SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: greenspirit who wrote (16255)11/30/1998 1:27:00 AM
From: Borzou Daragahi  Respond to of 67261
 
Michael, I have never argued that what Clinton has done is right. I read with special joy the words of wisdom from Confucious you posted.

I'm not an avid opponent of the impeachment hearings. I think it's politically stupid--Paula Jonestown, one White House cad called it--for the Republicans to be pursuing this strategy. (I know, I know, it's not a strategy, they're only pursuing this because of the principle involved. Yeah, right! If you believe that, there's a land development deal in Arkansas I'd like to tell you about.) BTW, is anyone else getting a little bored with this whole impeachment discussion? I sense that everything that can be said on the subject has been said and we're just going around in circles.

Why should we hold 20 year old soldiers accountable for lying about sex? We ruin their lives, take away their rights, and sometimes lock them behind bars.

IMO, soldiers shouldn't have to lie about sex. Remove some of the archaic restrictions placed on soldiers regarding their sex lives, judge each case of alleged misconduct on its own merit rather than on absolute rules, i.e. allow for some mitigating factors and recognize that having sex with another soldier is different from selling weapons to the local militia group or selling secrets to a foreign country,and soldiers won't have to lie about sex.

It's simply wrong to hold basically kids accountable for something we are willing to ignore from a 50 year old Commander in Chief's who has been through are finest institutions of learning.

Yes, it's wrong. But who's ignoring it? The Judiciary Committee is pursuing it. There will at least be a censure, hopefully. And he may be prosecuted once he gets out of the White House.

BTW, re another topic we were discussing, low morale in the military, here's an interesting story:

Copyright 1998 Times Mirror Company
Los Angeles Times
November 11, 1998, Wednesday, Home Edition
SECTION: Part A; Page 1; National Desk
LENGTH: 2643 words
HEADLINE: COLUMN ONE;
A GRADUAL EROSION OF U.S. FORCE; CUTBACKS, SKEWED SPENDING PRIORITIES AND A DECLINE IN BENEFITS ARE TAKING A TOLL ON READINESS, SOLDIERS SAY. COMPLAINTS PROMPTED CONGRESS TO INCREASE FUNDING.
BYLINE: MARK FRITZ, TIMES STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: FT. DRUM, N.Y.

BODY: Damon Wright jogged down a narrow street in a crowded neighborhood where every resident was trying, it seemed, to kill him. They leaned out of windows, ran across rooftops and burst from doorways, firing rockets and throwing bombs and sending countless bullets pinging around him. "It's tough to accept: Why did I make it and somebody else didn't?" says Wright, who still has the shrapnel he dug from his flak vest.

This was Somalia, Oct. 3, 1993. Wright, then a lieutenant, led a U.S. Army platoon through downtown Mogadishu in a bid to rescue a group of Rangers pinned down in an ambush. Even though the mission to Somalia became a bloody debacle, even though the Americans eventually abandoned the place to its feuding factions, this particular part of it was nothing less than heroic to the men of the Army's 10th Mountain Division. They waded into a firefight and rescued some
of their own.

Now, the 10th Mountain Division--perhaps the most overworked U.S. military force of the post-Cold War era--has been chosen to take over the U.S. mission to Bosnia next year, the fourth year of a task originally scheduled for one. Yet Wright won't be going. He got a civilian job as a chemical engineer in 1996, just weeks before he would have made captain.

"I just felt I wanted something different," said Wright, who turns 29 today, Veterans Day.

People like Wright are one of the reasons Congress approved a $9.3-billion increase in defense spending last month, the biggest since the Reagan years. The boost came after the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, echoed what troops here have been saying for some time: A booming job market and an erosion of military benefits have pushed some of the best soldiers into the private sector. A post-Cold War reduction in
forces has left more missions for fewer people, leaving behind a trail of burned-out service members and broken marriages. And skewed spending priorities have hurt the quality of training and caliber of equipment.

"A lot of guys figure if they're not going to give us the resources, they might as well get out," said Staff Sgt. Dave Meyer, a 12-year veteran with time in Somalia and Haiti. "Nobody wants to go to a place like Somalia and get somebody killed because they weren't trained."

Up here amid the crisp, autumnal beauty of northern New York, not far from the mighty surge of the St. Lawrence River, people are fixated less on impeachment and more on procurement, less on Monica and more on Milosevic, simply because their lives may depend on it. And some fear an erosion of their ability to inflict harm.

