From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 7 00:49:22 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF7037B401; Wed, 7 May 2003 00:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net (heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.189]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EFBD43FAF; Wed, 7 May 2003 00:49:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0555.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.44.45] helo=mindspring.com) by heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19DJg0-0002xU-00; Wed, 07 May 2003 00:49:20 -0700 Message-ID: <3EB8B9F1.F62CBFE6@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 00:46:57 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <5.0.2.1.1.20030506182557.07db3820@popserver.sfu.ca> <3EB8A4AF.B6B02E5B@mindspring.com> <20030506232618.K5620@znfgre.qbhto.arg> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a4d12a986ba3954cbb1efed4b9b47c0844666fa475841a1c7a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Senator Santorum X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 07:49:22 -0000 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