutenant colonel after a 30-year military career because of a long extramarital affair and a 'swinger' lifestyle.

Embattled Army Major General David Haight was demoted by three steps to the rank of lieutenant colonel, a steep and rare downgrade for a senior officer, Army Secretary Eric Fanning said Friday.

The demotion will cost him $43,000 in annual retirement pay, based on pay scales for a lieutenant colonel and a two-star general with 30 years in the Army. And it slams the door on what was once a promising career._

'Swinging' two-star general is demoted and his career is effectively ended after 11-year affair and multiple sexual partners are discovered | Daily Mail Online



To add - damn you Army guys like to put bobbles on your uniforms!  LOL


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 17, 2016)

If him and his wife were truly "swingers" than it wasn't an affair and his wife won't leave him.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 17, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> If him and his wife were truly "swingers" than it wasn't an affair and his wife won't leave him.



Yeah, I could not find any reference to his wife being part of it though.  Either way, they had (have) kids - it's still fucked up.  

Will be interested to read if any of the Rangers on the board know of him - (since he served in the 75th)


----------



## Gunz (Dec 17, 2016)

If wifey was a swinger too, and they were "into" that lifestyle, seems to me, under the new DoD directives where everybody gets a free pass to bugger whoever or whatever they want when they're off-duty, a demotion would constitute discrimination based on sexual preference. The General/Lt Col needs to take a stand for the Swinger Minority.

Look at Marine Air Wingers...Swing with the Wing...they've been doing it for years.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 17, 2016)

T


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 17, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> If wifey was a swinger too, and they were "into" that lifestyle, seems to me, under the new DoD directives where everybody gets a free pass to bugger whoever or whatever they want when they're off-duty, a demotion would constitute discrimination based on sexual preference. The General/Lt Col needs to take a stand for the Swinger Minority.
> 
> Look at Marine Air Wingers...Swing with the Wing...they've been doing it for years.



Being gay doesn't allow you to have marital indiscretion. Gay people that are married fall under the same rules as everyone else.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Being gay doesn't allow you to have marital indiscretion. Gay people that are married fall under the same rules as everyone else.



I was sorta half-joking, but I stand corrected.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 17, 2016)

I've always thought the DoD stance on extra marital affairs, as stupid. Spending years at a time away from you spouse, the spouse can bang the planet and suffer no repercussions. You find some strange and the first thing they want to do is crush your career and make it known to the wife you fucked around.

If it's not affecting your ability to do your job, than it shouldn't be any of their fucking business.  I don't know the inns and outs of the story, not going to waste my time reading it, but being dropped from two stars to a silver oak leaf seems a bit fucking harsh for getting caught with some strange. I would bet there is a lot more to the story...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 17, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Look at Marine Air Wingers...Swing with the Wing...they've been doing it for years.



I may have disagreed with your overall post, but the 'quoted' is funny.  All these years and I've never thought of that saying in that particular way!

@Diamondback 2/2 -
Disagree because regardless of rank, but especially when we are getting up in the "Generals", the opportunity to be held hostage for secrets (or certain decisions) is very real.  And not necessarily only by foreign operatives -   I'd not put it past a "buddy" to demand a favorable assignment, promotion, etc because (s)he happened upon the General's backdoor action.


----------



## Il Duce (Dec 17, 2016)

I know several people who served under now LTC(R) Haight.  He had an affair with a woman he met when he was a LTC (maybe a BN CDR) who was a contractor in IZ.  They led a 'swinger' lifestyle in the sense that she procured additional partners for him through swinging clubs and internet sites in all of his subsequent assignments and his wife apparently didn't know anything about it (they were active members of the Mormon church).  I guess after he broke up with his mistress she did not take it well and started talking.

What's interesting to me about this is that reduction is an administrative action by Army leadership.  The success of the Army in actually prosecuting and holding senior people responsible for this type of behavior (the way they consistently do for junior personnel) is very poor.  The anecdotal evidence that comes to mind is the ADC of the 82nd that was court martialed a few years ago and the 173rd CDR very similarly - both got off very lightly as I remember.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 17, 2016)

Sinclair (ADC of 82nd) was fined 20k, pled guilty to a number of offenses, and got busted two pay grades.  Johnson (the 173rd commander) got busted back to LTC, fined $300,000, and has convictions for fraud and bigamy.  Those don't seem like light punishments.

