USAF Colonel: Adultery law discriminates against heterosexuals

[The Bread Guy]

Interesting defence ...

Lawyers for a Schriever Air Force Base colonel argued Monday that a half-dozen adultery charges against him should be thrown out because the military's law banning extramarital sex discriminates against heterosexuals.

Col. Eugene Marcus Caughey is headed for an August court-martial on charges of rape, assault, taking a dirty selfie and the adultery counts. He was in court Monday for a formal reading of the charges and to argue pretrial motions.

Maj. Keith Meister, one of three attorneys defending Caughey, told Air Force judge Col. Wes Moore that the military's definition of adultery as sex between a man and a woman hasn't keep place with its definition of marriage, which now includes same-sex couples. That's because the military's adultery law requires "sexual intercourse" as an element of guilt, which the Pentagon defines as an act between a man and a woman.

"A homosexual man or woman couldn't commit adultery as defined," Meister argued ...

- OP edit of title - dohhh!!! -

 

[Lightguns]

Likely right, but the first two charges, if founded, will be the ones to "hang" him (so to speak). 

 

[dapaterson]

I'm thinking that the journalist took a few liberties in his description.  I doubt actual military law refers to "taking a dirty selfie"...

 

[Blackadder1916]

I'm thinking that the journalist took a few liberties in his description.  I doubt actual military law refers to "taking a dirty selfie"...

The "civilianization" of military speak.

What it actually is:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/05/10/air-force-colonel-charged-rape-and-assault-stand-trial/84184632/
Caughey, a 23-year Air Force veteran, allegedly committed six counts of adultery between 2013 and 2015, in violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. One charge with two specifications in violation of Article 133 of the UCMJ, conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman, states that Caughey took a photo of his genitals while in uniform in his office.

 

[Journeyman]

.....states that Caughey took a photo of his genitals while in uniform in his office.

As one does. 

Wait, you mean it's wrong?!  :dunno:

 

[The Bread Guy]

In the words of some satirical presses, that IS robust heterosexuality, indeed ...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

What it actually is:
in violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. One charge with two specifications in violation of Article 133 of the UCMJ, conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman, states that Caughey took a photo of his genitals while in uniform in his office.

That would seem to me to be one of those impossibilities: If you take a picture of your genitals, you are by definition out of your uniform.  ;D

 

[Blackadder1916]

As one does. 

Wait, you mean it's wrong?!  :dunno:

According to the USAF, not only wrong, but dishonorable! 

http://leadstories.com/Caughey-%20Preferred%20Charge%20Sheet_Redacted.pdf

Specification 2:  In that COLONEL EUGENE MARCUS CAUGHEY,  United States Air Force,  Headquarters Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, did, within the State of Colorado, between on or about 1 July 2014 and on or about 15 July 2015, wrongfully and dishonorably hold his erect penis in his hand while in uniform and seated in his office, and proceeded to take a picture of himself holding his erect penis while in uniform and seated in his office, such conduct being unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman.

 

[Brasidas]

What it actually is:
in violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. One charge with two specifications in violation of Article 133 of the UCMJ, conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman, states that Caughey took a photo of his genitals while in uniform in his office.

That would seem to me to be one of those impossibilities: If you take a picture of your genitals, you are by definition out of your uniform.  ;D

I believe it physically possible, as long as the camera in question has a flash.

 

[Blackadder1916]

That would seem to me to be one of those impossibilities: If you take a picture of your genitals, you are by definition out of your uniform.  ;D

Not always.

(Do not click on link if you are easily offended)
http://40.media.tumblr.com/42c10734fceedef34a5c1d782253f3ce/tumblr_nr4w34cfqh1tuc8yko1_1280.jpg

 

[cupper]

How do we know he wasn't taking said selfie to determine if he had some issue with said genitals. Unlike my dog, I can't get my head that low to see if there is something strange going on. He just took a picture to do a self exam.  ;D

Now if he "accidentally" emailed that photo to someone other than his doctor, well that was a bonehead move on his part.

 

[tomahawk6]

A number of senior officers in the past few years have thrown their careers away because they were thinking with the wrong head.This Colonel will be lucky to retire as a LTC.

 

[dimsum]

According to the USAF, not only wrong, but dishonorable! 

http://leadstories.com/Caughey-%20Preferred%20Charge%20Sheet_Redacted.pdf

So if there's a "wrongfully and dishonorably" way of doing it, does that mean there's a rightful and honorable way? 

 

[bLUE fOX]

So if there's a "wrongfully and dishonorably" way of doing it, does that mean there's a rightful and honorable way? 

That is a not unfair question.

 

[Journeyman]

So if there's a "wrongfully and dishonorably" way of doing it, does that mean there's a rightful and honorable way? 

No idea.  My comment was meant as a joke (albeit, lame).  Apparently the topic is pretty close to home for some folks. 

 

[dapaterson]

That's why, until recently, DND BlackBerrys had the camera disabled - to avoid just this problem.

 

[Journeyman]

That's why, until recently, DND BlackBerrys had the camera disabled - to avoid just this problem.

NDHQ people photographing USAF Colonels' junk?

I thought it was tied to some RCAF Base Commander.......  >

 

[FJAG]

Likely right, but the first two charges, if founded, will be the ones to "hang" him (so to speak).

I'm not so sure that the defence would work.

Under the UCMJ, adultery is charged under article 134 which is the equivalent of our s 130 Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline offence. Article 134 itself does not mention adultery but the US military issues a document called the "Manual for Courts Martial United States" which covers in great detail numerous elements respecting the courts martial process (a bit like our QR&Os expand on the NDA).

Part IV of the MCM is titled PUNITIVE ARTICLES and provides detailed information about specific offences charged under a given article. Item 62 (of the 2012 edition of the MCM) provides the details for an adultery charge laid under article 134. The essential elements of the offence of adultery are set out as:

"b. Elements.
(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and
(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

The way that I read the provisions is that the offence is committed if either the accused is married to a third party or the other person with whom the accused had intercourse is married to a third or maybe fourth party. There is nothing in the MCM that specifies that any of the marriages be heterosexual--any marriage should do. The defence argument may be that the dates of the offences predate the USSC decision in Obergefell v Hodges but even at that time the essential elements would have been met in the case of an act of homosexual intercourse between two individuals, where one or both of whom was married a heterosexual marriage to a third (and maybe a fourth) party.

Quite the scummy charge sheet.

:cheers: 

 

[Blackadder1916]

Part IV of the MCM is titled PUNITIVE ARTICLES and provides detailed information about specific offences charged under a given article. Item 62 (of the 2012 edition of the MCM) provides the details for an adultery charge laid under article 134. The essential elements of the offence of adultery are set out as:

"b. Elements.
(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and
(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

. . . There is nothing in the MCM that specifies that any of the marriages be heterosexual--any marriage should do. The defence argument may be that the dates of the offences predate the USSC decision in Obergefell v Hodges but even at that time the essential elements would have been met in the case of an act of homosexual intercourse between two individuals, where one or both of whom was married a heterosexual marriage to a third (and maybe a fourth) party.

Quite the scummy charge sheet.

:cheers: 

Not a lawyer, but do agree that it is a scummy charge sheet.  My uninformed reading of the defence's claim is that they base it on the definition of "sexual intercourse" as per Department of the Army Pamphlet 27–9 Military Judges’ Benchbook (page 787 on paper - go to pdf page count 801 to view)

“Sexual intercourse” is any penetration, however slight, of the female sex organ by the penis. An ejaculation is not required.

If sexual intercourse (by their reading of the definition) only happens when a male sex organ penetrates a female sex organ, then same sex physical relations regardless of marital status don't fall into adultery and therefore not equal application of the law.

 

[The Bread Guy]

How do we know he wasn't taking said selfie to determine if he had some issue with said genitals.

I'd buy that argument only if he lived & worked in a place that had no medical facilities and the only access to even primary health care was via telemedicine. 

Then again, you may have provided defence counsel with another point ...

Quite the scummy charge sheet.

One man's scummy is another man's aggressive and comprehensive defence ...