posted on November 25, 2003 06:46:40 PM new
I read an article about one of the muslim chaplains that were charged with mishandling classified documents - It said he was released from close custody but they added charges of misusing a government computer to store porn and adultery.
Is adultery a crime under military code?
posted on November 25, 2003 08:51:49 PM new
It sounds like he's being jerked around.
"In a related development, the lawyer for Army Captain James "Yousef" Yee, the former Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo who was arrested in September in the alleged mishandling of classified material, sent a letter to President Bush yesterday asking that his client be released from pretrial detention for Thanksgiving and his daughter's birthday."
"These charges do not warrant pretrial confinement of any kind," Eugene Fidell wrote in the letter. "While military sources initially reported a wild laundry list of suspected offenses, such as spying or aiding the enemy, these have now been reduced to two relatively minor [charges]. . . . Nonetheless, he is being treated as if the original laundry list of charges was the legal basis for his confinement. This is totally wrong and unfair."
The Kelly Flinn case came up today at a Senate hearing. The witnesses were Air Force Sec. Sheila Widnall, who is deciding whether to grant Lt. Flinn an honorable discharge, and Gen. Ronald Fogleman, the Air Force chief of staff.
JIM LEHRER: On the Kelly Flinn case, it came up today at a Senate hearing. The witnesses were Air Force Sec. Sheila Widnall, who is deciding whether to grant Lt. Flinn an honorable discharge, and Gen. Ronald Fogleman, the Air Force chief of staff. Here's part of an exchange between Fogleman and Sen. Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa.
SEN. TOM HARKIN, (D) Iowa: How many attorneys do you have in the Air Force running around, trying to find out how many people are committing adultery?
GENERAL RONALD FOGLEMAN, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force: Senator, I don't think we have very many people in the Air Force, running around, trying to figure out who's committing adultery. In most of these cases what you discover is adultery is an incidental thing. To start with adultery is a crime under the uniform code of military justice. That's a set of laws that was enacted by the Congress for the military to abide by. So when--when--what we are interested in in the United States Air Force is not trying to regulate the sexual mores of America. We've got plenty of important things to do.
SEN. TOM HARKIN: I agree with you.
GENERAL RONALD FOGLEMAN: We are very much interested in a thing called the improper relationships that end up undermining the morale and discipline of an organization. And so the Lt. Kelly Flinn case, I would really like to see people not comment so much on it until they have all the facts. And we cannot get the facts out until you either have a court martial, or you have a resolution of the affair so that you can put the facts out, and the facts have not come out. Some of them are starting to come out. And I think that in the end this is not an issue of adultery. This is an issue about an officer who is entrusted to fly nuclear weapons, who disobeyed an order, who lied. That's what this is about. The adultery thing is the--that's the thing that has been spun up in the press. That's not what the Air Force is interested in.
posted on November 27, 2003 10:00:12 PM new
Gravid, adultry falls under Article 134 which is the "General Article", the catch all article. They use this article, whenever they can't find anything else to use or if they want to toss another charge on the pile, for effect or to add more penalty.
In this case, imo it is used to help the government to save face.
Many years ago, the adultry charge was written for men committing adultry, "having sexual intercourse with a woman other than their wife."
Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 134—(Adultery)
Elements.
(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and
(3) 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.
Explanation.
(1) Nature of offense. Adultery is clearly unacceptable conduct, and it reflects adversely on the service record of the military member.
(2) Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. To constitute an offense under the UCMJ, the adulterous conduct must either be directly prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. Adulterous conduct that is directly prejudicial includes conduct that has an obvious, and measurably divisive effect on unit or organization discipline, morale, or cohesion, or is clearly detrimental to the authority or stature of or respect toward a servicemember. Adultery may also be service discrediting, even though the conduct is only indirectly or remotely prejudicial to good order and discipline. Discredit means to injure the reputation of the armed forces and includes adulterous conduct that has a tendency, because of its open or notorious nature, to bring the service into disrepute, make it subject to public ridicule, or lower it in public esteem. While adulterous conduct that is private and discreet in nature may not be service discrediting by this standard, under the circumstances, it may be determined to be conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. Commanders should consider all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to the following factors, when determining whether adulterous acts are prejudicial to good order and discipline or are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces:
(a) The accused's marital status, military rank, grade, or position;
(b) The co-actor's marital status, military rank, grade, and position, or relationship to the armed forces;
(c) The military status of the accused's spouse or the spouse of co-actor, or their relationship to the armed forces;
(d) The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship on the ability of the accused, the co-actor, or the spouse of either to perform their duties in support of the armed forces;
(e) The misuse, if any, of government time and resources to facilitate the commission of the conduct;
(f) Whether the conduct persisted despite counseling or orders to desist; the flagrancy of the conduct, such as whether any notoriety ensued; and whether the adulterous act was accompanied by other violations of the UCMJ;
(g) The negative impact of the conduct on the units or organizations of the accused, the co-actor or the spouse of either of them, such as a detrimental effect on unit or organization morale, teamwork, and efficiency;
(h) Whether the accused or co-actor was legally separated; and
(i) Whether the adulterous misconduct involves an ongoing or recent relationship or is remote in time.