If going to jail isn't on the table, then administrative action makes a lot of sense.  It saves the time, money, and public spectacle of a trial and can often have the same end result.

It's common practice, and I think appropriate, for officers convicted of misconduct to be busted back to the highest pay grade at which they served honorably.  That seems to be the case with LTC(R) Haight.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 17, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I know several people who served under now LTC(R) Haight.  He had an affair with a woman he met when he was a LTC (maybe a BN CDR) who was a contractor in IZ.  They led a 'swinger' lifestyle in the sense that she procured additional partners for him through swinging clubs and internet sites in all of his subsequent assignments and his wife apparently didn't know anything about it (they were active members of the Mormon church).  I guess after he broke up with his mistress she did not take it well and started talking.
> 
> What's interesting to me about this is that reduction is an administrative action by Army leadership.  The success of the Army in actually prosecuting and holding senior people responsible for this type of behavior (the way they consistently do for junior personnel) is very poor.  The anecdotal evidence that comes to mind is the ADC of the 82nd that was court martialed a few years ago and the 173rd CDR very similarly - both got off very lightly as I remember.



There are probably hundreds of "affairs" going on across all services. If you are caught, something will happen to you. In this case, the new LTC got screwed by his GF via the military management.  His life has just turned to crap. I wonder if he will be able to get the kind of job he was once able to. He is the same person, with all the same skill sets, and management abilities; that he got caught and punished closes many doors. 

As bad as this has been for this, and other officers, it won't make a dent in the number of guys that are stepping out.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Being gay doesn't allow you to have marital indiscretion. Gay people that are married fall under the same rules as everyone else.



Are the rules about infidelity for officers the same for NCOs and enlisteds? I would think the penalties would increase with rank.


----------



## CDG (Dec 17, 2016)

I agree with @Diamondback 2/2 that the UCMJ article on affairs is ridiculous.  It's none of the DoDs business who someone is fucking, unless it affects work.  If they get sucked in by a honeypot, that's an entirely different issue.  Outside of Tom Clancy novels, when was the last time that happened?  The notion that an affair, or being a swinger, will lead to foreign intelligence exploitation is quite a leap.  I would like to see that particular article removed from the UCMJ.  With all of the other issues going on, wasting time and resources on prosecuting those who have affairs is pointless, IMHO.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 17, 2016)

T


----------



## pardus (Dec 17, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The precocial view would follow the broken vow of marriage as perhaps the first domino to fall. Once that goes, will other promises be broken? I'm just saying.



I'm sure that is probably one reason for it. I've always thought the ban on anything but penis+vagina to be illegal, absurd. That must have been fueled by puritan fervor.


----------



## CDG (Dec 18, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The precocial view would follow the broken vow of marriage as perhaps the first domino to fall. Once that goes, will other promises be broken? I'm just saying.



Perhaps, but let's be realistic.  Affairs happen all the time in the military.  TDYs, deployments, graduation night from a course, people fuck. I know a lot of really solid dudes who cheat on their wives.  I have never once seen that trickle over into reduced job performance, or not stepping up when they needed to.  I believe that argument is a non-starter.  It's a textbook example of false equivocation.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 18, 2016)

CDG said:


> Perhaps, but let's be realistic.  Affairs happen all the time in the military.  TDYs, deployments, graduation night from a course, people fuck. I know a lot of really solid dudes who cheat on their wives.  I have never once seen that trickle over into reduced job performance, or not stepping up when they needed to.  I believe that argument is a non-starter.  It's a textbook example of false equivocation.



TDY man, TDY....


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 18, 2016)

If you play, you might have to pay....he knew the risks, shame though...he seemed to have had a good career.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 18, 2016)

[Q


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 18, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> If you play, you might have to pay....he knew the risks, shame though...he seemed to have had a good career.



I agree with your post, but kinda wonder your opinion on the whole losing your career over extra martial affairs issue?

I've never personally stepped out on either of my ex wife or my current wife. But man I watched a few guys get burned over cheating, and generally had more to do with someone not liking somone, and less to do with the actual affair.


----------



## pardus (Dec 18, 2016)

How many of his Soldier's careers did he end during his career because they broke the rules? More than one or two would be my guess. Fuck'm, big boys rules.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 18, 2016)

pardus said:


> How many of his Soldier's careers did he end during his career because they broke the rules? More than one or two would be my guess. Fuck'm, big boys rules.