During the Senate hearings, some lawmakers said the Pentagon was using scare tactics to angle for a Cold War-sized boost in post-Cold War defense spending. And some generals blamed Congress for keeping open obsolete bases and approving pork-barrel projects to benefit their own districts, taking money away from essential training and equipment.

Yet most experts agree that there has been a sharp drop in readiness, particularly among the so-called "follow-on" troops that typically succeed a front-line force, just as the 10th Mountain intends to do in Bosnia next year, when it replaces the 1st Cavalry Division as the main U.S. force in the divided nation.

It is a mission that seems so far in the future that soldiers actually were relieved when they found out about it. Usually, tearful goodbyes come with much less warning for a unit that, in many ways, has become a microcosm of a military in transition.

Army Cites Big Increase in Operations

The forested countryside, immaculate grounds and almost elegant red-brick buildings that the 10th Mountain calls home
comprise one of the world's loveliest military installations, a pleasant retreat for 27,000 soldiers, family members and
support personnel. But the pastoral grandeur belies the wear and tear on what has been the Army's hardest-working force.

The Army says its operations are up 300% since the Berlin Wall fell, and it's not hard to see why. Besides Somalia, soldiers from 10th Mountain have ripped open rations in the Persian Gulf, Haiti, Bosnia, Uzbekistan, Panama and the Sinai Peninsula. They aided relief efforts during Hurricane Andrew in Florida and delivered meals to people isolated by last winter's ice storms in the Northeast. They're spending November training in the Mojave desert.

"It's been a fast train," said Staff Sgt. Terry Abbott, a Somalia veteran who's been deployed three of the last five years, a
pace that cost him his first marriage. "I'm on my second family now."

Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, after touring Ft. Drum and other bases, told Congress last month that the workload is indeed wearing on the military. He agreed with the Joint Chiefs' contention that U.S. forces could suffer heavy casualties if they had to fight two regional conflicts at once. With the potential for U.S. military action both in
Kosovo and now Iraq, that scenario has rarely seemed more possible.

The 10th Mountain's commander, Brig. Gen Lawson W. Magruder III, said his division is in taut fighting trim, though he conceded that some elements have spent more time in the field than they should have. He also said there was a scarcity of 40-millimeter ammunition and a $ 36-million shortfall in camp maintenance. And the ranks of NCOs have plunged 10% this year alone.

But he said training is still tough, and more units conduct more sophisticated live-fire training than they did a few years
ago. "We're a much more lethal force than we were in 1992-93," he said.

Yet veterans of past missions said the amount of training with live ammunition has in fact plunged in recent years, a bad omen for a light-infantry force expected to pop up in places quickly.

"You can train with blanks all you want. It's essentially laser tag," said Staff Sgt. Steve Horn, 28, a 10-year veteran who fought in Mogadishu. "We had more capability then. We don't do enough live-fire training to throw a battalion into a mission like that."

Live-ammo training in recent months has been good, but probably was low before that because of a flurry of missions, said Lt. Col. David Bongi, commander of the division's 2nd Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment, the division's busiest unit.

Yet even a perception among junior officers and NCOs that they're being shortchanged on training is having a "corrosive" effect on readiness, said John Hillen, defense analyst for the Council on Foreign Relations. "Readiness stinks," he said.

Many soldiers said pay, which the Defense Department says is generally 14% below private sector counterparts, and a cut in retirement benefits--to 40% of salary from 50% after 20 years of service--have hurt morale and prompted some people to leave earlier.

Not only that, some of the more seasoned soldiers here think the newest recruits are strictly bottom of the barrel, a Nintendo generation of kids who can barely break 20 push-ups, dribble a basketball or jog without jiggling. The state of fitness is so flabby that the Army last month proposed easing physical requirements for its youngest soldiers--including shaving a minute off the requirement for the two-mile run.

Maj. Shelly Stellwagen, an Army spokeswoman in Washington, said the new standards, slated to go into effect Oct. 1, were delayed while the brass sifts through heavy feedback from officers in the field.

A sheepish Spc. Kevin Nusser, 20, conceded that PT--physical training--was pretty tough. "I just got smoked when I
first came in here," he said.

