'Endangered species': Campagin accuses Planned Parenthood of encouraging black women to abort 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Air Force lets Sanford off
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is a captain in the Air Force Reserve, where adultery is considered a crime. Punishments range from from a commander’s letter of reprimand, which could have ended his career in the service, to forfeiture of pay.
Sanford’s command office considered disciplining Sanford after he publicly confessed to adultery in June but decided against it, according to The Greenville News:
Cliff Tyler, spokesman for headquarters of the Air Force Reserve Command at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia, said, “They looked at all the facts and they looked at the circumstances and the decision was made as a command not to take any action against him.”
173 members of the Air Force faced nonjudicial punishment for adultery last year. But one military lawyer said Sanford’s case is different because a spouse wasn’t complaining and the adultery didn’t involve another member of the military. Another military lawyer explained that military law applies to active members, so pinning punishment on a reservist is difficult:
[P]art of the requirement for prosecution is that the affair “was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces,” Tully said, meaning that it affected morale of the unit or brought discredit to the military.
back to top24 Comments to “Air Force lets Sanford off”
Who thought to do this? I only knew one case of adultery brought to command attention and requiring action during my husband’s 20 years. And in that case–which took place in Spain and which I read about on the front page of the newspaper in Honolulu–the admiral was asked to retire. Talk about world-wide mortification! My friend elected to forgive her husband and last I heard from them, they were still married.
The other friend who ran up against this, also married to an admiral, decided she’d lose more monetarily in the divorce settlement if charges were brought against him. So she kept quiet.
This smells of political opportunism. What a mess. I’m also surprised Sanford’s only a captain–that’s the equivalent of a lieutenant in the Navy and a rank usually held by men in their late 20’s.
Report comment to moderator
” But one military lawyer said Sanford’s case is different because a spouse wasn’t complaining and the adultery didn’t involve another member of the military.”
Conditional adultery.
“Habeas Corpus” really is in full affect here for the governor, isn’t it? At least from the Air Force’s position. He may “have the body” and not be penalized for it at the same time.
I suppose my question would be for the Air Force legal folks. What is adultery and why does the Air Force condemn it in the first place? We might have a bit more robust dialogue from conversations which start with examining the unexamined premise.
Report comment to moderator
This is news in order to divert attention from the Cambridge Caper, Health Care and Climate Change Debacles.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not JAG but perhaps any of our legal folks could jump in on this.
Fact is, reserve and National guard component soldiers, airmen etc can and often times are “activated” just for the purpose of facing court martial.
Sanford’s public figure publicity has worked as a shield in his case. That is unfortunate. If he were not a politician in the headlines and just plain ol’ Sr Airman Sanford, TSgt Sandford etc in the Air Nat’l Guard, I GUARANTEE YOU he would be hauled in, put back on active duty status and tried.
I know a reserve E8 who was activated solely for the purpose of court martial for submitting falsified travel vouchers. She is now claiming plantar fascitis to undergo a medical board and evade the court martial. Nice try but so far it aint working!
Report comment to moderator
Oldhickory, adultery is an issue because the military gives all sorts of bennies to married folks in recognition of their marital status. The cheater negates that covenant. And the non-uniformed spouse makes big sacrifices in support of the service member. The prosecution I feel ought not be dependent on whether the wronged spouse comes forward as victim/complainant.
A young captain I know was booted out for adultery. His wife hired a detective to tail him and the evidence was flagrant. He was offered the chance to resign or undergo court martial. He chose wisely as within a month or so he was hired by a base contractor. Probably at a higher salary than he had as army captain in the med services corps.
Report comment to moderator
I have to agree with CHAS #3.
Report comment to moderator
I quickly tried to think of one of my “short, but weighted sophisms.” (This seemed like an appropriate thread for that.)
No luck.
Meanwhile, I’m trying to live and learn.
Report comment to moderator
I spent 22 years as a National Guard Chaplain and I can tell you the law applies differently for active duty personnel under title 10 United States Code and Reserve and National Guard under title 32 United States Code. The great headache for Chaplains and Commanders was we only has the power of persuasion for men and/or women who shirked their spouse or family in a reserve status. The matter was entirely a civil matter unless the conduct was with a military member in that persons chain of command or influence.
