Private lifes

[jim]

I would like to ask the american members of this forum why is so important the personal lifes of their generals. Why two succesful carriers are ending ? Who cares what they are doing in their bedrooms besides their wifes? If no crime is commited what is the army s problem?
Especially an army which is so anxious to tolerate even homosexuals. As far as i know both of them are consider nery succesful officers. Or is just a political game?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

No to get into politics here (we prohibit political discussion) but I believe a lot of this is politically driven. 3 high ranking US generals are under the microscope, funny how all this is coming down right after an election.

 

[stona]

If no crime is commited what is the army s problem?

Is an adulterous affair not a crime under US military law? maybe not specifically but prosecuted under Article 134. An ex member of the US Forces might cast some light, that is how it is being reported in the "heavyweight" press here. Article 134 simply prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.
That might not affect Petraeus (he says his affair started after he became CIA director) but could have ramifications for Allen.
I believe there are also some potential security breaches too.

Steve

 

[meatloaf109]

Simple really, a high ranking personage should be above reproach, nothing in his, (or hers) private life should open the opportunity for extortion by an enemy.
The American facination with winkies and where people like to stick them comes from the fact that we were founded by a bunch of prudes.

 

[evangilder]

There is a lot more to this than most people realize, but politics plays heavily into this. Because politics is not a subject that is allowed here, I will leave it at that.

 

[Njaco]

Affairs are forbidden in the CIA because of the possibility of leaking of secrets (think of the ending in "Quantum of Solace"- James Bond ).

 

[Thorlifter]

I think they also said today that classified documents were found at the lady's house. That just sounds too freakin suspicious to me.

"Duh, not only am I going to boink this lady, I'm going to leave battle plans on the coffee table."

IMO, something isn't right here.

 

[Njaco]

I think they also said today that classified documents were found at the lady's house. That just sounds too freakin suspicious to me.

"Duh, not only am I going to boink this lady, I'm going to leave battle plans on the coffee table."

IMO, something isn't right here.

Exactly the reason why it is verboten.

 

[gumbyk]

And from what I understand, one of them was behind a 'morals-type' training. Kind of ironic really.

But, if you're in that sort of position, hypocrisy is a career-killer.

 

[yulzari]

But why is there no public fuss when they are fired for incompetence (I presume incompetent US generals do get fired) but the US press goes into a feeding frenzy just because some general/minister has been bonking a bit on the side?

Here no one cares who some general or minister has as a bit on the side. It is almost expected.

 

[parsifal]

back in the day before political correctness took over, it was almost standard Soviet practice to try and blackmail key enemy (US) figures by extra marital affairs. Get the General in bed, record the compromising material, then give him a choice...give us what we want, or we tell your wife. A few succumbed to the blackmail....

Even if there was no affair involved, but simply some embarrassing detail in an officers persoanal life, that could be exposed, Soviet espionage would atteempt to use that.

In the Australian military, above a certain security clearance, officers had to make full disclosures about their sexual preference, finacial situation, girlfriends and even friends. It was really quite onerous. A failure to disclose was an indictable offence.

Herein lies the problem for the US at the moment. We cant be sure that national security has not been compromised because these affairs were not disclosed. that makes the officers vulnerable. Without realizing it they become a security risk.

However, i do believe this is not the main issue. I strongkly suspect political motivation here....it just doesnt sit right the way its playing out.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It really comes down to several factors here.

1. Was he giving away sensitive information?

2. An Officer (yes I know he is retired) should be held above the standard that they are supposed to inforce.

3. The Uniform Code of Military Justice makes extramarital affairs illegal.

Of course I am sure there is more to this than meets the eye. It is certainly politically motivated.

 

[Matt308]

3 generals and an admiral

someone is cleaning house

 

[A4K]

Would agree there Matt.

 

[stona]

Competency?

Would you trust a man who can't keep his own infidelity secret to run a spy agency ?

Steve

 

[A4K]

Good point Steve!

 

[Wayne Little]

Good point Steve!

mmm...gotta agree with that...

 

[Matt308]

Competency?

Would you trust a man who can't keep his own infidelity secret to run a spy agency ?

Steve

Abso-effing-lutetly not! Question is Patraeus had to be vetted to be CIA head, his affair and its funny logistics go back to when he was DoD and under UCMJ, and nobody flags this up to the Whitehouse level? If so, head of FBI deserves getting his papers. If not, then someone in the Whitehouse deserves same. This is some serious $hit people. And heads should roll. And sex scandal appears to be just the tip of the iceberg here with respect to Bengazi.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... This is some serious $hit people. And heads should roll."

I agree. Nobody was abandoned or killed in Watergate.

MM