That's my biggest issue with him. How many times did he burn someone for doing the same exact thing he did. In my book...that makes him a tool! I don't feel sorry for him in the slightest.


----------



## Etype (Dec 19, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Are the rules about infidelity for officers the same for NCOs and enlisteds? I would think the penalties would increase with rank.


Yes, although punishment seems to vary slightly on a case-by-case basis, as @Marauder06 pointed out earlier. But, dont think I'm saying anybody gets off easy, I've never heard of someone getting caught up in some type of sexual misconduct and not suffering a pretty severe punishment.

It's also a line of questioning that comes up on psych evals, boards, and polygraphs.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 19, 2016)

We're a values-based Army, especially in the Officers' Corps.  Trust is the bedrock of our profession.  If someone can't trust someone to do something as simple as stay true to their marriage vows, what else will they not stay true to?  

And of course the Army doesn't enforce adultery rules on non-military spouses.  Our country is not a military dictatorship, and the Army's laws, rules, and norms aren't society's laws, rules, and norms.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 19, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> We're a values-based Army, especially in the Officers' Corps.  Trust is the bedrock of our profession. * If someone can't trust someone to do something as simple as stay true to their marriage vows, what else will they not stay true to?  *
> 
> And of course the Army doesn't enforce adultery rules on non-military spouses.  Our country is not a military dictatorship, and the Army's laws, rules, and norms aren't society's laws, rules, and norms.



This should also apply to all Commanders-in-Chief.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 19, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I know several people who served under now LTC(R) Haight.  He had an affair with a woman he met when he was a LTC (maybe a BN CDR) who was a contractor in IZ.  They led a 'swinger' lifestyle in the sense that she procured additional partners for him through swinging clubs and internet sites in all of his subsequent assignments and his wife apparently didn't know anything about it (they were active members of the Mormon church).  I guess after he broke up with his mistress she did not take it well and started talking.
> 
> What's interesting to me about this is that reduction is an administrative action by Army leadership.  The success of the Army in actually prosecuting and holding senior people responsible for this type of behavior (the way they consistently do for junior personnel) is very poor.  The anecdotal evidence that comes to mind is the ADC of the 82nd that was court martialed a few years ago and the 173rd CDR very similarly - both got off very lightly as I remember.





Marauder06 said:


> Sinclair (ADC of 82nd) was fined 20k, pled guilty to a number of offenses, and got busted two pay grades.  Johnson (the 173rd commander) got busted back to LTC, fined $300,000, and has convictions for fraud and bigamy.  Those don't seem like light punishments.
> 
> If going to jail isn't on the table, then administrative action makes a lot of sense.  It saves the time, money, and public spectacle of a trial and can often have the same end result.
> 
> It's common practice, and I think appropriate, for officers convicted of misconduct to be busted back to the highest pay grade at which they served honorably.  That seems to be the case with LTC(R) Haight.



The problem with CM'ing General Officers is conveying a panel of higher ranking officers, you need 6-18 Officers senior to him and these GO's can not be friends or peers. The pool of candidates winnows down quickly, and in some cases you can not get a panel of officers.
It may seem like a minor slap, but the clearance goes away along with any job opportunities.
I suspect Mrs LTC Haight will soon be an ex, with 50% (or more) of his retired pay, so he will have to make it on $30K per year.
The conviction also has ramifications (voting, firearms, etc).


----------



## CDG (Dec 19, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> We're a values-based Army, especially in the Officers' Corps.  Trust is the bedrock of our profession.  If someone can't trust someone to do something as simple as stay true to their marriage vows, what else will they not stay true to?
> 
> And of course the Army doesn't enforce adultery rules on non-military spouses.  Our country is not a military dictatorship, and the Army's laws, rules, and norms aren't society's laws, rules, and norms.



It's another example of people wanting to regulate morality for no other reason than their personal sensibilities.  Again, marriage vows and job performance are unrelated.  The trust argument is a non-starter, IMO, Sir.  As I said earlier, it's false equivocation.  

Perhaps the Army should worry more about fixing its actual issues, and less about regulating morality.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 19, 2016)

CDG said:


> It's another example of people wanting to regulate morality for no other reason than their personal sensibilities.  Again, marriage vows and job performance are unrelated.  The trust argument is a non-starter, IMO, Sir.  As I said earlier, it's false equivocation.
> 
> Perhaps the Army should worry more about fixing its actual issues, and less about regulating morality.



