Posted on Aug 21, 2015
"Ashley Madison-Using Troops May Have Bonked Their Careers"
25.5K
72
65
3
3
0
From: US News
Americans overwhelmingly believe adultery is morally wrong, but information stolen by hackers from affair-facilitating website AshleyMadison.com – and posted online this week – may result in more than dirty looks and broken relationships for U.S. military personnel.
That’s because cheating on your spouse is a crime if you’re a member of the military – a potentially worrying detail for operators of nearly 10,000 .mil email addresses that appear to be associated with Ashley Madison accounts.
Military law experts say it’s unlikely many of the troops would receive a court martial or the maximum penalty of one year in prison and a dishonorable discharge, but believe a wave of lesser, though still severe, consequences is possible.
Adultery, the criminal charge, rarely is the sole basis for a criminal investigation and charges in the military, but that’s not always the case for higher-ranking officials or those dating subordinates or the spouses of colleagues, the experts say.
“When you’re talking about thousands and thousands, it’s probably going to be coming from all ranks, and the disposition may vary based on rank,” says Victor Hansen, a former military prosecutor and defense attorney.
Hansen says he helped quietly resolve adultery investigations against officers about a decade ago and says “the Army’s response typically was to reprimand the officer and quietly retire them, usually at a reduced rank,” resulting in a smaller pension.
Hansen, who now teaches at the New England School of Law, says that probably remains the approach.
The military has little interest in seeing the sex lives of officers on the front page of newspapers, he says, and without congressional pressure it’s unlikely military prosecutors “are going to go out and troll the waters of these websites proactively.”
Hansen notes “a lot of this is going to center around proof” and says officers who zealously oppose adultery are likely to be warned off recommending charges against low-level troops on the basis of minimal evidence by their military law advisers.
“That tends to have a particularly dampening effect on a commander who might have a crusade for a particular type of crime,” he says.
Hansen says lower-level members of the military can still get letters of reprimand in their military files. The military generally is an “up or out” organization, and troops unable to be promoted due to misconduct would have few options but to leave.
Richard Rosen, a former commandant of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's School, says adultery often was used as an add-on charge for alleged crimes such as rape, but also stemmed from improper officer-subordinate relationships.
“If you have a four-star general who’s on this site, people might feel differently,” he says.
A decision to bring adultery charges under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice “really depends upon whether the government can show discredit upon the armed forces or that it’s prejudicial to good order and discipline,” he says.
“They would have to prove one of those two things," says Rosen, now a professor at the Texas Tech University School of Law. "So if you have a low-ranking enlisted person, the chances are you aren’t going to get an adultery court martial, but it may be different for a general officer.”
Still, Rosen says ordinary members of the military could tattle on their peers outside the chain of command, kicking off a probe that could result in a letter of reprimand, ending career prospects.
Alternatively, he adds, “some commanders will just do counseling and say ‘cut that out’” in response to adultery allegations.
Rosen doubts the Army’s Fort Leavenworth prison population will swell as a result of the Ashley Madison hack. He points out an uproar against charges by the public and politicians in the late 1990s headed off a possible adultery trial for Kelly Flinn, the Air Force's first female B-52 pilot.
“I can’t imagine someone going to jail for this, but I’ve been wrong before,” he says.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Army, the military branch that appears best-represented among site patrons, did not respond to a request for comment.
Adultery remains a crime for civilians in nearly half of states, but those laws are almost never enforced.
Update:
In a Wednesday evening statement, the Army said it was aware of reports that military personnel had used Ashley Madison's services and said the service is "committed to ensuring that online-related incidents are prevented, reported and addressed."
The full statement:
"The Army is aware of news reports concerning the use of military e-mail addresses as referenced in your inquiry. Army Professionals voluntarily incur an extraordinary moral obligation to uphold the Army Values, which apply to all aspects of our life. Online misconduct is inconsistent with Army Values and we are committed to ensuring that online-related incidents are prevented, reported and addressed."
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/19/ashley-madison-using-troops-may-have-bonked-their-careers
Americans overwhelmingly believe adultery is morally wrong, but information stolen by hackers from affair-facilitating website AshleyMadison.com – and posted online this week – may result in more than dirty looks and broken relationships for U.S. military personnel.
That’s because cheating on your spouse is a crime if you’re a member of the military – a potentially worrying detail for operators of nearly 10,000 .mil email addresses that appear to be associated with Ashley Madison accounts.
Military law experts say it’s unlikely many of the troops would receive a court martial or the maximum penalty of one year in prison and a dishonorable discharge, but believe a wave of lesser, though still severe, consequences is possible.
Adultery, the criminal charge, rarely is the sole basis for a criminal investigation and charges in the military, but that’s not always the case for higher-ranking officials or those dating subordinates or the spouses of colleagues, the experts say.