Magruder seemed taken aback by the complaints. He conceded that younger people in general may not be as physically fit these days. And some older personnel are finding opportunities elsewhere. "Some officers don't even need to float a resume," Magruder said. "The headhunters come get them."

Headhunters like Harry Wilson, who has been recruiting officers for the private sector for 26 years, have never seen a labor force so willing to be raided.

"That market is just phenomenal," said Wilson, a partner in Military Recruiting Institute, a nationwide employment agency with offices in Houston and Atlanta. "Nobody wants to work for an organization that is limping, and the military is limping."

Wilson said junior officers with college degrees in particular are being snapped up by companies such as Kraft, Michelin, Coca-Cola Co. and major accounting firms like Ernst & Young and Arthur Andersen, the latter of which has hired 90 service people in the last year. A former Naval officer and Persian Gulf veteran hired by Ernst & Young, Dennis Basara, said he's recruited a dozen other officers in the last year.

As a result of the brain drain, the military is increasingly giving more responsibility to less-experienced officers. Bongi said he has lieutenants performing captain's duties, albeit more slowly and less effectively.

Quantifying "readiness" is hard even for the military. Last March, the General Accounting Office said that the Department of Defense's quarterly reports to Congress are so vague they are virtually useless.

Nevertheless, the Navy said aviation crashes are up 80%, likely because of less money for training, and it has 18,000 vacant seagoing positions. It's missed its recruiting goal this year for the first time in the 25-year history of the volunteer army. The Air Force said it is short 700 pilots, who are bolting to the airlines despite $60,000 reenlistment bonuses.

The Army said it is leaking mechanics, military police officers, noncommissioned officers and experienced junior officers.

The post-Cold War reduction in the armed forces--from 2.1 million to 1.4 million--has disguised some retention problems, said Sgt. Maj. Jerome Pionk, the Army's retention policy expert. Though Army reenlistment rates have remained stable overall, specific categories are eroding. The retention rate of mid-career Army officers like Damon
Wright--those with between three and 10 years--dropped to 70% from 75% between 1993 to 1997.

During the drawdown, Pionk said, troops were trimmed without commensurate cuts in bases and command structures, leaving skeletal forces at places like Ft. Riley, Kan., where units have been short 25% of their sergeants, 34% of their mechanics and have more tanks than crews to drive them.

Pionk said a recent survey he conducted of people leaving the Army found that the biggest reason was too many deployments, followed by the cut in retirement benefits. Pionk said his son, an Army captain, is deluged with job offers.

"He's going to get out," he said.

All of this concerted complaining in recent weeks had an effect: The appropriations bill approved by Congress contains nearly $ 2 billion for Bosnia operations--which means units won't have to dip into their own budgets at the expense of other things--and $ 1.3 billion for readiness, including various enlistment bonuses and a 3.6% pay hike. A Defense Department spokesman called it a "down payment" on dealing with readiness.

Yet Congress refused to reinstate the 20-year, 50% retirement rate, which likely will be addressed next year. For some people, though, it's too late.

Capt. Michael Kelly was on track to make major ahead of his peers after an eight-year career as a helicopter pilot, which included hair-raising missions to Haiti and Somalia. Most recently he was with the 3rd Infantry at Ft. Stewart, Ga., which the Pentagon says is so strapped it hasn't had the money to train at the battalion level in two years.

Kelly decided to get out after his wife got pregnant last year and now works as an information systems consultant for Ernst & Young in Cleveland. Kelly said the downsizing of U.S. military forces has left service personnel with too many missions away from home.

"People get fed up," he said. "All the people I respect are leaving or are already gone."

A Mission That Went Horribly Awry

When he was considering college during the peaceful days of the Cold War, Damon Wright, a native of Grand Island, N.Y., looked at ROTC more as a financing source than a career option, particularly since he wanted to attend a costly engineering school.

He graduated in 1992 from Clarkson College and was commissioned as a lieutenant with the 10th Mountain's 2-14--short for 2nd Battalion, 14th Regiment--which fought in Vietnam, Korea and Nazi Germany, wrested Guam from Spain, battled Confederates in Virginia and Indians in Montana, though it got to Little Big Horn too late to help Custer.

Wright and the rest of the 2-14 were assigned to Somalia at a time when the humanitarian mission had collapsed into a hunt for an intransigent warlord, a mission that went horribly awry when the Rangers were ambushed.