I know this is an Army GO, but in fairness it isn't the Army regulating morality. It's the UCMJ. 

I agree that job performance is an unrelated issue, but surely you can see where adultery can make someone vulnerable to manipulation. That's true if the bad guys find out about your affair and threaten to expose it or set up the affair themselves.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 19, 2016)

CDG said:


> It's another example of people wanting to regulate morality for no other reason than their personal sensibilities.  Again, marriage vows and job performance are unrelated.  The trust argument is a non-starter, IMO, Sir.  As I said earlier, it's false equivocation.
> 
> Perhaps the Army should worry more about fixing its actual issues, and less about regulating morality.



I will preface this by saying I agree with everything you have posted thus far.

Now to play devils advocate. If "you" are a member of a small team and while TDY your leadership,be it a team sergeant or officer, cheats on his spouse, then at the next team party, you see that spouse. The leadership has put you in a compromising position to your own values, or possibly morals. If you have to lie to cover for them, it changes from regulating individual morality to something very different. It is one thing if this is peer to peer, but once it goes up or down it becomes a different thing in my opinion.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I will preface this by saying I agree with everything you have posted thus far.
> 
> Now to play devils advocate. If "you" are a member of a small team and while TDY your leadership,be it a team sergeant or officer, cheats on his spouse, then at the next team party, you see that spouse. The leadership has put you in a compromising position to your own values, or possibly morals. If you have to lie to cover for them, it changes from regulating individual morality to something very different. It is one thing if this is peer to peer, but once it goes up or down it becomes a different thing in my opinion.


Agree, but find it interesting that our Coalition Partners don't have the issue we seem to.
I think the Adultery statute could be removed and if causes issues we can charge under the Conduct Unbecoming Articles.
The issue goes back to the Clinton era and an AF Officer banging her Crew Chiefs husband, IIRC her name is Kelly Flynn.
Now everything gets charged.


----------



## CDG (Dec 19, 2016)

policemedic said:


> I know this is an Army GO, but in fairness it isn't the Army regulating morality. It's the UCMJ.
> 
> I agree that job performance is an unrelated issue, but surely you can see where adultery can make someone vulnerable to manipulation. That's true if the bad guys find out about your affair and threaten to expose it or set up the affair themselves.



Yes, I can see where it would make them vulnerable.  Again, when has it ever happened? In this day and age, with the capabilities out there, they wouldn't even need to catch an actual affair.  They could edit you into one and threaten anyways.  I think that's a red herring argument. 



TLDR20 said:


> I will preface this by saying I agree with everything you have posted thus far.
> 
> Now to play devils advocate. If "you" are a member of a small team and while TDY your leadership,be it a team sergeant or officer, cheats on his spouse, then at the next team party, you see that spouse. The leadership has put you in a compromising position to your own values, or possibly morals. If you have to lie to cover for them, it changes from regulating individual morality to something very different. It is one thing if this is peer to peer, but once it goes up or down it becomes a different thing in my opinion.



That is a great point.  I don't think cheating on your spouse is right.  You shouldn't do it.  But, it also should not be prosecutable under the UCMJ.  A scenario like the one you presented is internal team business, and should be handled as such.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 19, 2016)

CDG said:


> Yes, I can see where it would make them vulnerable.  Again, when has it ever happened? In this day and age, with the capabilities out there, they wouldn't even need to catch an actual affair.  They could edit you into one and threaten anyways.  I think that's a red herring argument.
> 
> Exactly, if you did or not, it's silly that today someone could use something like that to manipulate you. We photoshop our PL with a pink dildo in his mouth and that was 10 years ago.
> 
> ...



This is exactly the point, people are people and do stupid shit, to include cheating. Handle that shit with some heart to heart life experience talks, and drive on. If it's jacking with your boys or fucking with performance, straighten that shit out or bye-bye. But UCMJ is fucking stupid. That is personal life bullshit. I've seen more than my fair share of officers and NCO'S cheating just like junior enlisted. Take a dude out of the mix with his old lady for 12-15 mths and some hard body starts flirting and shit will happen. Be it a weakness or laps in judgment, it's a personal matter. Just because some joe gets his dick wet outside of his marriage, doesn't mean he can't be trusted to do his job and have integrity about it. How many guys have known their wife had been cheating for month or years, but eat shit for their kids or because they will lose their ass in retirement, etc. We really want to hold them stepping out against them in that situation?  I think that's pretty silly...


