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
1
1
0
Definitely not Career Enhancing but I do remember the Peyton Place that was most Military and Military Housing when I was in. Some things never change.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I am sure AFOSI, NCI, etc...know the email addresses and are working the case. I am sure there are some offenders that were young offenders that didn't understand what they were doing. I would highly doubt there were senior people dumb enough to do the same. It will get hashed out in time.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
As I mentioned in the articles posted about this yesterday, the violators don't have a leg to stand on to argue it.
Now the question does remain, does having an account mean you actually cheated (yet)?
Now the question does remain, does having an account mean you actually cheated (yet)?
(1)
(0)
SFC Jon Vandeyacht
No, it does not meet the requirements for a guilty charge, it only produces probable cause, the authorization to probe further. On top of it, if you read the big red book, UCMJ 2009, I believe I remember reading that the unit would only persue it IF....it causes harm or some other loss in the unit. I know it isn't exact quoting but there was another part to it outside of just having sex outside of the marriage.
However, they did technically violate the TOS for using a government provided email address. This is what they should get busted on. They are not automatically guilty of cheating, only probably and you cant make a charge on probability, but they are more than guilty of misappropriation or misuse of government provided resources and that can NOT be refuted. There is also the just being stupid charge. Art 134. Now they have brought negative media attention to their unit, Brigade, Division and the Army as a whole. This is FACT and not a maybe so, maybe not.
However, they did technically violate the TOS for using a government provided email address. This is what they should get busted on. They are not automatically guilty of cheating, only probably and you cant make a charge on probability, but they are more than guilty of misappropriation or misuse of government provided resources and that can NOT be refuted. There is also the just being stupid charge. Art 134. Now they have brought negative media attention to their unit, Brigade, Division and the Army as a whole. This is FACT and not a maybe so, maybe not.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SFC Jon Vandeyacht 100% agreed. The thing they are all guilty of for sure is misuse of their government accounts.
I can definitely also see some conduct unbecoming
I can definitely also see some conduct unbecoming
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Why is the military so obsessed with the sexual practices of it's members? To be frank, if we let the troops get laid more instead of institutionally being cock-blockers, we'd probably see less melt-downs from the higher ups and less grumbling by the folks in the fields. If guys like Patreous and so many others need a sexual outlet isn't it better that they patronize some professional? Just do a contact form (like the ones for when you meet foreign intelligence contacts) and disclose who it is so they can be vetted. We really need to grow up about this sort of thing. We've lost some very good leaders for making some incredibly stupid moves.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Isn't this supposed to be placed in the humor section?! LOL!
I imagine none of the DoD emails will be prosecuted. It's difficult to prove adultery was committed simply because an email was used.
I imagine none of the DoD emails will be prosecuted. It's difficult to prove adultery was committed simply because an email was used.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It appears the Pentagon won't take this any further - unless warranted.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/25/pentagon-gives-free-pass-to-ashley-madison-cheaters.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/25/pentagon-gives-free-pass-to-ashley-madison-cheaters.html
Pentagon Gives Free Pass to Ashley Madison Cheaters
Fear not, philandering warriors of America: Officials say having a military email address found in the adultery site leak isn’t enough to get you investigated.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The fact that persons would use a .gov or .mil account is indicative of the lack of ethical bearing we have within the country right now. The very fact that a company such as Ashley Madison can exist and usethe general "you only live once, have an affair" speaks as to the moral compass of this country being In need of repair. There will be those that lose positions due to this and rightly so. Sadly it has been reported that a few suicides have occurred, and I am sure a few divorces will likewise. Ethics training is scoffed at by leaders in all organizations, but it is sorely needed.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not sure. But there are some embarrassed folks out there.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google