Being on active duty was another matter and handled differently.
Report comment to moderator
Emily,
The title of your thread here is misleading. Saying that the “Air Force lets Sanford off” implies the capability to punish, but the decision not to—possibly for some questionable reason.
A quick review of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), by my reading, indicates that a reservist, such as Sanford, must be on some form of active duty to be subject to the code. It would seem that they don’t even have the capability to punish him under the UCMJ. Therefore, the implication of your title does not seem accurate to me.
Furthermore, adultery is not a specific offense under the code. Whenever adultery is prosecuted it is under Article 134 (the General Article), often called the “Catch All” or “Write Your Own Law” article. This article is designed to give commanders a great deal of latitude in deciding what to punish and how; the general guidance being:
As a commander, I would have to decide if this man’s actions were actually hurting the “good order and discipline” of my unit. Most often adultery is prosecuted under this consideration because military members of a unit “playing” with each other’s spouses can bring all kinds of havoc to unit cohesion. The unit’s ability to perform its mission as a team can be seriously compromised under those circumstances.
Does the Sanford’s actions threaten the “good order and discipline” of his commander’s unit. Probably not, since he is rarely, if ever there, and his adultery is is with some far off woman in Argentina. Plus, he is already getting severely hammered in the political and civil world. Do his actions bring discredit upon the armed forces? Not really. It would, if he were an active duty member and we were seen as somehow tolerating his behavior. Bu that is not the case here. So, as a commander, you would probably be wise to just stay out of the fray at this point.
In the first place, I probably don’t have jurisdiction. Secondly, it’s not harming my unit. Thirdly, it would be a waste of my time and resources to pursue the matter. And fourthly, it would bring unwanted attention and possibly more embarrassment to the service than Sanford’s original offense. Most people probably don’t even know he is a member of the AF Reserve, so why make a federal case out of it and advertise that fact?
So, as a commander I would see no legitimate or reasonable grounds for pursuing the matter at all. And in making that decision, I would not be “letting him off” for some questionable reason.
Report comment to moderator
Chas’s comments in #3, and Deet’s agreement in #6, is more strong evidence that the Right’s perception of media “liberal bias” is mostly confirmation bias.
Most conservatives believe the media is liberal. So whenever they read a story that doesn’t reflect well on a conservative, they claim it’s the media’s liberal bias that is making much of a little thing. (Or even intentionally distracting from the more important stories — to wit, the ones that don’t reflect well on some liberal.)
But if the shoe were on the other foot — take an exactly similar situation, only make the adulterer a liberal — they would be complaining that the media’s liberal bias was burying the story.
And the exact same media coverage would confirm their bias either way. So far the only reportage of this issue is WORLD — an arch-conservative outfit — linking to a story in the Greenville News, Sanford’s state paper. So the fact that the story is being brought up confirms for them “the media’s” liberal bias (really? WORLD and the Greenville News?). And if the adulterer had been a liberal, the complaint would be “why isn’t this in the NY Times or the Washington Post?”
Report comment to moderator
It certainly seems that what conservatives believe is always a problem for liberals. Why is that? I don’t care what liberals believe. I care what they don’t believe, but beyond that I couldn’t care less. Beliefs come by choice. Some are correct, some are not.
JJF — Facts have been ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Goldberg ) and are regularly presented supporting the claim of bias in the media, but you think it just can’t be happening only because you think it just can’t be happening. You choose to ignore it because bias in those charged with presenting the truth about current events is wrong, you know it’s wrong and you think it makes you look bad because it reflects on a choice you’ve made about those you support. Life is difficult and uncomfortable when you make bad choices.
To feel better, you must create a bigger wrong in those with whom you disagree—hence your screed against World. I’m glad you feel better having presented it, but on the quality scale of convincing arguments, you’ve scored quite low.
Report comment to moderator
Well good for them, I guess. In general, I am in favor of not prosecuting people as criminals for having had sex!
