General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

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

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:09 PM

Nov 2012

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

58 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Petraeus and hypocrisy? If he was a commander during his affair and any troops under his command [View all] jody Nov 2012 OP

yes Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #1

welcome to the military. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #2

To be fair, it's not just the military mythology Nov 2012 #27

For affairs? or potential security issue? HipChick Nov 2012 #3

For the job of commander. nt jody Nov 2012 #4

Yep--there's a hypocritical general on active now who is in a LOAD of hot water. MADem Nov 2012 #5

I read somewhere that DURHAM D Nov 2012 #6

Turns out it is a completely different nexus. MADem Nov 2012 #9

I wonder if Petreus or his lady friend will face charges? darkangel218 Nov 2012 #7

There may be cases where a separated military member has been recalled to duty to face court-martial jody Nov 2012 #8

For what? Petraeus is retired. He's no longer subject to the UCMJ. MADem Nov 2012 #11

Aparently Mrs Broawell said a lil too much in a speach at UofDenver darkangel218 Nov 2012 #15

Okay here is the link. darkangel218 Nov 2012 #17

Wow...wasnt that classified info and if so, she just. Incriminated herself. Gin Nov 2012 #22

Exactly. nt darkangel218 Nov 2012 #23

That's the girlfriend shooting off her mouth--not him. MADem Nov 2012 #50

He wasn't retired while he was having the affair. They've made spying on the American sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #18

I don't know if they have proof of that. MADem Nov 2012 #28

Well he is retired, so I think that is why they refer to him as retired now. He was not sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #29

We can assume that, and rightly, but we don't KNOW it. MADem Nov 2012 #49

Never underestimate the power of ... GeorgeGist Nov 2012 #10

The power of rank? Of importance in the halls of power? Of fame? nt MADem Nov 2012 #12

Would you have said that about any prosecutions when Clinton was Commander-in-Chief? former9thward Nov 2012 #13

Was Clinton a General? sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #16

The president is the CIC. former9thward Nov 2012 #19

What former9thward said. nt jody Nov 2012 #21

Generals in the field are very different from the CIC. And thanks for the condescending sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #26

Please show where Petraeus "personally" punished a member of the military for adultery. former9thward Nov 2012 #54

It's called Civilian Control of the Military, and the President is not subject to the UCMJ. MADem Nov 2012 #30

OK but the President has authority to convene all courts-martial. See #33 nt jody Nov 2012 #34

The President isn't going to usurp the authority of a Service Chief or Secretary. MADem Nov 2012 #48

stop right there, not the same thing former-republican Nov 2012 #35

President has authority to convene all courts-martial. See #33 nt jody Nov 2012 #39

Yes. He was Commander in Chief. True not a commissioned officer but IMO morally bound by the same jody Nov 2012 #20

The question was whether or not Clinton had ever punished a member of the military sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #31

Please study the UCMJ and see what authority commanders have. jody Nov 2012 #33

This message was self-deleted by its author sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #46

How often has any president done so for a low level member of the military who sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #47

moral and legal is a big distinction former-republican Nov 2012 #40

President has authority to convene all courts-martial. See #33 nt jody Nov 2012 #41

I know maybe I responed to the wrong post former-republican Nov 2012 #42

I'll drink to that. Interesting that so many civilians in the military chain of command from E1 to jody Nov 2012 #43

Since when is the president subject to the UCMJ? NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #24

Since when is the CIA director subject to the UCMJ? former9thward Nov 2012 #25

The affair took place while he was a member of the military as far as we know. If so then sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #32

roger that former-republican Nov 2012 #36

You have your 'facts' wrong. former9thward Nov 2012 #52

'She broke off the relationship after he became head of the CIA'!?? sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #55

Sure. former9thward Nov 2012 #56

It must have been a very, very short affair if he is telling the truth about that. He left sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #57

I agree. former9thward Nov 2012 #58

He's a Republican so that wouldn't have bothered him! I hope this is a lesson about sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #14

How do you know that he is a republican? nt bluestate10 Nov 2012 #38

He's a Bush guy. Bush was his hero. Everyone knew that which is why so many objected to sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #45

People in this Nation need to grow up. 99Forever Nov 2012 #37

at that time- the others had been caught, and he hadn't...so no. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #44

It really depends AlexSatan Nov 2012 #51

Replies to this thread have spun off in many directions. Petraeus like all retired military is jody Nov 2012 #53