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 19, 2016)

Wasn't Eisenhauer rumored to have been knocking boots with his driver?

Did it impact his job performance?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 19, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Wasn't Eisenhauer rumored to have been knocking boots with his driver?
> 
> Did it impact his job performance?



Yes.  Power does corrupt, and corruption does not happen in a vacuum.

I guess the question comes down to what is the behavior you expect from leaders? Where do you draw the line in terms of a leader's personal behavior? @TLDR20 brought to light a very interesting point regarding a leader's behavior impacting the moral compass of those below him. Haight's adultery was corrupt behavior and it impacted all who know of it. People do make mistakes, and adultery is one of them. If it happens and ends so be it, but for it to go on for years is the wrong in it.

Officers having affairs are not a new thing, as the Ike relationship with his driver points out. In the face of officers violating the UCMJ so often, the rules have held firm and unchanged. That Lt Colonel Haight has been punished, and his life now totally changed is not the fault of the UCMJ, it is the hubris of the swinger lifestyle he lived that was wrong.

We have seen threads here regarding the lowering of standards for the SOF community. I have not seen many agree with the lowering of said standards. Should we lower the standards for officers, our leadership? If we remove the stand against adultery, to me it is not unlike lowering other long-held standards. I think we should expect our leaders to hold to the moral high ground. That's my $.02.

Perhaps we should conduct a poll regarding the lowering the standard to allow adultery. My vote would be no.


----------



## CDG (Dec 19, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> That Lt Colonel Haight has been punished, and his life now totally changed is not the fault of the UCMJ, it is the hubris of the swinger lifestyle he lived that was wrong.



I am even more adamantly opposed to going after swingers or polyamorous couples.  If two adults consent to living that arrangement, as many do, that is even less the business of the military.  If they are flaunting it at work, that should be dealt with.  The same can be said for the single E-4 or E-5 who makes others uncomfortable talking about a different bar skank every weekend.  Have a talk with them about keeping their personal activities a little more quiet, and carry on.

  It is far from hubris for someone to want to be a swinger.  It is a religious interpretation of relationships that attempts to force people into monogamy, and punishes those who practice otherwise.  If you want to be monogamous, great, go for it.  If you are in a swinging, or poly, couple, and all parties consent, who cares?  If you commit adultery, it's between you and your spouse.  If someone who works for you has a problem with it, then they can be adults and move past it.  I disagree with things my leadership believes or does, and it doesn't affect my ability to do my job.  Because it doesn't matter.  If the subordinate is so distraught over adultery that they cannot manage to function at work, then that's their own problem.  People make mistakes.  On the list of things that would make me want to work for a different officer, adultery doesn't make the cut.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 19, 2016)

CDG said:


> I am even more adamantly opposed to going after swingers or polyamorous couples.  If two adults consent to living that arrangement, as many do, that is even less the business of the military.  If they are flaunting it at work, that should be dealt with.  The same can be said for the single E-4 or E-5 who makes others uncomfortable talking about a different bar skank every weekend.  Have a talk with them about keeping their personal activities a little more quiet, and carry on.
> 
> It is far from hubris for someone to want to be a swinger.  It is a religious interpretation of relationships that attempts to force people into monogamy, and punishes those who practice otherwise.  If you want to be monogamous, great, go for it.  If you are in a swinging, or poly, couple, and all parties consent, who cares?  If you commit adultery, it's between you and your spouse.  If someone who works for you has a problem with it, then they can be adults and move past it.  I disagree with things my leadership believes or does, and it doesn't affect my ability to do my job.  Because it doesn't matter.  If the subordinate is so distraught over adultery that they cannot manage to function at work, then that's their own problem.  People make mistakes.  On the list of things that would make me want to work for a different officer, adultery doesn't make the cut.



Again I only want to point out that when in a small unit, the actions of others can force a moral objector to carry the weight of others indiscretions. This is when it crosses a line in my opinion.

In some units, regular deployments to countries where certain activities are very legal can lead to a situation in which much of a small unit partakes in things some or one member may find morally reprehensible due to religious or other reasons. If that team member is then punished or removed from the team for objecting, to behavior that is technically outside of the borders of conduct outlined in the UCMJ, what recourse does that team member then have? Be a rat? Or abandon the moral code he chooses to follow? It can be compromising.