Report comment to moderator
JJF – Have any conservatives excused the adultery? I think most liberals would ignore it since many, not all, lack a clear ethical base; or use it to point out perceived conservative hypocrisy.
Report comment to moderator
Let me put it this way.
Do you believe that the reporting of this story is more evidence of the media’s liberal bias?
I’ll assume you do not. Given that so far it’s only reported in the Greenville News and WORLD, neither of them known as bastions of leftist propaganda, it would make little sense to argue that.
So (I’ll assume) we agree that the reporting of this story is not evidence of media bias. Yet some, as soon as they saw a story they didn’t like, reflexively claimed that it was without seriously considering that claim. They further insinuated that it was a broad conspiracy to distract the public from (what they see as) issues that put the administration in a bad light.
This raises the question: how many of their other claims of media bias are reflexive and ill-considered?
A whole category of your “facts” are nothing but confirmation bias — you already believe the media is liberal, so you interpret everything accordingly, and find your belief continually reinforced. Perhaps there are other fact (I’ve not read Goldberg’s book), but regardless, confirmation bias is a real and powerful phenomenon.
(And I’m not sure what “screed against WORLD” you’re talking about. I called them an “arch-conservative outfit.” That’s not a screed, and it is quite plainly true. They’re not liberal, they’re not moderate, they’re not center-right, and “far right” is derogatory, so “arch-conservative” seemed fair. If it gave offense, tell me what political label you’d prefer.)
Report comment to moderator
MM: It’s good to be the King, eh?
Of course the argument could be that when an armed forces member in such a high profile position transgresses, and even apparently abuses his civilian authority by using his security detail to assist his transgression…
Report comment to moderator
RE #14
I don’t care why someone wanted to report it because I don’t look for boogiemen in news stories—I look for, and expect to find, the truth.
When I don’t find it, or later on I find that what was reported was a lie deliberately offered to advance an agenda, that source of ‘news’ is immediately suspect as an acceptable source. For me, one strike of this nature and your out—not three.
Editorializing the facts by distorting them or withholding some of them doesn’t cut it and completely refusing to report a story diminishes the overall quality of offering the media outlet is making—another reason to ignore them completely. I’ve seen both in the MSM you apparently revere. In a market where the competition is fierce—and providing ‘news’ is a free market where the more news consumed, the greater the profit—an outlet will not survive long, or grow beyond it’s kool-aid drinking core, unless they are presenting all the facts accurately.
Since I’d be willing to bet I’ve processed exponentially more words World offers for public consumption than you—clearly shown by your list of inaccurate vitriolic labels—I’d say they observe the world fairly and report it intelligently, using facts. I know ‘facts’ and cogent argument based on them is a problem for the left—noting yet another of Arcadia’s wonderful conspiracy stories—but they don’t scare me.
If you’ve got ‘facts’ that support either what you claim, or of an absence of bias in what the “State Media” reports, lets hear it.
Report comment to moderator
Being of a few words, I think this is political and the Airman
should be brought up to face his accusers..Rank does not have it’s priveleges as I read about Flag officers being deat with.
If I had done this in the AF, years past, I would have been kicked out.
Report comment to moderator
Rond:
First, a point of order. I don’t think you’re reading my posts very carefully. I get the impression that you’re skimming them, pegging me as a certain kind of person, and arguing vociferously against that person.
You complain of my “list of inaccurate vitriolic labels” for WORLD magazine. Would you please copy and paste that list for me, because I sure don’t see it.
I called them “arch-conservative.” I settled on this term because…
they are NOT a politically liberal magazine (like The Nation)
they are NOT a politically moderate magazine (like Newsweek)
they are NOT a politically center-right magazine (The Economist?)
They are on the right end of the right-wing of American politics. So what to call that? “Far right” is an abusive term, so I didn’t use it. I chose “arch-conservative” instead. Again, if the term “arch-conservative” offends you, tell me what term you would prefer I use.
I don’t revere the MSM. And I have seen both these things you mention, too. The New York Times sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for a year at the behest of the Bush administration. The media as a whole did nothing to investigate the administration’s claims that there were WMDs in Iraq.