Meyer remembered coming to an intersection, taking a left and running into "every war movie you'd ever seen." Bombs went off, rockets whizzed by, bullets from every direction bounced off buildings and skipped across the road. Soldiers today grope for words to describe the sheer quantity of carnage, the stunning density of sound that surrounded them, the apocalyptic image of burning barricades of tires and the Doppler whir of choppers rising and falling, looking for
something to kill.

Because he was an M-60 gunner, Spc. Jim Guelzow's job was to blast away down alleys and side streets while the rest of the platoon crossed intersections. He looked through his night scope, fired his 23-pound machine gun and watched his targets fly backward, squirm in the dirt, finally lie still. He only had a split second to decide: Was that running woman carrying ammo? Or just her kid?

"There was a couple of times I thought I shouldn't have hit something I did," Guelzow said, recalling the 30 or so people he's sure he mowed down. By the time the battle ended 15 hours later, 18 Americans were dead and scores wounded. Hundreds of Somalis died. A few days later, President Clinton announced he was pulling troops out of Somalia.

During a welcoming ceremony back at Ft. Drum, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gordon Sullivan told the weary 2-14 that they wouldn't be sent anywhere for at least a year. Nine months later, Wright was leading his platoon to Haiti on a peacekeeping mission so frustrating, he said, that his troops weren't even allowed to lock and load their rifles during a raid on a militia headquarters, though they did anyway.

When he came back to Ft. Drum, Wright said, money was tight, ammo was rationed and live-fire training curtailed. His wife was getting ready to graduate from law school. Rather than face getting shipped out again, he took his discharge. "We both decided that we didn't want that lifestyle," Elizabeth Wright said.

He works in Buffalo, not too far from Guelzo, who also decided not to reenlist and now works as a mechanical designer.

Both are watching where their old unit goes next. Though the division as a whole takes over the Bosnia mission next year, the 2-14 is coming off a nine-month supporting stint in Bosnia that lasted twice as long as it was supposed to.

One common casualty of such heavy-duty deployment is the collapse of families, soldiers say. Sgt. Stan Seidel said his wife left him last month. "Bosnia did us in," he said.

E-5 Scott Hartman, who fought in Somalia with Wright and Guelzow, got out last year after nine years because he was staring at an assignment to Korea after stints in Germany, Haiti and the Sinai. Now he's a Bell Atlantic telephone repairman in Lebanon, Pa., making almost twice what he made in the army. He doesn't miss the old days.

"You're constantly in the field," said Hartman, who blames his deployments for the breakup of his first marriage in 1996.
"At the drop of a hat you're in some Third World country fighting over who knows what."

Times researcher John Beckham contributed to this story.



To: greenspirit who wrote (16255)11/30/1998 1:46:00 AM
From: Borzou Daragahi  Respond to of 67261
 
Hello Michael, here's a page 10 article about declining morale in the military because of the Lewinsky matter, also published by the elites in the liberal media.

Copyright 1998 The Washington Post
The Washington Post
September 15, 1998, Tuesday, Final Edition
SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A10
LENGTH: 953 words
HEADLINE: Military Leaders Worry Privately About Impact; Some Troops Offended by Double Standard
BYLINE: Bradley Graham, Washington Post Staff Writer

BODY: Throughout the controversy this year stemming from President Clinton's relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky, the nation's military leaders have had little to say in public about the crisis embroiling their commander-in-chief.

Privately, some acknowledge deep concerns that the president's adulterous affair and misleading statements may cause a devastating and irrecoverable erosion in his standing among service members and further damage sagging morale in the ranks. But they have taken no steps to survey the actual impact on military opinion, and several high-ranking officials observed that, whether out of personal courtesy or some other reason, the subject has rarely come up in their own contacts with troops.

Clinton is scheduled today to hold one of his periodic meetings with the senior generals and admirals who head the military services and major regional commands. While the military chiefs hope to use the session to highlight increasingly disturbing shortfalls in personnel, training and spare parts, the air of political crisis surrounding Clinton has complicated even the Pentagon's determined efforts to try to maintain the appearance of business as usual.

As the rest of Washington is filled with talk about law and ethics, defense officials have seemed bent on holding in public to a kind of "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to their views of Clinton's predicament. Asked yesterday if he still had confidence in the president following the release Friday of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's report,Defense Secretary William S. Cohen offered a curt, one-sentence reply.