It gets pretty muddy. I am all for personal freedom in personal decisions. However in a small team or unit, some decisions can have non personal repercussions.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 19, 2016)

All that said I do agree with @CDG. I am just pointing out where the personal decision argument gets weak.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 19, 2016)

Here's an interesting observation.  In the policing world, we don't have special laws that apply to us in the sense of the UCMJ (outside of a few specific criminal charges relating to depriving someone of their civil rights under color of law).  When we screw up we're dealt with according to a code of conduct that is internal to the agency (speaking generally, of course).

With that as context, the agency I retired from along with its larger sister agency both had a charge for moral turpitude in the code of conduct.  Get caught fucking around on your spouse, and you were fired.  That's since been removed, but the reasoning was that it went directly to your morals and your ability to be trusted--as well as the odds of your testimony being impeached.

I'm not sure that a criminal charge is appropriate for what most would view as an expression of personal ethics.  Some form of punishment is certainly called for, though.

Given our current social climate and the changes it has already brought upon the military, it may very well be that the adultery section in the UCMJ will be stricken or amended.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 19, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I agree with your post, but kinda wonder your opinion on the whole losing your career over extra martial affairs issue?
> 
> I've never personally stepped out on either of my ex wife or my current wife. But man I watched a few guys get burned over cheating, and generally had more to do with someone not liking somone, and less to do with the actual affair.



Your professional life used to be separate from your private life....but not in this PC world. The Colonel knew, when he started playing around, that the Army and DOD would hammer him if he became exposed and an embarrassment...but he did it anyway.


In the past 28 years in law enforcement, one thing that I have learned...whatever I do off duty will come back on me...be it in court and a defense attorney tries to discredit me on the stand, or someone complains to IA. As a serving public servant....I no longer have the rights I use to as a private citizen.

I might not like it or agree with it, but it's the way it is.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 19, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Your professional life used to be separate from your private life....but not in this PC world. The Colonel knew, when he started playing around, that the Army and DOD would hammer him if he became exposed and an embarrassment...but he did it anyway.



This.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 19, 2016)

I do not for the life of me understand why this is even a debate. From bootcamp (or OCS) forward you raise your hand and volunteer. 

You know the rules of the game and by enlisting or accepting a commission  you agree to follow those rules. 

You are told that certain behaviors are a no-go, whether you agree or disagree with the rules, you at least know them. 

You are told that one of the reasons for not fucking around with another man's wife, or someone other than your own wife,  is because it could cause you to be comprised by a foreign government, a domestic group, or even your best friend if he thinks it could benefit him somehow. 

Knowing this, and still needing to get your weenie wet with someone other than your spouse , you do exactly what your are not supposed to do, with exact who you are not supposed to do it with. 

You knowingly risk your career, your pension, your reputation, your relationships, your "name it". For some ass. 

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or Obama, or Trump, or any other fucked up reason. This has to do with the fact that we hold our military, and especially our military officers to a certain standard. If you don't like the standard, or the reasons for the standards...

quit.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 19, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I do not for the life of me understand why this is even a debate. From bootcamp (or OCS) forward you raise your hand and volunteer.
> 
> You know the rules of the game and by enlisting or accepting a commission  you agree to follow those rules.
> 
> ...



I agree and disagree. For reasons I have stated already. I think marital indiscretion is a personal al thing, but as I have also said can have a profound impact on a small unit.... I honestly don't know what I think. I am 50/50 here.


----------



## CDG (Dec 19, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I do not for the life of me understand why this is even a debate. From bootcamp (or OCS) forward you raise your hand and volunteer.
> 
> You know the rules of the game and by enlisting or accepting a commission  you agree to follow those rules.
> 
> ...



It's a debate because it should be a debate.  Yeah, you know the rules.  So what? That means the topic is forever closed to discussion?  I don't like the standard, or the puritanical reason for it.  I need to quit the military now?  Give me a break.  I know what you're told about why marital indiscretion is a bad thing.  I'm calling bullshit and saying those reasons aren't valid in 2016.  I don't know why you mentioned PC, POTUS, or PE Trump, as they have nothing to do with this conversation.  The mantra of "we hold them to standards" is a bunch of horseshit.  Because what's the standard, in reality?  Don't rock the boat, and kiss the right rings. We attempt to force everyone to live to a certain morality, while ignoring issues that actually affect leadership, morale, retention, etc.  If the military was so concerned about these so-called "standards", they would be worrying about actual issues.  Not who gets their dick wet with who.  Toxic, unqualified, etc are ignored, but god help you if you cheat on your wife.  