But I don’t see a conservative bias or a liberal bias. I see (1) a status-quo bias, and (2) a conflict bias. Preserving the status quo continues to get them access, and conflict sells papers and gets viewers. That’s why, for example, the coverage after President Obama’s health care talk was dominated by the last 90 seconds of his press conference, where he commented on the arrest of Prof. Gates. It was conflict, and that sells far better than boring policy details.
Interesting. So if our current mainstream media is a product of a free market, do you still believe that the free market will provide the best solutions to every problem? The free market gives us media obsessed with Michael Jackson, because that’s what consumers will buy and watch. Is that offering of the free market better for our republic than, say, the deliberative pacing and serious questions of The News Hour with Jim Lehrer (which is paid for by public funding)?
The way I see it, the MSM is one of the drastic failures of the flawed theory that the free market must be trusted for everything.
But that’s another question for another time, perhaps. My point was only that much of the evidence conservatives offer for a liberal bias in the media is merely confirmation bias. That, to my mind, calls into question their entire claim of media bias.
Report comment to moderator
This is the only place I’ve seen this. But if it was in the Greenville paper, it’s legitimate news. News 4 out of Spartanburg/Greenville hasn’t mentioned it so far, but they still have 15 minutes.
We may be beating the chiched “dead horse” here.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Roth
Permit me to clear the air with some previous commentary I posted regarding what I’d perceived about you.
First, it was all in good fun, but not conveyed properly or sufficiently and thus has perhaps yielded some confusion between us. I thought you would get a rise out of the use of the term. Your posts, along with your sunglasses, always made me think you were often cleverly attempting to say something else, but that was pure incorrect and what I thought were humorous attempts to get us to read between your lines. It was also pure inference on my behalf.
And again, the military inference was also a humorous reference to the fact I thought your avitar looked a bit like Tom Clancy, that and your pithy (”forceful; effective”) and short remarks. I was completely acting in good-natured fun untill Granny Jinny called me out on it!
So I’m sorry if I’ve created any sort of ill-will or confusion. I’ll be more careful next time regarding my attempts at wit and humor with cyberfriends. My apologies. No hard feelings.
Thanks.
Dan
Report comment to moderator
I’m not complaining about your list. What you call them makes no difference, except to you and your penchant for applying labels. But, the ones you consider, and then settle on are all derogatory and inaccurate when applied to World. “Hard-right”—dropped and picked up, is a nifty trick polluting the pool just the same—and “arch-conservative outfit”—in the mode of hyper or ultra is off the stick either way and as accurate as calling Mother Jones “moderate”. And now you claim “[t]hey are on the right end of the right-wing of American politics” which is far from true and proves my point that you don’t know because you don’t read World.
Why don’t you address my point of your need to create a bigger wrong or boogieman in those you disagree with to make your guy look better which started the ‘label’ issue?
You copy my statement: “Editorializing the facts by distorting them or withholding some of them doesn’t cut it and completely refusing to report a story diminishes the overall quality of offering the media outlet is making—another reason to ignore them completely. I’ve seen both in the MSM you apparently revere.”
And then you go off on a fictitious rant of history over the last word, of the last sentence, which by the definition of the preceding adverb I clearly said was “as far as I know” or was an “appearance” to me—not a fact. Fine . . . you don’t worship the MSM.
But what about the rest of my statement that your fiction didn’t address? Omission, distorted slant, editorializing of the ‘news’ and spreading untruths are the norm with old media—originally created in a free market, and through which is now rapidly losing market share due to product deficiencies. Bernie Goldberg exposes this better than anyone because he was there, but which you claim doesn’t exist, on either side, and think it the status-quo providing access. That is interesting.
As for my next statement, I must admit a deficiency. What I mean is that in a free market, a news outlet had better accurately provide news free of bias or if once discovered doing otherwise, it will have trouble keeping, or especially gaining, market share. There are too many ways to fact check everything anymore and liars will be exposed—except to those who only watch one outlet. Consider MSNBC’s market share populated by its kool-aid drinkers.
Yes, media gives us what we watch and if we don’t watch it, it will not be presented—but there’s a problem. You and I may not want to watch Michael Jackson 24-7, but there are lots, and lots, and lots of people who do. This is obvious if you just look at the last election and consider the voter intelligence level at which both campaigns were aiming. Obama spoke empty gibberish that only sounded important and McCain feebly uttered the party line—sorta—which those he needed to reach the most knew he didn’t really believe.
On the other hand, Fox News is capturing more audience share than all their competitors combined in some time slots. They offer what some people want—accurate news broadcasts—proving the free market rewards those who try to offer the truth which I now think a majority of the people really want as they’re tired of being lied to and which they knew was happening. This may not last for Fox, time will tell.
I think the MSM is in transition. The old dead wood of the past, that thrived on its monopoly status which allowed virtually anything to be presented, is struggling. They are beginning to wane as a result of over-reaching with what they thought they could say in an effort to affect history. They were, and are wrong—the market is, and will continue to correct them.
In short, I have no problem with trusting the free market for news simply because it is far better than any alternative where “men”—of whatever stripe—control it. Man, by himself, is a proven liar thus making men collectively as bad, if not worse, from their combined, and therefore enhanced, ability to be devious.
Report comment to moderator
#5
Sawgunner –
Hey there sir, we haven’t officially greeted. I joined the community while you were “away”. Greetings, welcome back my name is Dan and I like to write.
Just wanted to drop you a line and say thanks for the heads up in #5 there. I was in the Army as a journalist for four years with the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault!). My point above was to point out what I perceived to be a question of the very nature of what constitutes adultery to begin with.
In other words, from whence cometh the desire to chastise for such behavior to begin with, beyond the benefits, etc.? To excuse Mr. Sanford, despite his status as governor, for the reasons given (his wife wasn’t complaining and the other woman wasn’t in the Armed Forces) to me begs all sorts of interesting questions I thought would be worth while for the Air Force to take up.
By default, does this imply some sort of permissable adultery is possible?
By not really asking the question about what adultery is and why its prohibited under UCMJ, one can perhaps “excuse” it conditionally, for the original intent is lost. That’s what I was getting at.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Dan
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia (#15):
As usual, in the fog of your own prejudices and emotions, you miss the point entirely.
You fail to see the perspective of a military commander that I was communicating in #9. Neither such a commander nor I pretend to be a “King” as your snide little comment suggests.
A military commander is what he is, a military commander who has the necessary authority in a non-democratic organization that has one purpose: complete it’s mission of winning battles and wars to defend the nation. This necessarily involves a degree of pragmatism beyond what ordinarily occurs in civilian society. That is why the UCMJ concentrates heavily on offenses that harm mission performance. That is not to say it neglects offenses of a moral nature that are also repugnant to society in general. But, the commander’s primary responsibility is mission accomplishment and almost all that he does reflects that emphasis.
His primary job is not to administer civil justice, especially if that is already being handled by other entities of the civil society as in this current Sanford case. Of course he is also responsible for taking care of his own when they are predominantly under his supervision, as in the case of fully active duty members—so, in those instances, he does take on the task of the general administration of justice similar to his civilian counterparts. But this is not the case in the Sanford affair. Sanford was not primarily under military supervision, and the civilian world is taking care of his offenses with their own methods. So the military commander would be wise to just stay out of this affair.
That does not mean, however, that the military commander justifies or excuses Sanford’s offenses on a personal level. Even though I might be a military commander, I am also a citizen with the right to vote and I wouldn’t vote for him at the next election, just a I wouldn’t vote for someone like Bill Clinton for the same reason. Even though I might be a military commander, I am also a citizen who hopes that our society will always adhere to and be guided by the moral principles set forth in the Scriptures. So, I don’t excuse Sanford’s actions and I hope that all the proper legal remedies will be forthcoming in the civil society where the offenses occurred.
In the meantime, the military commander goes back to work to do his particular, specialized job in the unique environment in which he finds himself required to work.
Report comment to moderator
I still haven’t heard anything from the Greenville/Spartanburg station about this. Apparently it isn’t news in SC.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!