“When you’re talking about thousands and thousands, it’s probably going to be coming from all ranks, and the disposition may vary based on rank,” says Victor Hansen, a former military prosecutor and defense attorney.
Hansen says he helped quietly resolve adultery investigations against officers about a decade ago and says “the Army’s response typically was to reprimand the officer and quietly retire them, usually at a reduced rank,” resulting in a smaller pension.
Hansen, who now teaches at the New England School of Law, says that probably remains the approach.
The military has little interest in seeing the sex lives of officers on the front page of newspapers, he says, and without congressional pressure it’s unlikely military prosecutors “are going to go out and troll the waters of these websites proactively.”
Hansen notes “a lot of this is going to center around proof” and says officers who zealously oppose adultery are likely to be warned off recommending charges against low-level troops on the basis of minimal evidence by their military law advisers.
“That tends to have a particularly dampening effect on a commander who might have a crusade for a particular type of crime,” he says.
Hansen says lower-level members of the military can still get letters of reprimand in their military files. The military generally is an “up or out” organization, and troops unable to be promoted due to misconduct would have few options but to leave.
Richard Rosen, a former commandant of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's School, says adultery often was used as an add-on charge for alleged crimes such as rape, but also stemmed from improper officer-subordinate relationships.
“If you have a four-star general who’s on this site, people might feel differently,” he says.
A decision to bring adultery charges under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice “really depends upon whether the government can show discredit upon the armed forces or that it’s prejudicial to good order and discipline,” he says.
“They would have to prove one of those two things," says Rosen, now a professor at the Texas Tech University School of Law. "So if you have a low-ranking enlisted person, the chances are you aren’t going to get an adultery court martial, but it may be different for a general officer.”
Still, Rosen says ordinary members of the military could tattle on their peers outside the chain of command, kicking off a probe that could result in a letter of reprimand, ending career prospects.
Alternatively, he adds, “some commanders will just do counseling and say ‘cut that out’” in response to adultery allegations.
Rosen doubts the Army’s Fort Leavenworth prison population will swell as a result of the Ashley Madison hack. He points out an uproar against charges by the public and politicians in the late 1990s headed off a possible adultery trial for Kelly Flinn, the Air Force's first female B-52 pilot.
“I can’t imagine someone going to jail for this, but I’ve been wrong before,” he says.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Army, the military branch that appears best-represented among site patrons, did not respond to a request for comment.
Adultery remains a crime for civilians in nearly half of states, but those laws are almost never enforced.
Update:
In a Wednesday evening statement, the Army said it was aware of reports that military personnel had used Ashley Madison's services and said the service is "committed to ensuring that online-related incidents are prevented, reported and addressed."
The full statement:
"The Army is aware of news reports concerning the use of military e-mail addresses as referenced in your inquiry. Army Professionals voluntarily incur an extraordinary moral obligation to uphold the Army Values, which apply to all aspects of our life. Online misconduct is inconsistent with Army Values and we are committed to ensuring that online-related incidents are prevented, reported and addressed."
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/19/ashley-madison-using-troops-may-have-bonked-their-careers
Hacking
Marriage
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 36
8
8
0
Call me a prude, but that business and subsequent commercials made me want to throw up in disgust. Play with fire and expect to be burned in one way or another. Now seek out every loophole in the law and exercise your constitutional rights to wiggle out of what you should have never done in the first place. But using your .mil account? Way to go people. Thanks for making the military the center of the scandal. Well done.
(8)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
On a bit of the selfish side can you imagine the briefings we're going to be getting now about appropriate and inappropriate uses of official email.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
What dumb-ass uses a work or .mil email address? Just for sheer stupidity, they should get UCMJ and busted out of the services for inappropriately using government resources for personal gain. Forget the adultery part of it alone, just for using .mil...that is all I would need to want to slap the crap out of any of my Soldiers. I would allow myself to lose a stripe if I could pistol whip any of the ones that were in my influence.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
And how many of those .mil addresses belong to civilians? We tend to forget that .mil does not necessarily mean a uniformed service member.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
CPT (Join to see)
Did they not think it would burn them. Don't they see that same screen that we seen when you go to log into your email.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
First off, I am only playing the devils advocate here. I am not condoning anyone's action nor am I throwing stones at them.
Secondly, 1LT Rosa, it wasn't that "CI" that the log on screen talks about that found this information. It was a criminal that hacked into a website in which held people's credit card information. Which is illegal, which makes that individual a criminal which means we are using evidence of a crime to punish people that did not commit this crime.
Third, don't act like you (all of you) don't know someone in your unit that either them or their spouse or both are allowed to play on the side due to always being away. Isn't this private matters? Shouldn't this have left the UCMJ as soon as Don't Ask Don't Tell was recinded? Isn't that their private matters that the LGBT community fought to keep people out of? Do these 10,000 plus .mil or .go email users need to march on capital hill and demand that they are allowed to do what they want in their private matters?
And lastly, honestly now that it was brought up, using your email account that has two factor authentication is probably the best email account to do your dirty business on. If you are trying to hide info from your significant other then wouldn't you want to do it on an account that they can't access? Just my two cents.
Secondly, 1LT Rosa, it wasn't that "CI" that the log on screen talks about that found this information. It was a criminal that hacked into a website in which held people's credit card information. Which is illegal, which makes that individual a criminal which means we are using evidence of a crime to punish people that did not commit this crime.
Third, don't act like you (all of you) don't know someone in your unit that either them or their spouse or both are allowed to play on the side due to always being away. Isn't this private matters? Shouldn't this have left the UCMJ as soon as Don't Ask Don't Tell was recinded? Isn't that their private matters that the LGBT community fought to keep people out of? Do these 10,000 plus .mil or .go email users need to march on capital hill and demand that they are allowed to do what they want in their private matters?
And lastly, honestly now that it was brought up, using your email account that has two factor authentication is probably the best email account to do your dirty business on. If you are trying to hide info from your significant other then wouldn't you want to do it on an account that they can't access? Just my two cents.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I know this won't be popular, but.
1) This is not worth either the Government's nor the Services' time to investigate. Don't bother. It will become a witch hunt. Wasted resources.
2) It is arguably between two consenting adults, regardless of the moral or ethical implications of the specific act. Hence "victim-less crime." (Civil case, not Criminal) See point 1.
3) The information was obtained illegally, which is going to add a whole additional layer of complexity to anything. See point 1.
4) Honestly, the government/military shouldn't be in the "Adultery" business anymore anyways. When was the last time anyone was tried for it as a Civilian? See Point 1. (Yes, I do get Good order & Discipline argument, just disagree that this one should still exist).
1) This is not worth either the Government's nor the Services' time to investigate. Don't bother. It will become a witch hunt. Wasted resources.
2) It is arguably between two consenting adults, regardless of the moral or ethical implications of the specific act. Hence "victim-less crime." (Civil case, not Criminal) See point 1.
3) The information was obtained illegally, which is going to add a whole additional layer of complexity to anything. See point 1.
4) Honestly, the government/military shouldn't be in the "Adultery" business anymore anyways. When was the last time anyone was tried for it as a Civilian? See Point 1. (Yes, I do get Good order & Discipline argument, just disagree that this one should still exist).
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SFC Jon Vandeyacht So, you're saying that if someone used YOUR email from the Global exchange to create a fake account the government would be justified in charging you with a 134? Email addressed are public information. You send it out every time you send an email. The statistics on this story have already shown that over 1/3 of the accounts listed are fake.
I don't have a dog in this fight. Not active duty. Not a member of the site. No interest in a little "strange" on the side. I just think it's a waste of time and effort to go after anyone based solely on an email address on a list. If an actual person shows up at the Unit, just like the old days, sure, deal with it like we normally would. But otherwise, this is is a "behind closed doors" issue, and sometimes people get way too wrapped up about what people are doing in their own houses.
I don't have a dog in this fight. Not active duty. Not a member of the site. No interest in a little "strange" on the side. I just think it's a waste of time and effort to go after anyone based solely on an email address on a list. If an actual person shows up at the Unit, just like the old days, sure, deal with it like we normally would. But otherwise, this is is a "behind closed doors" issue, and sometimes people get way too wrapped up about what people are doing in their own houses.
(0)
(0)
SFC Jon Vandeyacht
I understand your argument and in respect totally agree with you...However, in this case, my email is [login to see] ... i challenge you to create an AM acct. Using my email. You can get through the initial signup BUT... you must still log into my email act. And confirm that 1. It is a valid email and 2. You have acess to it.
I frequently see emails inwhich someone or something tried to sign me up and i delete them knowing the act. Was never fully created.
2. You must have valid credit or debit card to complete sign up. You must be exceptionally good to get a card in my name, with an adress that doesnt come back to you AND acess to my email which means i must have really pissed you off in a big way......
This is my argument. It is too much work to create a valid act. For someone to claim it was bs...
The info released from AM was on valid full fledged acts. Not acts in the process but not validated. It is easier to get a credit card in your name than set up an AM act using you .mil email address esp with the cac requirement for log in.
So yes, if they have a .mil email act. That was released as a AM act holder, that is enough to prove a violation of 134. It does pass the smell test...
Who has access to your .mil email?
