|
Post by Swampy on Sept 19, 2012 3:38:07 GMT -5
Someone can lie about his military record, but a naval officer apparently cannot commit adultery. Michael Ward took command of a nuclear sub only to be relieved a week later, when he faked his own death to end his affair with his mistress - he sent an email to her from a guy named "Bob", saying he was killed. She showed up at his residence to offer her condolences and was told he was still alive and in command of a sub. Because of this affair, he received a reprimand for among other things, adultery. Since when is that any of the navy's business???
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Sept 19, 2012 3:54:43 GMT -5
"Conduct Unbecoming"?
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Sept 19, 2012 3:58:01 GMT -5
But that would be so vague that it can mean anything, then - is watching porn also conduct unbecoming?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2012 7:34:24 GMT -5
Uh, it always has been. since long before my time. IMO, it always should be. Remember, the military life is unlike that of civilians. If you've never been in, it's hard to comprehend.
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 19, 2012 8:49:30 GMT -5
Someone can lie about his military record, but a naval officer apparently cannot commit adultery. Michael Ward took command of a nuclear sub only to be relieved a week later, when he faked his own death to end his affair with his mistress - he sent an email to her from a guy named "Bob", saying he was killed. She showed up at his residence to offer her condolences and was told he was still alive and in command of a sub. Because of this affair, he received a reprimand for among other things, adultery. Since when is that any of the navy's business??? Violation of the UCMJ. Can't remember the specific article but it, as well as sodomy, beastiality, and other sexual offenses, has been illegal for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 19, 2012 8:51:20 GMT -5
But that would be so vague that it can mean anything, then - is watching porn also conduct unbecoming? Conduct unbecoming is whatever the convening authority says it is. It is intentionally vague to give great latitude in punishing misconduct by an officer.
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Sept 19, 2012 23:35:59 GMT -5
Conduct unbecoming is whatever the convening authority says it is. It is intentionally vague to give great latitude in punishing misconduct by an officer.But a vague law is unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 20, 2012 7:23:55 GMT -5
Not in the Military.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2012 8:06:20 GMT -5
Conduct unbecoming is whatever the convening authority says it is. It is intentionally vague to give great latitude in punishing misconduct by an officer.But a vague law is unconstitutional. There is nothing vague about that reg. It's just that we can't quote it here.
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Sept 20, 2012 15:30:58 GMT -5
I doubt that the adultery is the real reason for his removal from command. There is a lot of thrust into each Captain of a nuc-sub. They trust him to command and control a very powerfull weapon, often only based on his own assumptions, interpretations and decisions. If one of them is doing something so stupid for no good reason, the higher command has to lose the thrust into this man and so this man lost his command. The rest is just the legal cover.
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 20, 2012 16:04:36 GMT -5
In a way, you are right. Anyone in a command position who does something as stupid as getting caught in an adulterous situation probably is not turstworthy enough to command. But, adultry is, in iteslf, sufficient grounds for removal from command, and trial by Court Martial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2012 16:34:18 GMT -5
I'm thinking that the use of the word "thrust" is an unintentional pun?
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Sept 20, 2012 16:39:09 GMT -5
But, adultry is, in iteslf, sufficient grounds for removal from command, and trial by Court Martial. Agreed, but I believe adultery is often used as cover to remove somebody from command for other faults for which you have no other legal handle. If you are a good solider else, nobody wants to know what you did in the bar in an exotic port of call (at least as long you don't have access to the nuclear weapons department or the girl is from the FIS).
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Sept 20, 2012 20:02:03 GMT -5
I'm thinking that the use of the word "thrust" is an unintentional pun? And what is the shape of a sub? ;D
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 20, 2012 20:36:49 GMT -5
But, adultery is, in itself, sufficient grounds for removal from command, and trial by Court Martial. Agreed, but I believe adultery is often used as cover to remove somebody from command for other faults for which you have no other legal handle. If you are a good solider else, nobody wants to know what you did in the bar in an exotic port of call (at least as long you don't have access to the nuclear weapons department or the girl is from the FIS). Mathias - no grounds are required for relief from command. The relieving officer need not prove that there was reason to relieve a subordinate. There is no right to due process in a relief from command action. Therefore, no "cover" or made up reason is needed. If "other faults" exist, that is sufficient - no legal handle is required. "The officer is not doing a good job" is more than enough to relieve him..
|
|