Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 00:46:57 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Senator Santorum Message-ID: <3EB8B9F1.F62CBFE6@mindspring.com> References: <ADAEB726-7FD9-11D7-8EA4-000393A335A2@mac.com> <5.0.2.1.1.20030506182557.07db3820@popserver.sfu.ca> <3EB8A4AF.B6B02E5B@mindspring.com> <20030506232618.K5620@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton wrote: > On Tue, 6 May 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > > If you are thinking of the (relatively) recent media feeding > > frenzy, it was not a courts-marshall over adultery, per se, > > it was a courts-marshall over disobeying a direct order to not > > engage in adultery. That's a totally different issue (Article > > 15). The media made it about adultry, because adultry was more > > salable to their consumers than the reality. > > No, there are actually penalties in the UCMJ for adultery, but like I > said, I'm far from an expert. As I understand it, they generally involve > stacking poo onto the pile for people who shouldn't have been involved > anyway, but I grew up in a navy town, and I used to hear about this kind > of thing fairly regularly. I understand that; it was just if you had that particular case in mind. I rather imagine that; just as in the civilian justice systems in the various states, you could argue against such charges on the basis of "selective enforcement". I'm waiting for someone to win a state murder conviction, lose a federal civil rights conviction for the same crime, fight it under double jeoparday, and win. Then I will be happy about "stacking poo" no longer being possible. -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EB8B9F1.F62CBFE6>