Former Muslim chaplain from Gitmo charged with adultery and storing pornography on a government computer
- Thread starter DealMonkey
- Start date
Sounds like a BS charge stacking, or a fishing expedition. If the think he's a traitor, they should charge him with that.
Maybe the pornography was the classified material. Perhaps he had nude pictures of the president! :Q
SOCOM stuck him with one of the most common yet unpunished offenses in the U.S. Army - adultery. Guess somebody with rank had his number.
eh, i guess theyre just trying to make this guy look even worse. But if he really is a traitor, then theres not much worse you can look. these charges made me chuckle when i first heard about them though.
and besides, what kind of idiot hides his porn on his work computer?
and besides, what kind of idiot hides his porn on his work computer?
As for Capt. James Yee, I think I know what the Navy is after. By charging the Capt. with adultery and holding pornography, they are proving to other Muslims the Capt. is not a true practicing Muslim.
This is lame. It means, "Gee, we put the guy in the slammer. We better find something to charge him with." Adultery, give me a break! This sounds like Eisenhower, screwing his assistant in the army, Kennedy, screwing everyone (women only) he could, Clinton, (hey, he didn't even get laid for what got him in trouble). Pornography (even kiddy porn) on your computer. Gee, I hope they're prepared to show that he put it there; that he just wasn't some stupid unsecured schlep that had his computer used by others. Adultery? Go figure. Come on, even you conservative dudes can't go for this one. Can you?
Umm.. you guys do realize the military is held to higher standards than civilians right? You lose civil rights when you join the military, which is ironic since they are defending everyone elses. But, what it comes down to.. your balls belong to the "core" when you join.. don't like that? Don't join.
Crimson, I'd hardly say the were held to "higher standards." For example, drinking is practically an institution in the military. They are held to different standards from civil law. But. sex with foreign women while you're deployed is almost required. I'm a veteran, I assume you are too. I got laid while I was overseas. Fortunately for me, I wasn't married. But if you want to start putting guys in jail for getting laid while they're in the service, you're going to have to institute the draft.
I agree with you on the "higher standards" issue, especially for officers. However, frequent instances of adultery within the ranks, particularly among unacompanied enlisted married men in Korea and Germany, have been going on for decades. The charge is rare. In twenty years, I saw two adultery charges against soldiers and one of those was tossed for lack of evidence because the woman refused to testify. The good old boys system normally keeps this one under wraps unless another soldier's wife is involved. I've seen unit commanders cover for senior NCOs and officers under them. As long as those soldiers performed, the practice was simply ignored.
If you look in the CNN archives, there are cases in which two Major Generals were either fined or demoted but allowed to retire for the same offenses.
In this guy's case, the only thing I can think of was that he messed around with either another servicemember or someone's wife over in housing down at Gitmo. Somebody with some rank didn't like it either.
One should not say they are part of a religion if they want to go ahead and break the rules of that religion in which they follow.
This is a bit like charging a guy with First Degree Murder, holding him without bail for a few months, then reducing the charge to jaywalking. If a state prosecutor had done such a thing he would be the laughingstock of his county. Ashcroft does it and the American people barely wince. No wonder we got away with interning the Japanese during WWII. Everyone's sound asleep and many just don't care....
-Robert
-Robert
For those of you interested in the actual UCMJ article. It clearly explains why the "liberty call" type adultery is hardly ever pursued and why the alleged adultery in this case is being pursued.
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.".
Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.
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.".
Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.
Ultraquiet:
I'm afraid I don't understand your point. How does this recitation of the relevant UCMJ article explicate why they brought the adultery charge when the media has been reporting he was a spy?
At first blush I'd say the government blew it badly.
I may be wrong.
-Robert
I'm afraid I don't understand your point. How does this recitation of the relevant UCMJ article explicate why they brought the adultery charge when the media has been reporting he was a spy?
At first blush I'd say the government blew it badly.
I may be wrong.
-Robert
Red:
Perhaps, but let's see the facts supporting the charge. The government isn't exactly batting a thousand in the case when it comes to credibility.
-Robert
Perhaps, but let's see the facts supporting the charge. The government isn't exactly batting a thousand in the case when it comes to credibility.
-Robert
The original report was suspicion of espionage. The military immediately charged him with failing to obey and were very clear that minor charges were certainly going to be brought against him while they investigated the alleged espionage. As far as I know they haven't cleared him of the espionage and the investigation continues. The original things he was charged with are still applicable. The investigation that was commenced because of these charges revealed more violations. It's really not that hard to figure out. I posted the UCMJ article because there was some discussion earlier in this thread about why some adultery was "ignored" and in other cases it is not.
Remind me never to piss our government off. They'll probably find some BS charge to hit me with too. civilian standards or not.
Ultraquiet:
Uh, if he hasn't been cleared of the suspicion of espionage then why has he been released and charged with these minor crimes? Furthermore, he has been transferred to another base and is being allowed to continue as a chaplain.