(3) Marriage. A marriage exists until it is dissolved in accordance with the laws of a competent state or foreign jurisdiction.
(4) Mistake of fact. A defense of mistake of fact exists if the accused had an honest and reasonable belief either that the accused and the co-actor were both unmarried, or that they were lawfully married to each other. If this defense is raised by the evidence, then the burden of proof is upon the United States to establish that the accused's belief was unreasonable or not honest.".
Lesser included offense. Article 80?attempts
Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.
So, Capt. James Yousef Yee was't a spy after all. He was apparently just trying to do his job as chaplain and help the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Capt. Yee was charged with having "sketches" of the prisoner's living conditions.
The Ashcroftian situation at Guantanamo is the real pornography!
Law Lord Johan Steyn, one of Britain's most senior judges today condemned the US for its "monstrous failure of justice" in holding prisoners at the US base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
"The purpose of holding the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was and is to put them beyond the rule of law, beyond the protection of any courts, and at the mercy of victors."
"The blanket presidential order deprives them all of any rights whatsoever. As a lawyer brought up to admire the ideals of American democracy and justice, I would have to say that I regard this as a monstrous failure of justice."
posted on November 30, 2003 07:11:58 AM new
From AP 11-29-03
An Army intelligence officer was charged Saturday with violating security at the U.S. detention cmp for terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
He is the 4th worker at the base accused of such violations. Two Arabic translators and a Muslin chaplin face charges ranging from espionage to adultry.
-----------
Times.com 12-08-03
The priority of the base is security—keep terrorists off the streets—but the product is information. Every week close to half the detainees are brought in for sessions that may last anywhere from one to 16 hours. They are conducted by any of the 40 four-person "tiger" teams—two interrogators, a linguist and an analyst. The commanders have concluded that interrogators should be young, maybe mid-20s, fairly new to the service. "Intelligence gathering is a young person's job," says Miller. "They're inventive and thoughtful." The idea is to build rapport with the detainees and come at them again and again, using new leads from intelligence gathered at Gitmo or elsewhere. "We got five times as much intelligence (from the detainees) last month as in January '03," says Miller, which, depending on whom you talk to, means that either the interrogators are getting better or the inmates more willing to say anything.
posted on November 30, 2003 08:49:16 PM new
Seems like a basic and silly conflict to even provide a chaplin who's job is to help the prisoner while everyone else is trying to break them.
I mean they obviously don't want him to provide any stability or comfort to a man they are trying to break completely.
How can he possibly do his duty to his religion and the army both if the only relationship he may have with the prisoner is adversarial?
posted on December 1, 2003 07:25:46 AM new Brad DeLong
If this story is even half-true, it provides yet another reason that every American should be deeply, bitterly, profoundly ashamed of the Bush administration. Via TalkLeft: Detainees: Kidnapped for Reward Money:
TIME.com: TIME Magazine -- Inside "The Wire": ....A U.S. military official tells Time that at least 140 detainees--"the easiest 20%"--are scheduled for release. The processing of these men has sped up since the Supreme Court announced it would take the case, said the source, who believes the military is "waiting for a politically propitious time to release them." U.S. officials concluded that some detainees were there because they had been kidnapped by Afghan warlords and sold for the bounty the U.S. was offering for al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. "Many would not have been detained under the normal rules of engagement," the source concedes. "We're dealing with some very, very dangerous people, but the pendulum is swinging too far in the wrong direction."...
And it takes two years for the Bush administration to figure this out? And once it has figured it out, it still holds on to these people--waiting for a "politically propitious time" before releasing them?
We are supposed to be the good guys. We should be better than this. Indeed, we were better than this.
posted on December 1, 2003 10:41:37 AM newpolitically propitious time
hmmmmm....kind of like the democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who's memos show THEY were planning to use the intelligence reports at a "politically propitious time", when they're supposed to be a bipartisan committee with our nations security interests of utmost importance, not partisan politics.
posted on December 1, 2003 10:51:02 AM new
Also from that Time article:
Though U.S. officials have released some inmates deemed harmless, new ones are still arriving, with about 20 coming and going last week. Amid a global argument about their rights, the Supreme Court recently agreed to decide whether the captives at Guantanamo can at least challenge their detention in federal court. But in the meantime, however great the outcry from allies and human-rights groups, the U.S. military, along with the White House and the Justice Department, has not retreated from an unprecedented approach to prisoners captured in an unprecedented war.
If you are a government hungry for clues about the enemies' plans, one problem with the Geneva Convention governing treatment of traditional prisoners of war is that it includes strict rules limiting interrogation. So these detainees are called "enemy combatants," and there is no field manual outlining the rules for handling them.
posted on December 1, 2003 12:03:10 PM new
YOUR BOLDING
"Though U.S. officials have released some inmates deemed harmless, new ones are still arriving, with about 20 coming and going last week."
That statement doesn't appy to my comment. It doesn't address the issue of the number who have been found innocent yet still remain until a politically expedient time for Bush.