I frequently see emails inwhich someone or something tried to sign me up and i delete them knowing the act. Was never fully created.
2. You must have valid credit or debit card to complete sign up. You must be exceptionally good to get a card in my name, with an adress that doesnt come back to you AND acess to my email which means i must have really pissed you off in a big way......
This is my argument. It is too much work to create a valid act. For someone to claim it was bs...
The info released from AM was on valid full fledged acts. Not acts in the process but not validated. It is easier to get a credit card in your name than set up an AM act using you .mil email address esp with the cac requirement for log in.
So yes, if they have a .mil email act. That was released as a AM act holder, that is enough to prove a violation of 134. It does pass the smell test...
Who has access to your .mil email?
(0)
(0)
SFC Jon Vandeyacht
I submitted before finishing....
Im with you brother, behind closed doors and not affecting unit...leave it alone....
But, it is still a violation and still persuable. Would it be a waste to witch-hunt just for the ourpose of busting Joe...hell yes. I agree.
Legally right, morally right and just a total waste of resources, are all different.
I have seen good guys go down for much less and craptastic Soldiers survive with far worse. It sucks, really does. I was not the best Soldier, best leader or best person in the Army, but I was all heart and really did care for my subordinates. I was harder on mine than others because i have a high standard for leaders and only wanted mine to both have and be the best...
This is why i might come off as a little bit of a war mongering killem all prick. I apologize if that is the case.
Im with you brother, behind closed doors and not affecting unit...leave it alone....
But, it is still a violation and still persuable. Would it be a waste to witch-hunt just for the ourpose of busting Joe...hell yes. I agree.
Legally right, morally right and just a total waste of resources, are all different.
I have seen good guys go down for much less and craptastic Soldiers survive with far worse. It sucks, really does. I was not the best Soldier, best leader or best person in the Army, but I was all heart and really did care for my subordinates. I was harder on mine than others because i have a high standard for leaders and only wanted mine to both have and be the best...
This is why i might come off as a little bit of a war mongering killem all prick. I apologize if that is the case.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SFC Jon Vandeyacht Don't get me wrong. I think the idea of using a .mil to set up an AM account is idiotic. I think "if" it affects your Unit, you deserve what you get. "But" at this point, why intentionally go digging, in a proverbial vipers nest. As the saying goes, "no good can come of this."
We're not going to get any Justice out of this situation. The military is not going to benefit in any way. The people involved in this scandal are being taken care of via the "Public Shaming" method, and anything the military court system can do is just insult to injury.
My stance is simply from a pragmatic "waste of resources" one. It's not worth the time or effort needed to investigate. It's simply better to take a "we're ignoring it, because the information was obtained illegally, and distributed illegally" stance.
We're not going to get any Justice out of this situation. The military is not going to benefit in any way. The people involved in this scandal are being taken care of via the "Public Shaming" method, and anything the military court system can do is just insult to injury.
My stance is simply from a pragmatic "waste of resources" one. It's not worth the time or effort needed to investigate. It's simply better to take a "we're ignoring it, because the information was obtained illegally, and distributed illegally" stance.
(0)
(0)
I have to agree with LCDR (Join to see), just because an email address shows on a list for a website doesn't mean the service member actually did anything. I'm not trying to excuse anyone from his/her action but wouldn't the burden be on the Army to prove that the service member actually did more than just sign up for a website. What if the service member sign up during a time of separation, than realized things would be better if they worked things out with their partner and never closed the account? How many other accounts using Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, or any other private service actually belong to service members as well? These were only the 10,000 people that decided to use their .mil address. There are a lot of questions to consider here so I doubt we'll see a quick closure to any of this. This is just a huge can of worms and we merely just popped the lid.
(3)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SGT Ben Keen agreed.
What I will say is misuse of government property/equipment is however, easily proved, especially if the accounts had to be verified through email (assuming they did).
What I will say is misuse of government property/equipment is however, easily proved, especially if the accounts had to be verified through email (assuming they did).
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
LCDR (Join to see)
Wired announced that account verification is not accomplished via email.
Wired announced that account verification is not accomplished via email.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
MSgt (Join to see) That makes proving anything at all much more difficult.
Still a starting point for some investigations, but less certainties even than before.
Thanks for the information!
Still a starting point for some investigations, but less certainties even than before.
Thanks for the information!
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
As much as I would hate to admit it, there will be losses directly or indirectly tied to this, just not sure what the numbers would be. You can almost guarantee that strained or already strained relationships will enter the precipice and depending on where they are stationed, their ranks and their leadership make up, some careers are already over, it's just a matter of documentation... I expected a lot of single guys to be on this site, but from what I'm hearing, there are a lot of married peeps on this site as well... Amazing...
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google