This suggests to me that, as I've said before, military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
I was in the Marines for four years and no one to my knowledge was charged with adultery even though it was widespread. If they are going to start charging guys in the military with adultery and porn possession they might as well bring back the draft and start building federal prisons.
Frankly, the charges strike me as a face saving measure by the prosecutor when he couldn't deliver the high profile charges. Maybe I'm wrong though....
-Robert
Uh, if he hasn't been cleared of the suspicion of espionage then why has he been released and charged with these minor crimes? Furthermore, he has been transferred to another base and is being allowed to continue as a chaplain.
This suggests to me that, as I've said before, military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
I was in the Marines for four years and no one to my knowledge was charged with adultery even though it was widespread. If they are going to start charging guys in the military with adultery and porn possession they might as well bring back the draft and start building federal prisons.
Frankly, the charges strike me as a face saving measure by the prosecutor when he couldn't deliver the high profile charges. Maybe I'm wrong though....
-Robert
I don't know. Check with the Pentagon.
Yeah whatever. I saw that movie too.
Again you're failure to read and understand trips you up. Adultery charges are formally brought up when it affects "good order and discipline". The CO (or higher) decides when this is appropriate. A chaplain doing it, somebody sleeping with a subordinates wife, etc. are clearly cases where this would apply. Other cases are handled differently. CO's may decide to do something but normally, if it isn't a case similar to my examples, the matter is kicked down to the senior NCO level for handling. In my ~20 yrs. of .mil service, I have never seen a case go completely unpunished. The punishment usually involves every sh!t job that comes along and it is reflected in the guys next performance review (even though the word adultery never appears). The porn charge stems from him having porn on a goverment computer. Possesing porn is not illegal. Having it on a goverment issued computer is. See the difference.
Or it could just simply be the findings of the ongoing investigation.
I think I may have some insight to this where most may not. I am a former Cavalry Troop (for those who care 19D-D3), and a current Federal Investigator for a small Federal agency. I understand how the military works, and how Investigators and the court systems work.
What happened is (most likely) that the Chaplain was suspected of being a spy, a rabble rouser, or at the very least a comfort to the enemy. His case may have gone a couple typical ways. It may have been complex, and the leads few. The higher charges would have required too much manpower, and might not stick. Another scenario is that guy was an ass, and they wanted him gone. To end either problem they got him with charges that would stick easily, and with these charges he's gone, and any suspected syping is over. He will have a criminal record, and will not be able to ever work in the Government again in any capacity. This ends his spying career, quickly and effectively, and without court time or jail time. It also leaves the Treason charge open for future investigation, whereas if they pursued it now, and he was exonerated, they might not be allowed to pursue further leads on the Chaplains case.
What happened is (most likely) that the Chaplain was suspected of being a spy, a rabble rouser, or at the very least a comfort to the enemy. His case may have gone a couple typical ways. It may have been complex, and the leads few. The higher charges would have required too much manpower, and might not stick. Another scenario is that guy was an ass, and they wanted him gone. To end either problem they got him with charges that would stick easily, and with these charges he's gone, and any suspected syping is over. He will have a criminal record, and will not be able to ever work in the Government again in any capacity. This ends his spying career, quickly and effectively, and without court time or jail time. It also leaves the Treason charge open for future investigation, whereas if they pursued it now, and he was exonerated, they might not be allowed to pursue further leads on the Chaplains case.
Maluckey's analysis fits in with my experience. But, although I think his analysis is correct, I don't think what the military is doing is right. It's the old "the peg that sticks up gets pounded" routine. Clearly this guy did not fit in somehow and something is being done about it. I don't know the facts in this case, but if he was screwing the wife of another guy in the outfit, whatever is happening to him isn't the result of being a Muslim. If you're screwing the wife of someone in the same part of the military that you're in, sometimes you'll get an unofficial warning to knock it off. Unpleasant things will start to happen if you don't heed this warning. As you report to duty on Midway Island (the whole island is about the size of a college campus), the paymaster says, "Oh, apparently your pay records have been lost. But, don't worry, you can draw $20 a month until they're found."
Well, let's see if these adultery and porno charges actually stick to the wall. His lawyer has apparently written a letter to Bush about him being held in solitary confinement for, what, 2-3 months, on a bogus charge.
If they drop the adultery and porno charges they are either being smart, caving in to public pressure, or they never had enough evidence in the first place. I wonder how much of this is their anger that a chaplain was giving solace to terrorists?
-Robert, who reads but doesn't believe everything he reads is either true or necessarily the way things are done, particularly in the military.
If they drop the adultery and porno charges they are either being smart, caving in to public pressure, or they never had enough evidence in the first place. I wonder how much of this is their anger that a chaplain was giving solace to terrorists?
-Robert, who reads but doesn't believe everything he reads is either true or necessarily the way things are done, particularly in the military.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter