HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Petraeus and hypocrisy? I...

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:00 PM

 

Petraeus and hypocrisy? If he was a commander during his affair and any troops under his command

were court-martialed for similar acts, then as commander he would have approved those prosecutions.

Wouldn’t that be hypocritical?

58 replies, 2625 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 58 replies Author Time Post
Reply Petraeus and hypocrisy? If he was a commander during his affair and any troops under his command (Original post)
jody Nov 2012 OP
Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #1
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #2
mythology Nov 2012 #27
HipChick Nov 2012 #3
jody Nov 2012 #4
MADem Nov 2012 #5
DURHAM D Nov 2012 #6
MADem Nov 2012 #9
darkangel218 Nov 2012 #7
jody Nov 2012 #8
MADem Nov 2012 #11
darkangel218 Nov 2012 #15
darkangel218 Nov 2012 #17
Gin Nov 2012 #22
darkangel218 Nov 2012 #23
MADem Nov 2012 #50
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #18
MADem Nov 2012 #28
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #29
MADem Nov 2012 #49
GeorgeGist Nov 2012 #10
MADem Nov 2012 #12
former9thward Nov 2012 #13
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #16
former9thward Nov 2012 #19
jody Nov 2012 #21
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #26
former9thward Nov 2012 #54
MADem Nov 2012 #30
jody Nov 2012 #34
MADem Nov 2012 #48
former-republican Nov 2012 #35
jody Nov 2012 #39
jody Nov 2012 #20
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #31
jody Nov 2012 #33
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #46
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #47
former-republican Nov 2012 #40
jody Nov 2012 #41
former-republican Nov 2012 #42
jody Nov 2012 #43
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #24
former9thward Nov 2012 #25
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #32
former-republican Nov 2012 #36
former9thward Nov 2012 #52
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #55
former9thward Nov 2012 #56
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #57
former9thward Nov 2012 #58
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #14
bluestate10 Nov 2012 #38
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #45
99Forever Nov 2012 #37
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #44
AlexSatan Nov 2012 #51
jody Nov 2012 #53

Response to jody (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:02 PM

1. yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:02 PM

2. welcome to the military.

 

what's your point...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMan Votes (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:15 PM

27. To be fair, it's not just the military

I recall Newt Gingrich being up in arms about Bill Clinton's affair whilst not being particularly faithful to his wife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:03 PM

3. For affairs? or potential security issue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HipChick (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:05 PM

4. For the job of commander. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:05 PM

5. Yep--there's a hypocritical general on active now who is in a LOAD of hot water.

Demanding nekkid pics from subordinates...talk about a sicko!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/female-officers-nude-photos-general-article-1.1198756

This kind of shit is a problem in the military. It was starting to become a priority issue before Dumbya stole the election--after that, it got back-burnered for the duration.

I think it will be pushed to the fore again. Past due.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:13 PM

6. I read somewhere that

Sinclair served with (under) Petraeus in Afghanistan. I originally thought that the Petraeus matter probably came to light because of the investigation of Sinclair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:35 PM

9. Turns out it is a completely different nexus.

The woman that the biographer was hassling was not another paramour--she was a friend of the Petraeus's named Jill Kelley who was a mil liaison at State. She and her husband socialized with them on the odd occasion.

I will say, though, that the efforts by some to paint this stupid biographer (and she was stupid--as stupid as he was, at least) as a "Jezebel temptress" who "ruined" the guy are not resonating with me. The SENIOR ALWAYS bears the brunt of the responsibility--no matter what. Sending emails to women about having sex under the desk doesn't sound like the conduct of some poor, victimized slob who didn't know what he was getting into.

I have to wonder if there are more broken hearts in Petraeus's wake. I don't claim to know what's hot or what's not, but that guy looks pretty damn ugly to me. The biographer's husband certainly had much better TEETH, for starters, and much better skin--to say nothing of being younger and more fit.

I guess that "power" thing can overcome a lot with some people...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:14 PM

7. I wonder if Petreus or his lady friend will face charges?

I wouldn't be surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:33 PM

8. There may be cases where a separated military member has been recalled to duty to face court-martial

 

for acts committed on active duty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:46 PM

11. For what? Petraeus is retired. He's no longer subject to the UCMJ.

He was a cad.

His wife may be able to sue for "alienation of affection" in a civil suit in some states, but there's no criminal conduct that happened, here--at least not any that has been revealed. There is no evidence that the biographer was a spy or anything other than someone who might have been annoyed with Petraeus for some personal reason...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:53 PM

15. Aparently Mrs Broawell said a lil too much in a speach at UofDenver

I'll see if I can find the link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to darkangel218 (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:24 PM

22. Wow...wasnt that classified info and if so, she just. Incriminated herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gin (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:27 PM

23. Exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #17)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 05:49 AM

50. That's the girlfriend shooting off her mouth--not him.

Look, he's a cad, no doubt, and his judgment sucks, and his wife should rake him over the coals and not "get mad, get everything," and it's good that he's outta there because his intemperance is demonstrative of his utter incompetence, but the paramour's big mouth proves nothing except that she has a big mouth.

I don't know what her clearance/access is--none of do, really; her situation is rather fuzzy. Is she a CIA asset? We don't know, really. It would not surprise me in the slightest were that the case.

At any rate, her loose lips in that article are HER problem, if the article is accurate. I haven't gone looking for the YOUTUBE performance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:56 PM

18. He wasn't retired while he was having the affair. They've made spying on the American

people legal retroactively so the people could not sue their telecom providers. This doesn't even have to be retroactive, he was on active duty while having an affair.

He also did the most stupid thing of all, he used his email to communicate with his mistress. That is a breach of security. Then, after that, someone with such bad judgement, is made head of the CIA.

But hey, we got Bradley Manning and Assange, so not to worry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:26 PM

28. I don't know if they have proof of that.

Every article I have seen references emails between the "retired" general and the biographer--in other words, emails that took place after 1 Sep 11.

Of course, if they were together while he was still active, they'd have no need to email one another.

I doubt they'll hurry to clarify, in any event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #28)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:30 PM

29. Well he is retired, so I think that is why they refer to him as retired now. He was not

retired when they were having an affair, which happened while she was writing the biography while he was still on active duty. As she said, she was embedded in Afghanistan and had unlimited access to him and there are plenty of photos of her by his side, on the military plane with him. The emails will be dated anyhow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #29)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 05:40 AM

49. We can assume that, and rightly, but we don't KNOW it.

I doubt there's a load of self-incrimination about to happen, either.

I'm betting those emails are "post Sep 2011"-- which is when the guy retired and went to work at Langley.

If you're with someone, you have no need to email them, after all. You just roll over and give 'em a nudge!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:45 PM

10. Never underestimate the power of ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:50 PM

12. The power of rank? Of importance in the halls of power? Of fame? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:51 PM

13. Would you have said that about any prosecutions when Clinton was Commander-in-Chief?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:53 PM

16. Was Clinton a General?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:03 PM

19. The president is the CIC.

The top authority in our military. (Please see the Constitution). The president does sign off on some criminal punishments in the military especially the death penalty. You don't get to pick and choose and say he is the commander of the military ---except when it is inconvenient for him to have that role.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:08 PM

21. What former9thward said. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:14 PM

26. Generals in the field are very different from the CIC. And thanks for the condescending

attitude, I am well aware of the Constitution as most people here know. I am not sure of how much you know about it being that I do not know you at all.

Generals do not call the CIC for every infraction made by a member of the military, they have the authority to do that themselves.

If you have something to show that Clinton ever personally punished a member of the military for adultery then please present it.

With all the opposition research done on Clinton by the literal army of Right Wingers who were practically living in his bedroom, I would imagine if such a thing had happened, we would know about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #26)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:16 AM

54. Please show where Petraeus "personally" punished a member of the military for adultery.

Just as I don't think Clinton should have resigned I don't think Petraeus should have either. At least not for adultery. There may be other issues that come out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:31 PM

30. It's called Civilian Control of the Military, and the President is not subject to the UCMJ.

There's no picking or choosing, here. You are talking apples and oranges.

Like it or not, the President is not a member of the Armed Forces, and he is not held to the same standard. He also doesn't have to take and pass a PT test twice a year, or meet a weight limit.

It's not a question of convenience. The CIC is not a military person. He is a civilian, elected by the citizens of the USA. We citizens trust him (or her, one day) to tell those uniforms what to do, and prevent them from getting big heads.

It's a GOOD thing that he's not military--otherwise, we'd be Turkey. Or Pakistan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:34 PM

34. OK but the President has authority to convene all courts-martial. See #33 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #34)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 05:19 AM

48. The President isn't going to usurp the authority of a Service Chief or Secretary.

It's bad form. Just because someone has "authority" doesn't mean they are going to use it (I'd like to see an example where the CIC convened a courts-martial over an affair--I think you'd be challenged to find such an example).

There is a chain of command, after all, and there are very few commissioned officers who have a direct reporting relationship with the commander in chief. Those officers include those aforementioned service chiefs (whose duty it is to attend to those sorts of housekeeping details in the upper echelons of their branch), the chair and vice chair of the JCS, and the odd 'special' working on national security staff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:41 PM

35. stop right there, not the same thing

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:46 PM

39. President has authority to convene all courts-martial. See #33 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:06 PM

20. Yes. He was Commander in Chief. True not a commissioned officer but IMO morally bound by the same

 

standards.

I'm just one veteran and that's my code.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:05 PM

31. The question was whether or not Clinton had ever punished a member of the military

for adultery while he was engaged in it.

As CIC that would not be his job. And I am certain that if he ever had done so, the army of right wing spies that worked 24/7 to dig up dirt about him would have told us by now.

I asked in response to that question, whether or not Clinton was a General. Generals do have the authority to punish members of the military.

I have never heard of a President being involved in punishing military members for adultery.

Sounded like the kind of question Limbaugh might ask though about Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #31)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:24 PM

33. Please study the UCMJ and see what authority commanders have.

 

822. ART. 22. WHO MAY CONVENE GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL
(a) General courts-martial may be convened by--
(1) the President of the United States;

Source http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUBCHAPTER%20IV.%20COURT-MARTIAL%20JURISDICTION

On edit add:
The President can convene special and summary courts-martial, see
822. 22. Who may convene general courts-martial.
823. 23. Who may convene special courts-martial.
824. 24. Who may convene summary courts-martial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #33)


Response to jody (Reply #33)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:57 AM

47. How often has any president done so for a low level member of the military who

committed adultery? The question I responded to wanted to know if Clinton had done so while he was committing adultery himself.

Giving the CIC that authority is probably so high ranking military personnel can also be disciplined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:47 PM

40. moral and legal is a big distinction

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #40)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:48 PM

41. President has authority to convene all courts-martial. See #33 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #41)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:01 PM

42. I know maybe I responed to the wrong post

 

I thought a poster said that the former President should also be subject to the UCMJ as a moral issue.

Never mind me



had a couple of drinks tonight

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:11 PM

43. I'll drink to that. Interesting that so many civilians in the military chain of command from E1 to

 

CIC have authority to convene courts-martial, i.e. prosecute someone in uniform, yet not be legally liable for committing the same act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:32 PM

24. Since when is the president subject to the UCMJ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #24)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:05 PM

25. Since when is the CIA director subject to the UCMJ?

Once you retire the USMJ is out the window.

BTW I do not think Petraeus should have resigned and Obama should not have accepted it. The affair was known so blackmail does not apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:09 PM

32. The affair took place while he was a member of the military as far as we know. If so then

he did violate the USMJ. Just because he wasn't caught until later, doesn't change that.

He absolutely should have resigned. Anyone stupid enough to use email to communicate with their mistress should not be trusted with the security of this country. Any 12 year old knows that nothing you do online is secret.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #32)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:43 PM

36. roger that

 

he did violate the USMJ. Just because he wasn't caught until later, doesn't change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #32)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:00 AM

52. You have your 'facts' wrong.

It took place after he become CIA director.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #52)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:11 PM

55. 'She broke off the relationship after he became head of the CIA'!??

Seems to me you got your information wrong, unless the news reports are wrong.

Provide a link to your information. Every report I have read says that she 'broke off the relationship after he became head of the CIA'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #55)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:28 PM

56. Sure.

Indeed, the former general has told those close to him that, although he was close with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, in Afghanistan, he did not begin the affair with her until after he left the military last year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/former-aides-wonder-did-petraeus-stumble-in-unfamiliar-terrain/2012/11/11/881b650c-2c3a-11e2-a99d-5c4203af7b7a_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #56)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:43 PM

57. It must have been a very, very short affair if he is telling the truth about that. He left

the military to become head of the CIA.

Another theory advanced by Petraeus’s most loyal staff officers is that his retirement from the Army to become director of the CIA might have led to his collapse.


So what was the time frame of the affair? A week?

Seems there are conflicting reports about when the affair began and ended. I imagine he knows the ramifications of having an affair while was on active duty.

The emails are most likely dated. So it should not be difficult to clear up these inconsistencies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #57)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:54 PM

58. I agree.

I think we will find out most of the real facts in fairly short order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:53 PM

14. He's a Republican so that wouldn't have bothered him! I hope this is a lesson about

appointing any more Republicans to a Democratic administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:44 PM

38. How do you know that he is a republican? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #38)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:43 AM

45. He's a Bush guy. Bush was his hero. Everyone knew that which is why so many objected to

him being appointed by this administration. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:43 PM

37. People in this Nation need to grow up.

Why are you people so fucking concerned with other peoples sex lives? Don't you have one of your own? I don't care who of the elite is fucking who else of the elite.

Just fix the fucking economy so I can find a decent job and stop killing the planet with pollution.






And one more thing, get your magic religions OUT of the public affairs of this Nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:23 AM

44. at that time- the others had been caught, and he hadn't...so no.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:02 AM

51. It really depends

 

Prosecution of adultery is really up to the unit/commander.

If it is disruptive to the unit ans is causing problems, it will likely be prosecuted. If it doesn't involve anyone in the unit (or nearby associated units), the member will likely get a "be careful" talk or it will be totally ignored--especially if it comes to the commander's attention from an outside source (like an FBI investigation)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:04 AM

53. Replies to this thread have spun off in many directions. Petraeus like all retired military is

 

still subject to the UCMJ.

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
* * * * * * * * * * *
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair faces courts-martial for forcible sodomy, wrongful sexual conduct, engaging in inappropriate relationships and misusing a government travel charge card.

President Obama or anyone under him in the chain of command can prefer charges against Petraeus for "wrongful sexual conduct, engaging in inappropriate relationships" if the statue of limitations has not expired.

Or the President can not charge Petraeus and have a double standard of justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread