Soldier punished for exposing sexcapades?

World Net Daily ^ | June 23, 2002 | Jon Dougherty

[monday]

"I e-mailed a copy of the article to President Bush and said that this is something that the Commander-in-Chief needs to look into and take care of."

Please,,, infidelity happens every day of the week. You are crazy if you think this is something Bush needs to get involved in. Get a life.

Seriously, do you think the president is some kind of marriage councilor? He has nothing better to do than this? sheesh...this is a non story, I am sorry for the guy but *hit happens.

[Criminal Number 18F]

He has a good combat record. However, the relentless self-promotion is a turn off. He sold himself to the press first, then the public, as the spokesman for the GI. The press loves him because he, too, is a left liberal. The people who buy his "Me, the Hero" shtick probably don't know many real Army heroes, and probably don't know about his break with the Army and his pro-Soviet activities throughout the 1980s (or that he frequently espouses similar lefty oddness today).

I do recall that he wore a Ranger tab that he never earned. He has since removed it, whining and carrying on that he should have had it because the recon unit he was in, which he (and no one else?) called the "Raiders," was almost like a Ranger unit. This idea flies with his sycophants, but it's a non-starter with real Rangers.

His "Soldiers For The Truth" is a mess. Over the years a number of his "associates" there have been found to have overstated their military achievements. Some of those guys propose stuff that makes me wonder if they ever made it past Tenderfoot. I remember one of them suggesting that the Army should lose the Apache helicopter (recently a thumping success in hard combat in Afghanistan, bringing all the copters and all the crews home after taking literally hundreds of hits) and buy a model of ultralight kit helicopter that is advertised in magazines but has never been seen flying!

As far as the adultery case is, I haven't read Hackworth's column yet, but as restated here, it sounds like the sort of endemic petty corruption that abounds in support and service support units. Whhat kind of girly-man is this that his reaction is to whine and demand apologies, and, and, and, if you don't say you're wery sowwy I'ss take my widdle stowy to the CO and tell on you. Jeeez. Frankly if I deploy and my buddy bangs my wife, the logical conclusion is that I was grossly mistaken in my choices of buddy and wife.

If the chain of command has time to be the marriage cops, then the unit isn't doing anything worthwhile and all these schmoes should be put on the street (where Jody will wind up with both of the worthless wives and both of the husbands will be bitter and alone).

Isn't Jon Dougherty usually the guy who does the legalize-my-dope articles? I wonder how much time he has under a rucksack. I'm betting it's a nice round number.

So I bagged on the guy that broke the story (Modest Dave Hackworth) and the guy that wrote it (Dougherty). But overall I think the story is a tale of a whiny sergeant who wants to use the Army as a stick to beat the guy who slept with his wife, maybe so that he doesn't have to face the fact that his wife betrayed him. Well this happens all the time in the Army and outside of it. It's really a mess in some of the co-ed units where both sides of the cheating relationship are often in the same unit.

Without knowing more (I'll go and read Hackworth's column now, though) I wonder if I can guess the reason the guy who diddled the subordinate's wife got away with it (a summarized Article 15, which is what happened to him, is getting away with it) and the guy that was betrayed by the other guy and his wife appears to be getting in trouble. My guess? The cheating sergeant is a good soldier, and the victimized sergeant a bad one. Although from the sound of this unit those terms are relative -- all concerned come off as losers.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[PoppingSmoke]

"While the above probally is happening we have to remember that there are two sides to every story."

This is very true in most of the cases. You also have to look at the Source of the Story and why this became a story in the first place. There are a lot worse cases of abuse than this. I am sure the CG will handle this. But after reading just this article I think there is a lot missing or is not being reported. My question is why is this a story? Is someone asking for it to be?

If any of the turns out to be true, its to the Boards they go.

[Crazymonarch]

6'4 and built like a line backer just means you have to be very dirty and very quick-problem here is not military protocol rather someone needs the living snot beaten out of him-can't people handle these things at a personal level anymore.

[Walt Griffith]

I believe the guy who started the mess did beat his wife up when she started reading and revealing his e-mail. So that should settled it as far as you are concerned.

Incidently, what is the purpose of the military code?

[Pushi]

Aren't you a rabid individual! I happen to have spent 22 years in the military, and I know first-hand that the military operates under a completely separate legal code--The Uniform Code of Military Justice. This case has nothing to do with morality, or the lack thereof. This man's seniors--the one who had sex with his wife, the officers who covered it up, and the officers who punished him by reassigning him to a shitty duty station--have violated the UCMJ and should be punished. Bill Clinton is not president anymore, so we can expect the rule of law to prevail.

[Pushi]

And another thing: I have total disdain for senior officers who do not enforce the regulations. I did, and they can, too. I never covered for anyone because it is against the rule of law to do so. Selective enforcement of the regulations results in poor morale and discipline, something that political correctness has also caused.

[PoppingSmoke]

I give Hack his due. He served his Country well. But you are also right about him and the media. Hacks only concern in life is David Hackworth. He shamelessly self-promotes. His media darling should take a look at what is real and what is not real about Hackworth. I am sure some of the folk he served with, especially those who now reside in the Northwest part of this Country might have something else to say about Hackworth. I have been told nightmare stories of Hackworth questioning other Vets and there credentials including some who are very well decorated. In one case Hackworth insulted one decorated vet in front of the vets wife.

Soldiers for the Truth is something Hack does not really care about any longer, except to be used to promote himself.

What ever respect I had for Hack I lost long ago. The final kicker with me was when Hack reveled after Admirals Boorda suicide reportly over some dang fool medal. The question thats needs to be answered by Hack is, how many citations he was awarded did he write himself?

Hack chose to run to another Country instead of facing the music here. Maybe he should move back and stay in Australia.

[monday]

"I happen to have spent 22 years in the military, and I know first-hand that the military operates under a completely separate legal code--The Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Good for you.

"This case has nothing to do with morality, or the lack thereof. "

I didn't say it did.

You didn't answer my question. I think the President has better things to do then enforce every breach of the "Uniform Code of Military Justice". I could be wrong, perhaps he is bored, and just sitting around waiting for an opportunity like this? This is what you think correct?

[qwert]

Can anyone get pictures of the perps ?

[Pushi]

The president does not get involved in every breach of the UCMJ. Most of them get handled properly in the various commands and chains-of-command. When one goes amiss and he finds out that some command out there this type of stuff is going on, all he has to do is say to his military aide "Take care of it." You can bet it will get taken care of. No, he doesn't sit around "...waiting for an opportunity like this." Doesn't the buck stop with him? I think it does. If and when he acts on something like this, don't you think it makes a tremendous impression on hundreds of people who see it happen? Occasionaly the president gets involved in things and rights wrongs. Some of them happen decades before. Besides, it is good PR. How would you like being the guy in this case who did the right thing and then gets punished for it?