"I believe the president is capable of carrying out is responsibilities as commander-in-chief, yes," Cohen said.

Cohen has maintained a strict reserve about the scandal since word of Clinton's affair with Lewinsky broke in January. As the only Republican in the Cabinet, and also a former member of the House Judiciary Committee that voted impeachment articles against President Richard M. Nixon, his views on the controversy would carry particular weight.

But throughout the winter and spring, Cohen avoided making the kind of unqualified statement of belief in Clinton's innocence that other Cabinet colleagues did. Even after after last Thursday's emotional Cabinet session, in which the president apologized for his behavior and pleaded for forgiveness, Cohen said nothing publicly.

By contrast, Clinton's behavior has been a prime topic of private discussions in military circles for months, much as it has in civilian society. Many in uniform have been quick to note that if Clinton were a service member, he certainly would be facing a court-martial on multiple charges and likely eviction from the military for violating fundamental precepts of fidelity and integrity.

But the president is not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice that governs his troops. This has led to other expressions of resentment by some service members about a double standard, feelings made all the more acute by the string of adultery and other sexual misconduct cases that have roiled the military in recent years.

"Most of us who've been in the leadership business for a long time are absolutely astounded by the current situation," said a recently retired senior military officer. "If a military leader does something that causes him to lose credibility and integrity, the guy's dead as a leader.

"It's clearly had an effect on morale in general," the retired officer said. "I think the effects on the military have been long-term and pervasive."

Clinton's relations with the military, strained initially when he ran for the presidency amid controversy over his effort to avoid service during the Vietnam War and later over his support for accepting gays in military service, had actually improved before the Lewinsky scandal, according to many inside and outside the Pentagon. He had impressed military commanders with his grasp of defense subjects and had connected easily with troops during visits to military bases.

"I thought the military had made its peace with Clinton as commander-in-chief," said Andy Bacevich, a former Army officer and now professor of international relations at Boston University. "But the sexual scandal walks us back to the earlier days of contempt."

All of which has put top defense officials in a particularly difficult position in trying to serve both the president and the troops. Rather than make any attempt at advising service members on how to regard Clinton's problems, the Pentagon's civilian and military leaders have limited their remarks in recent months to stressing how the president has shown a continued ability to deal with national security issues and focus on whatever business is at hand.

"We're precluded in some ways from talking about our superiors," said one senior military officer. "It just isn't in our culture to judge the president."

At the same time, several senior generals said they would not know quite what to say even if they were moved to try to put the current political crisis in some perspective for their troops. The military has no part to play in this political drama, they observed, and no easy solution to offer for resolving the crisis.

Whether or not Clinton decides to refer to his difficulties during his meeting today with the generals and admirals, several who plan to attend said they do not expect him to apologize as he did to the Cabinet.

"Dealing with the Cabinet was a little different than dealing with us, in that he made no assertions to us other than what he made to the public," one general said. "But I don't know. It should be a really interesting meeting."



To: greenspirit who wrote (16255)11/30/1998 12:00:00 PM
From: Les H  Respond to of 67261
 
Supreme Court Decision Could Affect Jones Case

Case parallels Jones sexual harassment accusations against Clinton
cnn.com

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 26) -- In a case with close legal parallels to
Paula Jones' lawsuit against President Bill Clinton, the Supreme Court Friday
ruled in favor of a woman who claims she was sexually harassed by her
supervisor.

In a 7-2 decision, the high court ruled in
favor of Kimberly Ellerth, saying she could
sue her employer even though she suffered
no negative effects in terms of compensation
or employment status as a result of the
alleged harassment.

This ruling has potential significance for
Jones' appeal to reinstate her case against
the president. Jones makes similar "quid pro quo" -- do something for me, and
I'll do something for you -- allegations against Clinton and her lawyers had said
they were waiting for this decision before filing their appeal.

Jones said that she is happy and hopes it will help her case. CNN spoke with
Jones at her Long Beach condominium through the security intercom system
Friday morning.

Clinton's personal attorney, Bob Bennett, said there is no comparison between
the cases. "The facts in Burlington are clearly distinguishable from the Jones
case," Bennett said in a statement.