"the U.S. military, along with the White House and the Justice Department, has not retreated from an unprecedented approach to prisoners captured in an unprecedented war."
That statement actually supports my comment. This is an unprecedented approach in an unprecedented war. The fact that the approach and the war are unprecedented does not make it right.
and there is no field manual outlining the rules for handling them.
"Enemy combatants", like all prisoners of war should be treated under the Geneva convention. The enemy combatants that we are discussing have been found INNOCENT.
# 1) That statement doesn't appy to my comment. It doesn't address the issue of the number who have been found innocent yet still remain until a politically expedient time for Bush.
It sure does. The ones that have been released have obviously been judged not to be [or no longer are] a threat.
# 2) That statement actually supports my comment. This is an unprecedented approach in an unprecedented war. The fact that the approach and the war are unprecedented does not make it right.
NOR does it make it wrong. We're in new territory here...and this administration is calling the 'shots' in areas that have never come up before.
# 3)
[and there is no field manual outlining the rules for handling them.]
"Enemy combatants", like all prisoners of war should be treated under the Geneva convention. The enemy combatants that we are discussing have been found INNOCENT.
"should be"....That's YOUR opinion - how you'd like to see it done. But it's up to this administration to handle it however they wish to in our nation's best interests.
posted on December 1, 2003 02:19:46 PM newBut it's up to this administration to handle it however they wish to in our nation's best interests.
Obviously, this administration doesn't know what is in our best interest. There is no effective foreign policy in place to deal with problems such as this. It's a sad day in Iraq and the world in general and your Bush administration is responsible for much of the problem.
If Americans were held by a foreign government for prolonged periods of time in this kind of a circumstance without any charges being filed, without any legal rights and without any access to a lawyer you would be singing a different tune. Don't be so easily and dangerously influenced by an administration who wants to operate in a "however they wish" fashion.
posted on December 1, 2003 02:42:54 PM new
The majority of American's ARE pleased with how the Bush administration is handling the terrorist/Iraq/Cuba detainees. As am I.
posted on December 1, 2003 04:08:53 PM new
You only look at the negative side of everything, helen. There are positive things being accomplished there too.
In the
Who's Distracted? section of the WSJ today....
A series of developments over the weekend.....
The Associated Press reports that "American forces have captured three members of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network in northern Iraq," all Iraqi nationals.
London's Observer reports that investigators believe Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--an al Qaeda-linked terrorist who was given refuge in Saddam Hussein's Iraq--was involved with last month's terror attacks in Turkey.
The New York Times reports that Saddam Hussein's regime "engaged in lengthy negotiations with North Korea" to obtain "a full production line to manufacture, under an Iraqi flag, the North Korean missile system, which would be capable of hitting American allies and bases around the region." Saddam paid Kim Jong Il $10 million, but Pyongyang seems to have taken the money and run--which does not, however, exonerate Saddam.
---------
And the ambush that the terrorists had planned for our troops resulted in the deaths of 54 of the attackers
edited to reverse my numbers. 54 not 45.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 1, 2003 04:19 PM ]
posted on December 1, 2003 04:25:32 PM new
And here, helen, just for you from your favorite newspaper, the NYT.
Go read the whole article....at least he's got this part right, imo.
A Liberal for Liberation
The New York Times' Thomas Friedman urges fellow liberals to stop siding with tyrants and terrorists:
"This war is the most important liberal, revolutionary U.S. democracy-building project since the Marshall Plan. The primary focus of U.S. forces in Iraq today is erecting a decent, legitimate, tolerant, pluralistic representative government from the ground up. I don't know if we can pull this off. We got off to an unnecessarily bad start.
But it is one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad and it is a moral and strategic imperative that we give it our best shot.
Linda, Excuse me for laughing but I believe that you would like most anything that Friedman writes. He sounds like a Bush apologist to me.
Because We Could
posted on December 1, 2003 09:41:16 PM newNOBLE…my f&^%$n a$$.
I am to trust a regime which aids people that ….
“haul out families. With the children forced to watch, they castrate the father. They peel the skin off his face. They put a grenade in his mouth, and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch, they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes, for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children.”
The Contras are the people President Reagan called "freedom fighters." He said: "They are the moral equivalent of our founding fathers."
“We create a CIA, a secret police, with a vast budget, and let them go and run these programs in our name. We pretend like we don't know what's going on, though the information is there for us to know. And we pretend like it's okay because we're fighting some vague communist threat. We're just as responsible for these ONE TO THREE MILLION PEOPLE we've slaughtered, and for all the people we've tortured and made miserable, as the Gestapo was for the people that they slaughtered and killed. Genocide is genocide !!”
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/stock1.html
From the Honourable Regime that brought you great tittles like CIA Sabotage Manual
The CIA produced a small illustrated booklet in both Spanish and English designed to destabilise the Nicaraguan government and economic system.
With tips on how to make a Molotov cocktail!!!
How to cut phone lines and block sewerage.
July the US 8th Army, the highest level of command in Korea, issued orders to stop all Korean civilians. 'No, repeat, no refugees will be permitted to cross battle lines at any time. Movement of all Koreans in group will cease immediately.'