@TLDR20 made some great points about it affecting a small team dynamic.  True.  I agree with that.  But it's more akin to a personality conflict that can cause the dynamic to be strained as well.  Maybe I voted for Trump and you voted for Hillary and we can't stand each other now.  It's a team level issue though.  Adultery should be a team level issue.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 20, 2016)

I think adultry _can_ effect leadership in a number of instances, especially an extended affair carried on locally, that is, where spouse and mistress are proximal...and continuation requires secrecy, deceit and the need to "cover one's tracks." There's a lot of stress and anxiety involved in that kind of entanglement and it could easily become a serious distraction or disruption in a person's normal flow.

Should it be punishable under the UCMJ? That's a tough question. There's merit in both sides of the argument. Perhaps only when there's some evidence of it having actually or directly interfered with your duties...like when your wife finds out and goes apeshit and shoots up regimental H.Q.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 20, 2016)

Don't shit in your own back yard or area code.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 20, 2016)

The OP was about a general officer who was fucking around on his wife, tried to keep it hidden, and got busted for it.  I believe this was the right decision because I am by default, wired as a rule-follower, and agree that a person with 'rank' could be convinced to make decisions out of the norm if they fear being caught or exposed. @TLDR20 brought up smaller units.  I will concede that those units may have their own set of rules and moralities that those outside of such units would likely not understand or even agree with.

@CDG - you wrote:


CDG said:


> Yes, I can see where it would make them vulnerable. *Again, when has it ever happened? *In this day and age, with the capabilities out there, they wouldn't even need to catch an actual affair. They could edit you into one and threaten anyways. I think that's a red herring argument.



My reply back to the bolded would be, "how would we, the general public ever know?"  In the business world I have seen decisions made and one promotion given, because the CEO was banging his nanny.  We all knew it, but someone took advantage of it. <very long story>  During my time in the Marine Corps we ALL knew that one of the E-3 WM's (women Marine) was blowing the company Gunny.  And we all knew that she avoided the shit duties because of it.  Those are just two examples on a small scale, but they are very real.  Imagine what a person could make happen if they had a "two star" in their pocket.  You don't have to agree that these are valid concerns, but I think you are incorrect to dismiss them and refer to it them a red herring.  

I would use General Petraeus and Paula Broadwell as a recent example.  How David Petraeus avoided felony charges and possible prison time

_As part of the agreement, Petraeus admitted that he improperly removed and retained highly sensitive information in eight personal notebooks that he gave to Broadwell. The Justice Department said the information, if disclosed, could have caused “exceptionally grave damage.” Officials said the notebooks contained code words for secret intelligence programs, the identities of covert officers, and information about war strategy and deliberative discussions with the National Security Council._

It could be argued, and I would agree, that had he not been having sex with this woman (who was an Army Reserve Major at the time), he would not have electronically shared such information with her, and could very well still be Director or CIA.


----------



## Etype (Dec 20, 2016)

Legally, ethically, and morally- those three words come up often.

Lucky for us, the UCMJ legally defines how we are expected to behave eithically and morally.

There are a lot of laws in the military and civilian world, some I agree with and some that I don't. Agree or disagree, they all remain punitive in nature.


----------



## CDG (Dec 20, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The OP was about a general officer who was fucking around on his wife, tried to keep it hidden, and got busted for it.  I believe this was the right decision because I am by default, wired as a rule-follower, and agree that a person with 'rank' could be convinced to make decisions out of the norm if they fear being caught or exposed. @TLDR20 brought up smaller units.  I will concede that those units may have their own set of rules and moralities that those outside of such units would likely not understand or even agree with.
> 
> @CDG - you wrote:
> 
> ...



You are conflating separate issues.  An E-3 blowing the Gunny to get out of details is an entirely separate issue from affairs.  Trading sex for promotions, getting out of work, extra duty, etc should be punished.  Same as if a male Marine was paying the Gunny in cash for the same thing.  It still has nothing to do with the act of having an affair.  I said in earlier posts that other factors should be handled accordingly.  GEN Petraeus is a great example.  He should be prosecuted for mishandling classified information.  He should not be prosecuted for having the affair.  The two are separate issues.  If the affair was a causal factor, so be it.  But if he had not been mishandling classified information, and was only having an affair, then I don't care.