Ellerth worked for Burlington Industries and was
promoted during her 14 months there, although she
said a vice president constantly harassed her with
comments about her breasts, legs and sex life.
When she sued, the company claimed it was not
liable because Ellerth did not formally complain and
suffered no job-related consequences.

But the justices suggested the because the
supervisor himself was aware of the harassment,
that sufficed as notice to the company.

Writing the court's opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "An employer is
subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile
environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher)
authority over the employee."

"When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise
an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by a
preponderance of the evidence," he continued.

Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, claims
then-Gov. Clinton asked her for oral sex in a Little
Rock hotel in 1991. The suit alleged Clinton's
actions amounted to sexual harassment, resulted in
job discrimination against Jones and made her feel
"emotional outrage." Clinton has denied any
wrongdoing.

In April federal judge Susan Webber Wright threw
out Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit, ruling that
Jones had failed to prove a "tangible job detriment"
following the alleged incident with Clinton.

Jones attorney David Pyke told CNN, "The court has said that the 'tangible job
detriment' argument, that was a premier part of President Clinton's defense in
this case, has no application here."

"Secondly, the court interestingly used the language 'boorish and offensive,' to
describe the supervisor's conduct in the Ellerth case. That was the same, or very
similar, language used in our case. In the Ellerth case, they indicated that that
type of conduct is actionable, where the judge in Little Rock indicated that
'boorish' is OK," Pyke continued.

But Bennett spun the day's ruling the other way, "Indeed, Judge Wright
distinguished that case in her opinion. Therefore, the decision does not undercut
the persuasive opinion of District Judge Wright throwing out Ms. Jones' case.
Additionally, the Supreme Court requirement that there be severe and
persuasive conduct should be very helpful to us in the 8th circuit court," Bennett
said.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia
dissented the ruling. Thomas, the subject of sexual
harassment allegations during his confirmation to the
Supreme Court, wrote that the court "today
manufactures a rule that employers are vicariously
liable if supervisors create a sexually hostile work
environment."

"The employer should be liable if, and only if, the
plaintiff proves that the employer was negligent in
permitting the supervisor's conduct to occur,"
Thomas wrote.

In a second 7-2 decision, the justices also ruled in favor of another alleged
victim of sexual harassment. Beth Faragher, a lifeguard from Boca Raton, Fla.,
said two of her supervisors began harassing her from the time she took a job
there in 1985, saying they groped and grabbed her and spoke to her in a
sexually explicit way during the five years she worked for Boca Raton.

City officials said they didn't know about the harassment and that Faragher
should have notified them.



To: greenspirit who wrote (16255)11/30/1998 12:03:00 PM
From: Les H  Respond to of 67261
 
Admiral charged with adultery and ethics violation

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Navy admiral on
the staff of the chief of naval operations has been
charged with adultery, giving false official
statements, obstruction of justice and an ethics
violation.

Rear Admiral John T. Scudi, who directed the
Navy office of outsourcing and privatization, has
been relieved of his Washington duties.

Scudi has been charged with two counts of
adultery stemming from relationships with two
women. The obstruction of justice and lying charges are the result of the
Navy's investigation into the alleged adulterous affairs.

The ethics violation stems from accusations that Scudi granted Navy
contracts to a company that employed one of the women named in the
adultery counts. The other woman is a Navy employee.

'Impropiety with contractors'

"I'm struck by how this case involves
impropriety with contractors and that
means we need to pay special
attention to it," Secretary of the Navy
Richard Danzig told CNN.

Scudi has been transferred to the
authority of Vice Adm. Henry C.
Giffin III, head of the Norfolk
command.

A preliminary hearing for Scudi,
known in the military as an Article 32,
has been tentatively set for December
14. The hearing could lead to a court-martial.

Scudi, 54, is married. The admiral, who has served in the Navy for 32 years,
has asked to retire but the Navy has not made a decision on that request. He
has declined either to release a statement or speak with reporters.

Only second criminal case for admiral

The Washington Times said the charges mark only the second time the Navy
has filed criminal charges against an admiral since Congress adopted the
Uniform Code of Military Justice in 1951.

It said such cases against admirals and generals usually are handled in
closed-door administrative proceedings.

Asked about complaints that enlisted men more often receive the full brunt of
military justice than officers, Danzig told CNN, "I think we need to treat our
leaders and our enlisted people the same way. We need to treat this case
with that in mind."

cnn.com