Wait, are you telling me it's now illegal for U.S. troops to go whoring?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

this happened back in October, and apparently nobody really said anything about it.

― kingfish russian bigamist (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 12 January 2006 18:15 (twenty years ago)

I've been out to sea for a long time...

― Jimmy Mod (I myself am lethal at 100 -110dB) (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Thursday, 12 January 2006 18:16 (twenty years ago)

Red lights in certain, seedy districts of European cities have come to mean anything but stop.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Thursday, 12 January 2006 18:17 (twenty years ago)

yeah good fucking luck enforcing this. republicans are always trying to saltpeter the troops though - abortion, porn, 'don't ask don't tell' - this is hardly news.

― j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 18:18 (twenty years ago)

“In addition, the Navy has created an online course to enhance basic awareness of the prohibitions against trafficking in persons,” he said.

Whoa! Is the Navy copping to the fact that maybe there's a lack of awareness about the legality of Human Trafficking?

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Thursday, 12 January 2006 18:21 (twenty years ago)

Soliciting a prostitute has always been part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s sexual misconduct and always has been against good order and discipline, Purtiman said. With the presidential executive order, it’s just now found in another part of the UMCJ, thus, there is no need to brief soldiers in Europe, he said.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 12 January 2006 18:45 (twenty years ago)

Galvan said the command is unaware of any cases of sailors in Europe being charged with soliciting a prostitute since the October order. Commands, he said, would normally handle these cases in a nonjudicial setting, and no requirement exists to report these individual cases up the chain of command.

Yes, it's illegal, but we're not going to charge anybody or even report them.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Thursday, 12 January 2006 18:46 (twenty years ago)

I was going to be surprised by this, because in countries with legal forms of prostitution you'd think soldiers could claim that their on-leave activities are their private business -- but it occurs to me that employers a whole lot less intrusive than the military do this kind of thing all the time. You can get fired for failing your drug test at work, even if you smoked that weed legally in Amsterdam; hell, we're to the point where employers are trying to make 24/7 non-smoking a condition of holding your job.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 12 January 2006 18:49 (twenty years ago)

I was going to be surprised by this, because in countries with legal forms of prostitution you'd think soldiers could claim that their on-leave activities are their private business

uh, i don't think anyone in the military can claim "privacy" as grounds for anything.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 12 January 2006 19:21 (twenty years ago)

That's what he just said, in the entire rest of his post.

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Thursday, 12 January 2006 19:26 (twenty years ago)

No, the military affords certain types of "privacy" to soldiers on leave -- e.g. I'm not sure they exercise any real regulation on soldiers' regular romantic encounters while on leave, do they? I'm not saying they couldn't, just that they don't -- and if they did, I imagine soldiers and citizens would be upset and complainy to an extent that would make it not worth the trouble of enforcing.

I mean, for a soldier who's off-base / on-leave I know there are still lots of regulations about preserving the integrity of the uniform and acting as an honorable representative of the military and all that -- I assume prostitution falls under that rubric -- but there's still lots of stuff that remains the soldier's private business -- not by right, but by allowance.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 12 January 2006 19:32 (twenty years ago)

this is hardly news.

well, that's what i meant. I thought it was odd that they decided to make another official pronouncement about something on the books.

― kingfish, Thursday, 12 January 2006 20:16 (twenty years ago)

I'm not sure they exercise any real regulation on soldiers' regular romantic encounters while on leave, do they?

afaik adultery is punishible under the umjc. there was that female air force colonel who got convicted a couple years back, 'member?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 12 January 2006 20:30 (twenty years ago)

we're to the point where employers are trying to make 24/7 non-smoking a condition of holding your job.

!!?? Wow who does this?

― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 12 January 2006 21:15 (twenty years ago)

It's not at all widespread, Trayce, but a couple employers have made non-smoking a condition of employment. Even more have made it a condition of participating in the company health plan, but there are a few who've gone all the way. I'm not sure what the status is of legal challenges on this stuff.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 12 January 2006 21:31 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.