A moldy relic in military law

[struggle4progress]

From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Aug. 18, 2005

Most morally mature people would agree that adultery is deplorable. But should it be against the law? The Army says yes. The Army is wrong. The solemn vows of matrimony should not quickly or easily be flouted, but punishing those who break them by firing them is both excessive and antiquated.

The issue arises in the case of Army Gen. Kevin Byrnes, who was relieved of command on Aug. 8. The Army is not releasing any details about the case, but Byrnes' lawyer says the general was fired following an investigation into allegations that he had been involved in a romantic affair.

More significantly, two senior Army officials told The New York Times that Byrnes continued the relationship even after the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, ordered him to end it. Failure to follow a direct order does indeed warrant punishment. But, in this case, there would arguably have been no order at all had military law not been so antiquated on the issue of adultery.

This was "an adult relationship with a woman who is not in the military, nor is a civilian employee of the military or the federal government," according to Byrnes' lawyer. Byrnes has reportedly told associates the affair began shortly after he separated from his wife in May 2004. He filed for divorce in March, and it became final, ironically, on Aug. 8, the day he lost his job. <snip>

http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/aug05/349290.asp

[Maple]

1. I agree

but it's a handy-dandy little catch-all when you want to get rid of someone, no?

[rodeodance]

2. and it works for the military. why would they want to get rid of it.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

3. When I was prosecuting

and charging service members, we never charged adultery on its own, but we did include it as appropriate if other charges such as sexual assault or indecent behavior were also present.