----------



## Etype (Dec 20, 2016)

CDG said:


> He should not be prosecuted for having the affair.


Until the UCMJ is changed, he should be prosecuted.


----------



## Il Duce (Dec 20, 2016)

I think the logic behind having various aspects of a servicemember's personal life subjected to UCMJ is the old 'good order and discipline' argument.  The idea that military authority is in part derived from its ability to enforce discipline, standards of conduct - and thus values is a theme that ties back to the earliest parts of the military. 

I think there's a strong argument to say a big part of those standards are not as relevant or useful today - and thus should be changed.  In my opinion there's a host of rules and standards that aren't the most useful - or just.  The problem I think the powers that be face is it's a slippery slope.  If you start saying UCMJ should be modified or curtailed significantly you could start a downward trend towards legislators and the public saying 'why do you guys have UCMJ in the first place?'  In the US elected executives, judges, and military commanders have the ability to pass sentence on someone.  The first two are on pretty solid constitutional and social ground - you won't hear much argument about that authority being in the right place.  The last one, I think is a harder sell - especially in a US where the military is a smaller and more professionalized force, without as strong ties back to society.

I've heard an argument, that was very convincing to me, that in general that debate/concern is at the heart of why DoD leadership - especially uniformed leadership - has reacted so strongly on sexual assault/sexual harassment.  It wasn't about the morals or PC culture (after all assault and harassment had been going on for decades).  It was the new political reality of a number of Senators (mostly female) looking at the way UCMJ was handling that problem and deciding the DoD was pretty shitty at UCMJ.  Arguments that 'no, we're really good at UCMJ if you look at it objectively' from the brass were not selling well when you can trot out a host of testimonials like in the invisible war.  All of a sudden congress was not buying that shit from the brass and it looked like changes in UCMJ authorities were coming in the realm of sexual assault/harassment handling.  Once that was done the brass was terrified it was a slippery slope to massively curtailing the DoD's UCMJ authority.  That's why we saw such a massive investment in SHARP training and the like - those dudes were fighting for power.

I think you see something similar with a lot of the values-based UCMJ rules we have - adultery, sodomy, improper use of a countersign, drunk on duty, provoking speech or gesture, wrongful cohabitation, unauthorized pass offenses, gambling with a subordinate, indecent language, straggling - that kind of shit.  I think the brass is reluctant to start trimming and modernizing a lot of the conduct because it risks the rest of it getting limited.  I think the Flynn case mentioned is really at the heart of the unintended consequences that caused - and the danger of 2nd and 3rd order effects.  Most of the seemingly ridiculous articles used to be (and some still are) seldom used.  They're just there so if the prosecutor decides to put you down he's got an incredibly powerful set of tools to do it with.  After the Flynn debacle was so heavily politicized it meant now adultery can't be one of those tools but has to be something that stands on it's own.


----------



## CDG (Dec 20, 2016)

Etype said:


> Until the UCMJ is changed, he should be prosecuted.



Did you think I was saying otherwise?  This is a theoretical argument.  I'm not oblivious to the reality.


----------



## Etype (Dec 20, 2016)

CDG said:


> Did you think I was saying otherwise?  This is a theoretical argument.  I'm not oblivious to the reality.


Gotcha, I was unsure.


----------



## Dame (Dec 21, 2016)

Hope he didn't conduct any of his affairs in Illinois. Turns out it's illegal for anyone there.
Adultery is a crime, judge tells man suing wife for reading lovers' emails
ETA: Had to look it up. As of 2015...
16 States Where You Can Get That Cheating Jerk Thrown in Jail


----------



## Locksteady (Dec 25, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I may have disagreed with your overall post, but the 'quoted' is funny.  All these years and I've never thought of that saying in that particular way!
> 
> @Diamondback 2/2 -
> Disagree because regardless of rank, but especially when we are getting up in the "Generals", the opportunity to be held hostage for secrets (or certain decisions) is very real.  And not necessarily only by foreign operatives -   I'd not put it past a "buddy" to demand a favorable assignment, promotion, etc because (s)he happened upon the General's backdoor action.


On the other hand, it may be introducing the only factor making the increasing demographic of swingers and less socially-concerned cheaters susceptible to coercion or blackmail in the first place by threatening to destroy their careers.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 2, 2017)

I changed the thread title so that the Air Force could get their licks in too...

General demoted for having sex with female subordinate | Daily Mail Online


----------

