U.S. vs. Flinn?

National Review, June 16, 1997 by William F. Buckley, Jr.

When probing any situation involving the military, it pays to remember the bureaucracy. The Pentagon makes Congress sound like an assembly of solipsists. The case of First Lieutenant Kelly Flinn is very much in point. She is the lady whose plight was publicized by 60 Minutes, where Morley Safer waxed wroth over the prospect that Lt. Flinn would be court-martialed.

What is distinctive about Lt. Flinn is that she is a female B-52 bomber pilot, the only such in the Air Force. Moreover, she has been something of a pinup figure because she is blonde and pretty and articulate. Court-martial Kelly? For what? Well, for adultery and for lying about it.

Morley Safer marvelously captures the attitude of the U.S. intelligentsia in these matters. When he emitted the words, "court-martialed for adultery," his face concatenated into amusement, indignation, incredulity, and condescension; all at once. If his face had been transcribed into words by one of those IBM machines that beat Kasparov, it would have said, "General, you're not really going to tell me, a grown-up American, and my audience of 20 million sophisticated citizens of this century that you would even consider court-martialing this important symbol of female upward mobility for a peccadillo of the kind only our dear grandmothers would be offended by?"

Then Safer said to the general, "Do you know of any male officers who have gotten away with adultery without facing court-martial?" That was of course an impossible question. What was the general supposed to say? "Well yes, there was Henry -- Henry Alvarez, if you want his full name. I know damn well he, er, did it, and he's flying high, Lt. Commander, 38th Squadron. . . ." All that the general could do was say rather formally that those were the rules in the Air Force. Mr. Safer came back one more time, asking did he know of any men who had got off, and even a third time, to no avail.

As a matter of fact, the data tell us that the Air Force has been cracking down on adultery, and presumably on other offenses against its code of behavior. In 1987, 16 members of the Air Force were court-martialed for adultery; in 1996, 67. In 1994, 23 requested a general discharge in lieu of a court-martial and 10 of those requests were granted. In 1996, 38 made the request, and only 7 such requests were granted. That would appear to be a tightening up of the code, which of course brings up the question, Ought the code to be there in the first place? That is, the code against adultery --the code against lying is different, one is eased into concluding.

We have here a further complication. After being caught in the adultery, Lt. Flinn lied about it. This isn't unnatural behavior, but the Air Force doesn't approve of lying, and specifies a court-martial for those who do so on important matters. The complication bears directly on the news that the Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Sheila Widnall, turned against the expedient that Lt. Flinn proposed, namely an honorable discharge in exchange for her resignation. To conclude that deal with Lt. Flinn would have set a precedent: Air Force record keepers couldn't come up with a single instance of a member's being permitted an honorable discharge as a device for derailing a scheduled court-martial. And although the point is not made explicitly, the whole idea of Lt. Flinn as a national symbol is her triumph in a man's world. It would hardly enhance that myth if important rules were changed because, after all, she is only a woman.

So what then? "Then we will proceed to court-martial," said Lt. Flinn. But the court-martial would seem to be open and shut, if its only job is to discover whether Lt. Flinn had engaged in adultery and lied about it, since she told Morley Safer and 20 million other Americans that that exactly was what she had done and lied about. What might her defense plead?

In her particular case, there is the factor of the incubus. The married man she consorted with was, we gather, the seducer. Indeed, after a bit he threw her away, and the question even arises whether she knew that her lover was married. That would seem to mitigate the charge; sort of. On the matter of the lie, one supposes it cannot be made to go away, but perhaps the military tribunal would conclude that since the adultery charge had been debilitated, the corollary offense of lying about it could reasonably be forgiven.

But Morley & Company will not rest content unless the members of the military tribunal stalk out of the room declaring that they will not be parties to a prosecution under a medieval code that considers adultery a problem. This is, after all, a modern army, and we should have modern behavior codes to go with it. Right?