US military justice code sets standards on adultery
- Mann Ki Baat: Every life lost in Kashmir is a loss to our nation, says PM Narendra Modi
- Our collective mistakes, mishandling, have pushed Kashmir youth to violence: Omar Abdullah
- Kashmir violence: 'Alternative' to pellets already in use, says CRPF affidavit
- ISRO successfully test launches scramjet engine from Sriharikota
- Sri Lanka: Still Counting the Wounds
Adultery, fraternisation, unbecoming conduct – The United States' Uniform Code of Military Justice restricts the behavior of soldiers and officers up to the highest ranks.
Still, experts say it seems highly unlikely that either David Petraeus or John Allen -- one a retired general, the other still active – will be tried in a military court for involvement in a scandal that has shaken Washington.
Petraeus, the most celebrated general of his generation before leaving the military to head he CIA, resigned last week to pre-empt the revelations he had an affair with his biographer, a married woman 20 years his junior.
Currently the top allied commander in Afghanistan, Allen's professional future is now also in question after he was placed under investigation for sending "inappropriate" emails to a married Tampa socialite. He denies an affair.
Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice states that "adultery is clearly unacceptable conduct, and it reflects adversely on the service record of the military member."
It is punishable by dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and even a one-year prison term.
While Petraeus's liaison seems to span a period when he was no longer in the army, it does not absolve him of the rules of the Uniform Code, said Eugene Fidell, a military law scholar at Yale University.
"Retired regulars who draw pay are subject to the UCMJ, for life," he told Time magazine. "It's not going to happen, but that's what the Manual for Courts Martial provides."
In fact, adultery trials are very rare. In 1999, two-star retired general David Hales admitted before a court martial to adulterous relationships with four wives of his subordinates. He was fined but not jailed.
Adultery not the same as "fraternisation," which penalizes any close relationship, especially of a sexual nature, between an officer or non-commissioned officer and a subordinate.
- Dalits are angry about the hollowness of the current hyper-nationalism
- Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s slogan of 'insaniyat, Kashmiriat' has no meaning today
- Kejriwal’s attention is fixed on winning the Centre rather than making mohallas run better
- Inside Track: Turf tussle
- In Kashmir, so-called solutions are riddled with contradictions and divisions
- Why personal, social and political self-identification of Dalits must count more than legal nomenclature.